Teachers: layoff ≠ firing

The ideas are simple –

layoff – there is not enough money, you are ‘let go’ until the situation improves, when you get called back to work

firing – something is wrong, and you are ‘let go’, permanently

In many jobs, including teaching in NYC, firing someone requires cause related to that individual’s activities or performance. Layoffs result from economic hard times, not cause. And in NYC schools, and in many other places, when layoffs are necessary they are conducted by reverse seniority, and callbacks are conducted by direct seniority.

In NYC, Bloomberg has been trying to modify how teachers are fired, to weaken protections. He has had some success, but he’s looking for much more.

With the budget shortfall he has seen opportunity, the way the rich often do when the rest of us are suffering. In this case he knows that he can declare a fiscal emergency and lay teachers off. But he wants to rewrite the layoff law to be a firing law, creating an end-run around teachers’ contractual protections.

Bloomberg has intentionally conflated lay-offs and firings. He has made clear that his layoffs would not result in callbacks when the budget improves. Isn’t that really firing?

Bloomberg and ERN talk about recruiting new teachers at the same time as “layoffs” are occurring. Isn’t that firing?

The Flanagan bill would terminate teachers, not lay them off. That’s firing.

The ERN ads use the word “layoff” but the language describes –  firings.

The NYC print media has been bad.

But here’s one to chew on:  In Providence, the mayor issued termination notices, not layoff notices, to all 2000 teachers. It was reported on NPR, where the story included this:

Providence’s new mayor Angel Taveras … says he chose terminations instead of layoffs because…

Clear? It’s clear to me. Should be clear to you.

But how come it got reported on Gotham Schools like this:

Providence’s mayor explains his decision to lay off all of his city’s teachers.

when NPR had it right?