...California teacher diagnosed with cancer forced to pay sub's wages while on leave

[babylonsister]

Is this standard?


Parents outraged after California teacher diagnosed with cancer forced to pay sub's wages while on leave
By Aris Folley - 05/07/19 05:53 PM EDT


Parents in San Francisco are outraged after discovering that a cancer-stricken teacher will have to cover the costs of her substitute for the remainder of the school year while she is on sick leave.

According to a report published by The San Francisco Chronicle on Tuesday, the second-grade teacher, who works at Glen Park Elementary and wishes to remain anonymous, is required by state law to cover the wages of her substitute while she is out on sick leave.

Amanda Fried, who has two children that attend the school, told the newspaper that “parents were outraged and incredulous” upon hearing the news.

“There must be some mistake,” Fried said.

Laura Dudnick, a representative for the San Francisco school district, told the paper that the salary arrangement is “not unique to San Francisco,” adding: “This is not a district-only rule.”

more...

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/442593-parents-outraged-after-california-teacher-diagnosed-with-cancer

[rainy]

1. How can this be legal? It's barbaric!

[Igel]

5. Rather more than legal.

That is usually understand too mean "acceptable under state law."

Per the bit of the article in the OP, it is "is required by state law...."

Edited to add:

I teach in Texas. Here there's a limit on the number of days you can be off, even long-term, and keep your salary. After that, you lose your salary.

Since you're not receiving your salary, it's an easy budget reallocation to have your salary cover the sub. Keeps the district's finances manageable.

Long-term illness insurance is cheap. I have some for if I'm out more than 3 or 4 months, and it's something like $2.50/month. It doesn't happen often that teachers are out for longer than that without workman's comp or some other reason.

[fayhunter]

3. Whaaaaa?

n/t

[badhair77]

4. I'm in PA. I taught for 36 years and never

heard of such a thing. Some districts have sick day banks to help the teacher who runs out of sick days but my district refused to allow that. However, I never heard of the teacher(s) paying the sub.

[NewDayOranges]

6. How/Why would any union agree to something like that?

I'm assuming that these teachers belong to a union and are NOT independent contractors...

[peggysue2]

7. I can understand a teacher being required to pay for a sub if . . .

they go on vacation or need a sabbatical or whatever. When the particulars are a matter of choice. But when a teacher is critically ill???

Ridiculous and cruel.

[Ms. Toad]

8. The Hill article is misleading.

The law actually appears to benefit teachers.

Teachers earn 10 sick days a year. Assuming it works like Ohio, any days not used are banked for future need. I earned 15 days a year, was hospitalized for a full month during one year, and left after 11 years with over 100 days banked. It's really not that hard (chronic illnesses and early years of teaching aside) to bank enough to cover most illnesses.

Teachers use the sick leave first (no deduction for the sub).

After their sick leave is gone (i.e. they would otherwise take leave without pay under the FMLA), state law permits them to receive 5 months more leave (with only a deduction for the cost of a sub). In other words, whereas before the law they would have been paid nothing, they are receiving full pay less the cost of covering their classes.

Beyond that, they are still not terminated (or forced to work without pay). There is a sick leave bank - they can draw on that for up to 85 mnore days (they will be paid, but they use other teacher's donated sick leave). No deduction is made for covering the cost of the sub - since the school's budget already includes hiring a sub for the banked sick leave.

It is ony the middle block - when the teacher exceeds the amount of paid substitutes (i.e. sick days) they are entitled to AND is still being paid anyway, that the deduction for the sub is made.

This arrangement is clearer from the SF Gate article. It expressly states everything I've stated - except for the lack of deduction during the period when the teacher is using her own sick leave. But if there is no deduction when she is using others' sick leave, it is extremely unlikely that the district would be more punitive when she is using her own sick leave. (It also helps to have been a teacher, and to understand the dynamics of paid subs, the tendency of some teachers to treat sick days as vacation days (and have 0 days a year for a catastrophe), and banking of sick pay - which our district considered and I voted against, because I would have been unable to control the use of my sick leave by teachers who were "sick" every Friday.)

[BigmanPigman]

11. You are correct.

I was the union rep at my school site in San Diego and that is how it works here. I am very familiar with this info and have had a lot of personal experience with this issue as well as several of my teacher friends.

[world wide wally]

9. An that is why we need a strong teachers union