Phoney Sick Notes From WI MDs

[WorldWatcher]

You are asking me if teachers should commit perjury (I had to sign all my government time sheets "under penalties of perjury") so they can embezzle funds and whether MDs should conspire with them to do so?

Why can't they just protest WITHOUT pay?

Because, as has already been explained, off time without pay is constituted (within the system they're protesting AGAINST) AS a reason for termination. It was designed to stifle dissent.

Okay, let's say you're right...that the union gave up strike rights. The teachers belong to the union, elected their representatives, etc. The contract was negotiated in good faith. The no-strike rule (if one exists) has great value to the employer.

I'm not convinced you ARE right, but if so, for teachers to now seek to evade this prohibition by fraud is criminal and defeats their most appealing argument -- that contracts should be enforcable even when they prove painful for one party.

111.89 Strike prohibited.
(1) Upon establishing that a
strike is in progress, the employer may either seek an injunction
or file an unfair labor practice charge with the commission under
s. 111.84 (2) (e) or both. It is the responsibility of the office to
decide whether to seek an injunction or file an unfair labor practice
charge. The existence of an administrative remedy does not
constitute grounds for denial of injunctive relief.
(2) The occurrence of a strike and the participation therein by
an employee do not affect the rights of the employer, in law or in
equity, to deal with the strike, including:
(a) The right to impose discipline, including discharge, or suspension
without pay, of any employee participating therein;
(b) The right to cancel the reinstatement eligibility of any
employee engaging therein; and
(c) The right of the employer to request the imposition of fines,
either against the labor organization or the employee engaging
therein, or to sue for damages because of such strike activity.​

STATE EMPLOYMENT LABOR RELATIONS


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Fraud!

The self-righteous indignation of you guys is a hoot to behold.

It is fraud. The document is false, the person was not sick. If given to the employer it is a false document. when you give something false to someone else it is fraud.

It is up to the state to determine if it wants to pursue prosecution, but it is still a crime.

 

[Madeline]

Calling out sick is their only legal recourse if they want to protest.


Get over it people. It ain't got nothin to do with the larger issue being debated in WI.

Can we expect the same moral relativity from you if the governor tries to deprive the teachers of the benefit of their bargain? No?

Color me *shocked*.

 

[Annie]

Fraud!

The self-righteous indignation of you guys is a hoot to behold.

It is fraud. The document is false, the person was not sick. If given to the employer it is a false document. when you give something false to someone else it is fraud.

It is up to the state to determine if it wants to pursue prosecution, but it is still a crime.

As I wrote awhile ago, mostly likely would be a reprimand in their file, would only hurt them outside of WI.

The doctors are more likely to feel real pressure.

 

[martybegan]

Because, as has already been explained, off time without pay is constituted (within the system they're protesting AGAINST) AS a reason for termination. It was designed to stifle dissent.

Okay, let's say you're right...that the union gave up strike rights. The teachers belong to the union, elected their representatives, etc. The contract was negotiated in good faith. The no-strike rule (if one exists) has great value to the employer.

I'm not convinced you ARE right, but if so, for teachers to now seek to evade this prohibition by fraud is criminal and defeats their most appealing argument -- that contracts should be enforcable even when they prove painful for one party.

111.89 Strike prohibited.
(1) Upon establishing that a
strike is in progress, the employer may either seek an injunction
or file an unfair labor practice charge with the commission under
s. 111.84 (2) (e) or both. It is the responsibility of the office to
decide whether to seek an injunction or file an unfair labor practice
charge. The existence of an administrative remedy does not
constitute grounds for denial of injunctive relief.
(2) The occurrence of a strike and the participation therein by
an employee do not affect the rights of the employer, in law or in
equity, to deal with the strike, including:
(a) The right to impose discipline, including discharge, or suspension
without pay, of any employee participating therein;
(b) The right to cancel the reinstatement eligibility of any
employee engaging therein; and
(c) The right of the employer to request the imposition of fines,
either against the labor organization or the employee engaging
therein, or to sue for damages because of such strike activity.​

STATE EMPLOYMENT LABOR RELATIONS


>>>>

Suspension without pay would be the minimal route the state could take. They would suspend them for the days they were out protesting, the teachers would lose pay, but keep thier job, and no one would have to provide fraudulent documents.

