View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
techno900 wrote: | Over the course of my 41 working years, I moved up the salary scale at a pace that I found fair and rewarding, ending up at the administrative level in one of those "old nasty private schools". I am glad that I was a teacher and would have no second thoughts about doing it all over again.
Most teachers are not driven by money, at least those that have a passion for sharing knowledge with their kids and have the temperament, skills and patience to get the job done. |
Would you have found your career fair and rewarding if you had received no increases? If not, compensation is important to you. I have never suggested that most people are driven by money in their choice of, and performance in employment. I have said money from employment is important to most people, and most people will work a little harder, or a little longer, or a little more effectively if they will be rewarded for doing so. To deny that is to deny reality. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is now clear to me that insults are ok when written by mrgybe and repeated. We are to accept the term "absurd" for an insightful and substantive discussion.
To return to the context of the Herzberg article, which I had not read, and the Hierarchy of Needs, which I read many years ago, financial motivation is neither the primary nor the most effective motivator in people's work environment. Herzberg has it 11th, but I doubt that mrgybe actually read the article before chanting about how absurd it is. The Hierarchy argument, as I recall, is that financial incentives are strong to a point--to get a job, and to get enough money to survive--but then are less important. This is the exact opposite of mrgybe's obsessive belief and argument. My experience in managing people for over twenty years is exactly as Herzberg states--achievement and the quality and importance of work are what motivate people in their work environment.
Applying this, then, to the Chicago teachers. The dilemma in teaching, particularly in difficult school districts, is attracting and keeping quality teachers. As noted earlier, nearly half quit within 5 years and it takes five to seven years to develop the necessary skills. Now conservatives are conservative because they believe, as a virtually religious matter, that people are evil and selfish and must be controlled. Applying this theory to any endeavor with an evaluation system that seeks to reward a few people very highly, and terminate as many as 10%, is essentially guaranteed to send everyone looking for a new place to work.
The reasoned response by mrgybe to Herzberg's article, which cited 6 studies replicating the essential factors? Absurd. Now I get it--that was substantive, not insulting. Sorry, my bad. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
swchandler wrote: | I guess I could say the same regarding your response to my last post. |
I would rather be judged drunk than illiterate. I have many times been the former, never the latter. Reminds me of Winston Churchill who, when confronted by a stern matron who accused him of being drunk said "I am indeed drunk madam.....and you are ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober......you will still be ugly." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It appears that, perhaps, Mrgybe has chosen the wrong venue for his claims on the importance of compensation in choosing career and employment opportunities. Windsurfers are similar to drug addicts. We will do anything for our fix of sailing. Including selecting jobs in locations that allow sailing at reduced compensation. In my case, I have turned down lucrative contracts that might interupt my baja trips.
I tabulated a list of wealthy docs I know as I was biking today. About a dozen that have never needed to work. They were born into substantial wealth. If compensation were so important, how does one explain an OBGyn I know that works 60 hours a week when he doesn't need to work at all? This is not an isolated incidence in my circle of friends. Maybe it is the group we choose to associate with that have different priorities. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You people should try spending some time in the real world where most people live and are trying to get ahead by making more money working two jobs, getting more qualifications, striving for promotions or moving their families to different cities/ countries. I have been that route, and those multitudes who have followed the same path will laugh at all this "it's all about the vibe man" bollocks. Thank God most people don't think that working hard to improve one's lot in life is somehow unworthy. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mrgybe wrote
Quote: | There is absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing greater compensation through greater effort. Those who look down their nose at the vast majority who are engaged in that pursuit are not being honest or are making excuses for their own shortcomings |
You express comments such as these and wonder why you receive the reaction you did from this group? This comment,and your past disdain for the opinions of the "cubicle dwellers" have set you up.
Of course, at the survival end of the spectrum, the ability to provide basic needs are primary in making a living. Beyond that, folks choose their work and careers for a wide array of reasons. As you are well aware. It appears that most of us place a lower importance on compensation as a selection in our careers than you might. Reducing the argument over teacher performance evaluation to a discussion, largely about compensation, is not going to sit well.
I would suggest that you provide some real data (not wiki) that indicates that teachers are primarily interested in increasing their compensation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about an eight day teachers strike in Chicago for a start? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, Chicago teachers strike was primarily about compensation? And, because of this data, most teachers are in it for the bucks?
Last edited by coboardhead on Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:25 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If it wasn't about compensation (for longer proposed work week, for increased contributions to benefit schemes, for an evaluation system that would affect compensation) what was it about? And what was all the yelling in Wisconsin about? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe in public employee unions. And, as a licensed professional, I bite my tongue when teachers describe themselves as professionals...real professionals would never abandon their position due to a collective bargaining position (IMO).
I just disagree with how cavilier you are in dismissing those of us who make career decisions that are not based primarily on compensation. Extrapolating your interpretation of the Chicago strike to teachers in general. is where I make an exception in this context. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|