What is really behind Bloomberg's opposition to LIFO?

[markpkessinger]

Those of you who follow NYC and NY State politics have likely read about Mayor Bloomberg's push to get rid of the "Last In, First Out" ("LIFO") rule when it comes to teacher layoffs. The LIFO rule is nothing more than good old-fashioned seniority which, in most circumstances, people generally regard as a reasonably fair basis by which to determine who will get laid off if and when lay-offs must be undertaken.

The mayor's ostensible argument, which he disingenuously casts as being motivated solely by concern for the quality of education the students get, can be summarized in one sentence. The mayor claims it doesn't make sense to lay off a recently-hired teacher who happens to be very good at his or her job merely on the basis of a low seniority rank, while being forced to keep teachers with greater seniority who are "under performing."

Am I the only one who sees what is really going on here? By suggesting that there is the huge problem of under-performing older teachers, and thus pushing to get rid of the LIFO rule, the mayor is essentially trying to free himself up to get rid of teachers who have earned their way to the higher end of the pay scale in favor of younger, less experienced teachers at the bottom of the scale. Keep in mind this is the same mayor who has said that class sizes don't matter. So, the real agenda seems pretty obvious: increase class sizes to reduce the number of teaching positions available, then eliminate expensive teachers by deeming them less competent than their less expensive, less experienced colleagues.

I don't believe for one minute this is about educating our children; it's about saving a few bucks on the backs of people who have dedicated their working lives to teaching in NYC public schools. If there are, as the mayor seems to be suggesting, widespread issues of professional laxity or incompetence among experienced teachers in NYC public schools, then let's discuss better ways to evaluate teachers over the course of their teaching careers. But especially in light of the current job climate, a layoff for a teacher in, say, his or her 50s could be potentially financially catastrophic, as they are much less likely to be able to secure another teaching position than a younger candidate would be.

I'm surprised that, in most of the coverage of this topic that I've read, I haven't seen anyone -- not even the teachers' union -- address the mayor's arugment along these lines. It is just so glaringly apparent what is going on here. Am I really the only one who sees this?

[ananda]

1. Oh please.

The last ins make the least money. That's why.

[markpkessinger]

2. Hello? That's exactly the point I was making!

Try re-reading my post.

[WinkyDink]

4. No offense, but "follow the money" is a lot less verbose.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Money.

Let's say he has to fill a $100 million deficit in his budget. He could fire almost 2,900 new teachers making $35,000 (I'm not calculating benefits) or he could fire 133 veteran teachers making $75,000 to fill that gap. If he chooses the former, obviously more teachers aren't going to be in the classroom than if he fired veteran teachers, and the size of the classes increase between 35 to 40 students. The last point of almost 40 students in a classroom is what he's worried about from an executive's position. Parents are NOT going to put up with their kid's education being compromised due to logistics. It's hard enough to get 25 or 30 kids to settle down for 15 minutes to teach a lesson. Imagine if the class size were 33% larger . . . Cathie Black is not prepared for the deluge when that happens.

So therefore Bloomberg wants to limit how many teachers are fired, minimize the increase of class sizes, and save the City money by letting go veteran teachers with their (earned) higher salaries, health and pension benefits.

He's running the City school system like a CEO, only seeing numbers. While I concede there will be a nightmare of larger class sizes, I don't agree with firing teachers who have dedicated decades of their lives (if not actually risking their lives) to teach in NYC public schools.

Plus, new teachers are not necessarily the "best" nor are veteran teachers. It depends upon the individual. I hate blanket statements.

http://perdidostreetschool.blogspot.com/2011/03/parents-teachers-protest-bloombergs.html

[customerserviceguy]

6. Your math is wrong

Perhaps you meant 1,333 veteran teachers, not 133. I learned how to do math from a teacher before we had calculators to do all of our thinking for us.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Yeah, you're right. I rushed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. LIFO is not all that common with private employers except manufacturing and the like

It is like defined benefit vs defined contribution pensions. Once more generally applicable, it is becoming less of the norm over time.

[Hannah Bell]

8. so what? it's becoming less common because of union-busting.

[joeglow3]

10. I don't like it

I had a friend get teacher of the year in his district. He was there a few years, loved it, and was well regarded by the students, parents and other teachers. When they had to lay off teachers, he was shown the door solely because he happened to pop out of his mom's crotch the wrong year (i.e. if he had been born 5 years earlier or later, he may have been okay). Sorry, but I don't see that as American,

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. No, it is becoming less common due to changes in employment market

Smaller companies, start ups, and many high tech companies will never have defined benefit since there is little likelihood of the employees being there long enough to vest or the companies being around in 30 years. Defined contribution is clearly the superior approach in that environment.

Seniority/LIFO only work in larger organizations with enough people in similar jobs. Outside of government, large hospitals, or companies that do a significant amount of in house assembly or manufacturing, seniority is also meaningless since there are few people in the same "classification" to make LIFO meaningful.

[Hannah Bell]

13. bullshit. it's become less common because of 30 years of intensive union-busting.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. I suggest you look an the breakdown of where people are employed these days

Jobs that lend themselves to unionization and defined benefit pensions are declining and have been for some time.

[Hannah Bell]

15. walmart is the biggest employer in the us. it employs a larger fraction of the populace

than the big three automakers did at their height.

i suggest you quit parroting bullshit.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. I suggest you look at employment stats of Gen Y and think again

Walmart does indeed employ more than the Big Three automakers, but overall manufacturing jobs are no where near what they once were.

My bias is towards high tech, and there longevity is measured in single digit years and most companies die. Defined benefit would be stealing the future from those people.

[EC]

9. They just want to do what most private industry does now

force people out before they have vested their time for retirement (for those that still work with pension plans) and as you pointed out the high end of wages.

[jwirr]

12. They want to be able to fire the older tenured teachers so they can

pay the younger ones less. It is happening in many businesses. Retiring social workers are not replaced from within - newly graduated persons are brought in.

[Starry Messenger]

17. He wants a cheap and compliant workforce.

If you force out many of the teachers with seniority and experience, you hit the reset button on the institutional memory of a community. It's easier to wring concessions out of a group of workers if they don't have a memory of what has been tried before, the history behind the politics of things, etc.