I see the state doing exactly this, as firing them would just move public opinion in the union's favor.

So there is a mechanic for a form of unpaid leave in this case. The state would have to certify the action as a strike, and could take the limited steps i described above.

The teachers get to voice thier dissent, the taxpayers dont have to pay them for it, and no one loses thier job.

 

[Barb]

You are asking me if teachers should commit perjury (I had to sign all my government time sheets "under penalties of perjury") so they can embezzle funds and whether MDs should conspire with them to do so?

Why can't they just protest WITHOUT pay?

Because, as has already been explained, off time without pay is constituted (within the system they're protesting AGAINST) AS a reason for termination. It was designed to stifle dissent.

Okay, let's say you're right...that the union gave up strike rights. The teachers belong to the union, elected their representatives, etc. The contract was negotiated in good faith. The no-strike rule (if one exists) has great value to the employer.

I'm not convinced you ARE right, but if so, for teachers to now seek to evade this prohibition by fraud is criminal and defeats their most appealing argument -- that contracts should be enforcable even when they prove painful for one party.

The union did not give up strike rights. The contracted law made it untenable TO strike, and it was designed to DO so. I'm done with this. Either people understand the structural entrapment in place or they don't. Just because something IS doesn't mean something is correct.

 

[Annie]

Because, as has already been explained, off time without pay is constituted (within the system they're protesting AGAINST) AS a reason for termination. It was designed to stifle dissent.

Okay, let's say you're right...that the union gave up strike rights. The teachers belong to the union, elected their representatives, etc. The contract was negotiated in good faith. The no-strike rule (if one exists) has great value to the employer.

I'm not convinced you ARE right, but if so, for teachers to now seek to evade this prohibition by fraud is criminal and defeats their most appealing argument -- that contracts should be enforcable even when they prove painful for one party.

The union did not give up strike rights. The contracted law made it untenable TO strike, and it was designed to DO so. I'm done with this. Either people understand the structural entrapment in place or they don't. Just because something IS doesn't mean something is correct.

Right. They designed the contract and it was agreed to, in order to prevent schools from being shut down. There was no ALTERNATIVE but fraud, so the teachers could shut down the schools. Barb, this is not deep.

 

[Madeline]

I say fire the whole fucking bunch. T'aint like there's a teacher shortage.

 

[martybegan]

Because, as has already been explained, off time without pay is constituted (within the system they're protesting AGAINST) AS a reason for termination. It was designed to stifle dissent.

Okay, let's say you're right...that the union gave up strike rights. The teachers belong to the union, elected their representatives, etc. The contract was negotiated in good faith. The no-strike rule (if one exists) has great value to the employer.

I'm not convinced you ARE right, but if so, for teachers to now seek to evade this prohibition by fraud is criminal and defeats their most appealing argument -- that contracts should be enforcable even when they prove painful for one party.

The union did not give up strike rights. The contracted law made it untenable TO strike, and it was designed to DO so. I'm done with this. Either people understand the structural entrapment in place or they don't. Just because something IS doesn't mean something is correct.

Plenty of states have that provision, in return contracts can not be uniliaterally imposed on them (unless the law is changed, of course.). Some even impose arbitration.

How is this entrapment? You know ahead of time what the rules are, when you apply for the job, or when the law is passed.

We all have the right to protest, NOTHING in the constitution says we have the right to protest WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES

 

[manifold]

Calling out sick is their only legal recourse if they want to protest.


Get over it people. It ain't got nothin to do with the larger issue being debated in WI.

Can we expect the same moral relativity from you if the governor tries to deprive the teachers of the benefit of their bargain? No?

Color me *shocked*.

I don't even understand your question, but you appear to have already answered it for yourself.

Color me *shocked*

 

[Madeline]

Because, as has already been explained, off time without pay is constituted (within the system they're protesting AGAINST) AS a reason for termination. It was designed to stifle dissent.

Okay, let's say you're right...that the union gave up strike rights. The teachers belong to the union, elected their representatives, etc. The contract was negotiated in good faith. The no-strike rule (if one exists) has great value to the employer.

I'm not convinced you ARE right, but if so, for teachers to now seek to evade this prohibition by fraud is criminal and defeats their most appealing argument -- that contracts should be enforcable even when they prove painful for one party.

