50 Conditions That Mimic "ADHD"



On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:08:07 GMT, [email protected]
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:15:19 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>> CBI wrote:
>>> > "Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]> wrote
>>in
>>> > message news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>> >>As a doctor, you also get paid a hell of a lot more than I do.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > How is that relevant to whether you call spring break a paid vacation or
>>> > not?
>>> Its very relevant. Doctors really DO get paid vacations.
>>
>>Huh? I get no baseline salary and am completely paid on productivity. If I
>>take a day off I am paid nothing. THAT is not getting a paid vacation.
>
>It follows, then, that NOT taking that day off results in greater pay.
>Sounds exactly like what I noted about teachers, that you somehow
>concluded meant that it WAS a paid vacation. Not very consistent, are
>you?!

Not quite.
If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
pay. Not taking it off (assuming anyone would come in on christmass)
would result in 100% of my week's pay. Is your check for christmas
week 100% of your base or not?

====================================================
I've read that I flew up the hills and mountains of
France. But you don't fly up a hill. You struggle
slowly and painfully up a hill, and maybe, if you work
very hard, you get to the top ahead of everybody else.

Lance Armstrong
Cyclist and cancer survivor

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:08:07 GMT, [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:15:19 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]> wrote
in
> >>message news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> CBI wrote:
> >>> > "Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]>
wrote
> >>in
> >>> > message
news:[email protected]...
> >>> >
> >>> >>As a doctor, you also get paid a hell of a lot more than I do.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > How is that relevant to whether you call spring break a paid
vacation or
> >>> > not?
> >>> Its very relevant. Doctors really DO get paid vacations.
> >>
> >>Huh? I get no baseline salary and am completely paid on productivity. If
I
> >>take a day off I am paid nothing. THAT is not getting a paid vacation.
> >
> >It follows, then, that NOT taking that day off results in greater pay.
> >Sounds exactly like what I noted about teachers, that you somehow
> >concluded meant that it WAS a paid vacation. Not very consistent, are
> >you?!
>
> Not quite.
> If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
> pay. Not taking it off (assuming anyone would come in on christmass)
> would result in 100% of my week's pay. Is your check for christmas
> week 100% of your base or not?
>
I receive no check Christmas week.

Jim Wayne
 
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:34:00 -0400, Mark D Morin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:08:07 GMT, [email protected]
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:15:19 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>message news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CBI wrote:
>>>> > "Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>in
>>>> > message news:[email protected]...
>>>> >
>>>> >>As a doctor, you also get paid a hell of a lot more than I do.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > How is that relevant to whether you call spring break a paid vacation or
>>>> > not?
>>>> Its very relevant. Doctors really DO get paid vacations.
>>>
>>>Huh? I get no baseline salary and am completely paid on productivity. If I
>>>take a day off I am paid nothing. THAT is not getting a paid vacation.
>>
>>It follows, then, that NOT taking that day off results in greater pay.
>>Sounds exactly like what I noted about teachers, that you somehow
>>concluded meant that it WAS a paid vacation. Not very consistent, are
>>you?!
>
>Not quite.
>If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
>pay.

??? So if your week's pay is $500, you make $400 of it on Christmas?
Doesn't make a lot sense, so I suspect you were trying to say
something else (and failing)?

>Not taking it off (assuming anyone would come in on christmass)
>would result in 100% of my week's pay. Is your check for christmas
>week 100% of your base or not?

Not sure why you think what you've written is relevant? Days I don't
work, I'm not paid. If I DO work those days I'm paid more than I
would be otherwise. Since that is what he wrote also, it seems pretty
clearly the same situation.

Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
divided up, for the convenience of the parties involved, is
irrelevant. Any work I agree to do over "vacations" means extra pay
to me from my employer, who clearly recognizes that those days are not
"paid vacations". Seems as if my employer and I are the only ones
really qualified to decide the issue, and anyone else's opinion is
meaningless.
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:UhFkb.94544$a16.50008@lakeread01...
> >
> > "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > And once again - I'm not saying they don' t have legitimate gripes -
> just
> > > that I don't think the work schedule is one of them (other than the no
> > > bathroom break thing - that is tough).
> >
> >
> > IIRC, this thread *started* as a cross-post from
alt.support.attn-deficit
> on
> > the subject of ADHD. Then, somewhere along the line a poster claimed
that
> > "teachers have it easy because they only work 6 hours and have long
> > 'vacations' over the summers". The response from actual teachers that
> this
> > is not true was to be expected--because it is not true...
>
> I don't think it is true either. I didn't make that claim.

I am sorry you thought that I implied that--I did not mean to come across
that way. I was trying to explain why educators are explaining their work
hours as being longer than some suggest.

Buny
 
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jim Not-From-Here wrote:

>
> "Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:08:07 GMT, [email protected]
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:15:19 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>"Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]> wrote
> in
> > >>message news:[email protected]...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> CBI wrote:
> > >>> > "Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]>
> wrote
> > >>in
> > >>> > message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >>> >
> > >>> >>As a doctor, you also get paid a hell of a lot more than I do.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > How is that relevant to whether you call spring break a paid
> vacation or
> > >>> > not?
> > >>> Its very relevant. Doctors really DO get paid vacations.
> > >>
> > >>Huh? I get no baseline salary and am completely paid on productivity. If
> I
> > >>take a day off I am paid nothing. THAT is not getting a paid vacation.
> > >
> > >It follows, then, that NOT taking that day off results in greater pay.
> > >Sounds exactly like what I noted about teachers, that you somehow
> > >concluded meant that it WAS a paid vacation. Not very consistent, are
> > >you?!
> >
> > Not quite.
> > If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
> > pay. Not taking it off (assuming anyone would come in on christmass)
> > would result in 100% of my week's pay. Is your check for christmas
> > week 100% of your base or not?
> >
> I receive no check Christmas week.
>

I never have either. My December check comes the last day we are
in school - before we leave for Winter/Christmas break. My next
check come two weeks into January and pays me for two weeks worth
of work.
 
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Mark D Morin wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:08:07 GMT, [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:15:19 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>message news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> CBI wrote:
> >>> > "Magi D. Shepley" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>in
> >>> > message news:[email protected]...
> >>> >
> >>> >>As a doctor, you also get paid a hell of a lot more than I do.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > How is that relevant to whether you call spring break a paid vacation or
> >>> > not?
> >>> Its very relevant. Doctors really DO get paid vacations.
> >>
> >>Huh? I get no baseline salary and am completely paid on productivity. If I
> >>take a day off I am paid nothing. THAT is not getting a paid vacation.
> >
> >It follows, then, that NOT taking that day off results in greater pay.
> >Sounds exactly like what I noted about teachers, that you somehow
> >concluded meant that it WAS a paid vacation. Not very consistent, are
> >you?!
>
> Not quite.
> If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
> pay. Not taking it off (assuming anyone would come in on christmass)
> would result in 100% of my week's pay. Is your check for christmas
> week 100% of your base or not?

I've never gotten a check for CHristmas or Christmas week. My December
check comes before we leave for break. My January check comes two
weeks into January.
 
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:53:49 GMT, [email protected]
wrote:


>>If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
>>pay.
>
>??? So if your week's pay is $500, you make $400 of it on Christmas?
>Doesn't make a lot sense, so I suspect you were trying to say
>something else (and failing)?

sorry, meant "weak" not "day"


>Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
>divided up,

and functionally, I still don't see the difference between saying that
and saying paid time off...

====================================================
I've read that I flew up the hills and mountains of
France. But you don't fly up a hill. You struggle
slowly and painfully up a hill, and maybe, if you work
very hard, you get to the top ahead of everybody else.

