Friday, November 20, 2009
Absence results an in F, as in ‘you’re fired’
Many of us can remember how tough it was to crawl out of bed and pull on the new school clothes for that first day of the school year. (Yes, we know there were some kids who couldn’t wait for the first day of school, but we’re not talking about them).
Summer and all the joys it held was officially over on that day (no matter that the autumnal equinox was still three weeks away).
But sooner or later, almost al of us learned that when the school bell rang, it was our job to be there.
Not so, apparently, Amad A. Amawi. Amawi didn’t show up for the first day of class. Or any day since then. And Amawi is supposed to be the teacher.
Finally, the Youngstown Board of Education is taking steps to fire Amawi. It has suspended him without pay — not that the AWOL teacher has been getting any pay — and it will take a vote to fire him Dec. 8.
Lingering question
The initial reaction of almost anyone who read the story when it broke this week was, “What took so long?”
Most of us can imagine what would happen if a co-worker didn’t return from vacation, made no contact with the boss and disappeared without leaving a forwarding address. In most cases it would be a matter of days, at most, weeks, but certainly not months until the absent employee was scrubbed from the payroll.
Dr. Wendy Webb, superintendent of schools, says it’s not quite that simple when dealing with teachers who are under contract, with state laws that govern teacher employment and with a union contract between the board and the Youngstown Education Association.
The school district had to jump through a number of legal hoops, she said, and, she acknowledged, there was some confusion at the beginning of the school year because there was a new human resources person in charge.
Now, she says, the focus is on making sure that all the t’s are crossed and all the i’s dotted when the absent Mr. Amawi is dismissed.
Underlying problem
Such attention to detail is admirable at this point, but the incident exposes a bias in the law toward the employee over the employer — the employer, ultimately being the taxpayer.
It simply shouldn’t be that tough for a school district — or any government entity — to get rid of an under performing employee. It goes without saying that there is no greater indication of under performance than not showing up for work.