The union did not give up strike rights. The contracted law made it untenable TO strike, and it was designed to DO so. I'm done with this. Either people understand the structural entrapment in place or they don't. Just because something IS doesn't mean something is correct.

The union negotiated with this law in mind, Barb. The teachers accepted their jobs under that law and that contract. They want THEIR rights enforced but are using fraud to defeat the rights of their employer, the taxpayer.

That just does not wash.

 

[Annie]

Okay, let's say you're right...that the union gave up strike rights. The teachers belong to the union, elected their representatives, etc. The contract was negotiated in good faith. The no-strike rule (if one exists) has great value to the employer.

I'm not convinced you ARE right, but if so, for teachers to now seek to evade this prohibition by fraud is criminal and defeats their most appealing argument -- that contracts should be enforcable even when they prove painful for one party.

The union did not give up strike rights. The contracted law made it untenable TO strike, and it was designed to DO so. I'm done with this. Either people understand the structural entrapment in place or they don't. Just because something IS doesn't mean something is correct.

The union negotiated with this law in mind, Barb. The teachers accepted their jobs under that law and that contract. They want THEIR rights enforced but are using fraud to defeat the rights of their employer, the taxpayer.

That just does not wash.

There you go, using logic and ethics. Sigh.

 

[Madeline]

I want to be fair and open to the arguments on both sides. I'm not happy at the Koch Brothers creeping around in the background, throwing money at any Republican with his hand out. But this Wisconsin protest has been mired in unethical and perhaps illegal conduct from Day One, when the duly-elected Democrats fled the state to prevent the legislature from forming a quorum.

You cannot protest someone else's unethical and unfair treatment of your group by unethical or illegal means and win any points with me.

 

[Ravi]

Calling out sick is their only legal recourse if they want to protest.


Get over it people. It ain't got nothin to do with the larger issue being debated in WI.

Can we expect the same moral relativity from you if the governor tries to deprive the teachers of the benefit of their bargain? No?

Color me *shocked*.

Hello? The governor IS trying to deprive teachers the right to belong to unions.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Annie]

Calling out sick is their only legal recourse if they want to protest.


Get over it people. It ain't got nothin to do with the larger issue being debated in WI.

Can we expect the same moral relativity from you if the governor tries to deprive the teachers of the benefit of their bargain? No?

Color me *shocked*.

Hello? The governor IS trying to deprive teachers the right to belong to unions.

This isn't rocket science.

Not exactly. But let's give you that for discussion. That justifies their actions?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Calling out sick is their only legal recourse if they want to protest.


Get over it people. It ain't got nothin to do with the larger issue being debated in WI.

Can we expect the same moral relativity from you if the governor tries to deprive the teachers of the benefit of their bargain? No?

Color me *shocked*.

Hello? The governor IS trying to deprive teachers the right to belong to unions.

This isn't rocket science.

Well the truth is nothing will preclude the right of anyone from joining a union. The law will simply be that for most issues the State will not have to deal with the union, people can still join.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Calling out sick is their only legal recourse if they want to protest.


Get over it people. It ain't got nothin to do with the larger issue being debated in WI.

Can we expect the same moral relativity from you if the governor tries to deprive the teachers of the benefit of their bargain? No?

Color me *shocked*.

Hello? The governor IS trying to deprive teachers the right to belong to unions.

This isn't rocket science.

That right is a law based right, not a constitutional one. What the law giveth, the law can taketh away. (Same for a constiutional right, but its alot harder)

 

[Ravi]

Absolutely.

 

[Madeline]

Calling out sick is their only legal recourse if they want to protest.


Get over it people. It ain't got nothin to do with the larger issue being debated in WI.

Can we expect the same moral relativity from you if the governor tries to deprive the teachers of the benefit of their bargain? No?

Color me *shocked*.

Hello? The governor IS trying to deprive teachers the right to belong to unions.

This isn't rocket science.

Is the governor using illegal or unethical means to achieve his stated goal?

No?

I rest my case.

 

[uscitizen]

Teachers do not get random vacation time nor are they permitted unpaid leave. They had to use sick time. I am not excusing it, but that's the only way they could have gone to the protest.

The doctors committed fraud by handing out notes to people who clearly were not sick.

Stress is a valid medical diagnosis.

yep it might depend on what the diagnosis was.

the working class does have problems protesting though.
Kinda makes you wonder about all thse gathering at TP events.