Lance Armstrong
Cyclist and cancer survivor

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:53:49 GMT, [email protected]
> wrote:
>
>
> >>If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
> >>pay.
> >
> >??? So if your week's pay is $500, you make $400 of it on Christmas?
> >Doesn't make a lot sense, so I suspect you were trying to say
> >something else (and failing)?
>
> sorry, meant "weak" not "day"
>
>
> >Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
> >divided up,
>
> and functionally, I still don't see the difference between saying that
> and saying paid time off...

Because, Mark, if it were paid time off, the pay for the number of days we
have off would be figured into the yearly total and divided by 12 also. It
isn't.
 
Mark D Morin wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:53:49 GMT, [email protected]
> wrote:
>

>>Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
>>divided up,
>
>
> and functionally, I still don't see the difference between saying that
> and saying paid time off...

Just as I see no reason that one shouldn't point out that 100% of
medical patients die after receiving a doctor's care...functionally
speaking, of course. So why then do I get the feeling that you wouldn't
appreciate that particular characterization of your industry? It's
accurate, isn't it?

More so, at least, than your argument that teachers (or any other
professional with a similar work agreement) are paid "for" their time
off. There's a big difference, after all, between being paid "for"
one's time off and being paid "while" one is exercising time off. And
there's the rub. The pay that a teacher might receive "during"/"over" a
break is not compensation for "not working". It is, in fact, past-due
compensation for work already performed and services rendered prior to
the break. Saying that there is "no functional difference" and that
certain individuals are receiving "paid time off" clearly implies the
former connotation that is both unfair, disingenuous, and insulting.

But if you insist on saying that I, as a teacher, receive pay for time
that I do not work (i.e. weekends, designated holidays, etc.), then I
must insist on pointing out that, if that is the case, then it must
therefore also be true that I am NOT being paid in full for the days and
hours in which I do work (i.e. scheduled work days)...functionally
speaking, of course. But you knew that already, right?
 
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:26:46 GMT, anon <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark D Morin wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:53:49 GMT, [email protected]
>> wrote:
>>
>
>>>Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
>>>divided up,
>>
>>
>> and functionally, I still don't see the difference between saying that
>> and saying paid time off...
>
>Just as I see no reason that one shouldn't point out that 100% of
>medical patients die after receiving a doctor's care...functionally
>speaking, of course. So why then do I get the feeling that you wouldn't
>appreciate that particular characterization of your industry? It's
>accurate, isn't it?

If the question was patient mortality, you'd have a point.

>
>More so, at least, than your argument that teachers (or any other
>professional with a similar work agreement) are paid "for" their time
>off.

paid for time off isn't the same thing as paid time off. I don't see
anyone saying that a person is getting paid because they took time
off.

What I do see people saying is that one has a contract that covers as
certain time frame--september through june. If you get into counting
days, fine. I didn't and I don't. I had an academic contract. I was
not present for holidays and my check didn't waver.

>There's a big difference, after all, between being paid "for"
>one's time off and being paid "while" one is exercising time off.

as noted above

> And
>there's the rub. The pay that a teacher might receive "during"/"over" a
>break is not compensation for "not working".

did anyone say s/he was?

> It is, in fact, past-due
>compensation for work already performed and services rendered prior to
>the break. Saying that there is "no functional difference" and that
>certain individuals are receiving "paid time off" clearly implies the
>former connotation that is both unfair, disingenuous, and insulting.
>
>But if you insist on saying that I, as a teacher, receive pay for time
>that I do not work (i.e. weekends, designated holidays, etc.), then I
>must insist on pointing out that, if that is the case,

no. I am simply pointing out that when I (not you or anyone else) was
a teacher, I received the same paycheck every week--vacation or no
vacation. I didn't and don't see how that's not a paid vacation

>then it must
>therefore also be true that I am NOT being paid in full for the days and
>hours in which I do work (i.e. scheduled work days)...functionally
>speaking, of course. But you knew that already, right?

no


====================================================
I've read that I flew up the hills and mountains of
France. But you don't fly up a hill. You struggle
slowly and painfully up a hill, and maybe, if you work
very hard, you get to the top ahead of everybody else.

Lance Armstrong
Cyclist and cancer survivor

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:29:41 -0700, "teachrmama" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:53:49 GMT, [email protected]
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
>> >>pay.
>> >
>> >??? So if your week's pay is $500, you make $400 of it on Christmas?
>> >Doesn't make a lot sense, so I suspect you were trying to say
>> >something else (and failing)?
>>
>> sorry, meant "weak" not "day"
>>
>>
>> >Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
>> >divided up,
>>
>> and functionally, I still don't see the difference between saying that
>> and saying paid time off...
>
>Because, Mark, if it were paid time off, the pay for the number of days we
>have off would be figured into the yearly total and divided by 12 also. It
>isn't.

umm they are.
are classes in session on christmas day and thanksgiving in your
district?
Or maybe your contract is written to cover such that holidays are not
in the covered period--you'd have a contracted period that started and
stopped but hey, if it works for you. The contracts I've signed have
been continuous, for the entire academic year.

I still think you are making a distinction without a difference.

====================================================
I've read that I flew up the hills and mountains of
France. But you don't fly up a hill. You struggle
slowly and painfully up a hill, and maybe, if you work
very hard, you get to the top ahead of everybody else.

Lance Armstrong
Cyclist and cancer survivor

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:26:46 GMT, anon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark D Morin wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:53:49 GMT, [email protected]
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>>Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
> >>>divided up,
> >>
> >>
> >> and functionally, I still don't see the difference between saying that
> >> and saying paid time off...
> >
> >Just as I see no reason that one shouldn't point out that 100% of
> >medical patients die after receiving a doctor's care...functionally
> >speaking, of course. So why then do I get the feeling that you wouldn't
> >appreciate that particular characterization of your industry? It's
> >accurate, isn't it?
>
> If the question was patient mortality, you'd have a point.
>
> >
> >More so, at least, than your argument that teachers (or any other
> >professional with a similar work agreement) are paid "for" their time
> >off.
>
> paid for time off isn't the same thing as paid time off. I don't see
> anyone saying that a person is getting paid because they took time
> off.
>
> What I do see people saying is that one has a contract that covers as
> certain time frame--september through june. If you get into counting
> days, fine. I didn't and I don't. I had an academic contract. I was
> not present for holidays and my check didn't waver.
>
> >There's a big difference, after all, between being paid "for"
> >one's time off and being paid "while" one is exercising time off.
>
> as noted above
>
> > And
> >there's the rub. The pay that a teacher might receive "during"/"over" a
> >break is not compensation for "not working".
>
> did anyone say s/he was?
>
> > It is, in fact, past-due
> >compensation for work already performed and services rendered prior to
> >the break. Saying that there is "no functional difference" and that
> >certain individuals are receiving "paid time off" clearly implies the
> >former connotation that is both unfair, disingenuous, and insulting.
> >
> >But if you insist on saying that I, as a teacher, receive pay for time
> >that I do not work (i.e. weekends, designated holidays, etc.), then I
> >must insist on pointing out that, if that is the case,
>
> no. I am simply pointing out that when I (not you or anyone else) was
> a teacher, I received the same paycheck every week--vacation or no
> vacation. I didn't and don't see how that's not a paid vacation
>
SNIP
Um, no. Several of us have pointed out that we DO NOT get paid in that way.
I receive a check in mid-December, and the next at the end of January, a
period of six weeks later. I am paid on the last working day (for teachers)
of each month that I work. I receive 10 equal checks, but the time between
them varies.

I would also point out that I began work on the second to last week of
August this year, but did not receive a paycheck until the end of September.

You are generalizing beyond your data. The fact that the district that
hired you paid you that way does not, in any way, indicated that this is the
general practice. Please remember that there are several thousand different
school districts in this country, and each of them has its own practices.

Jim Wayne
 
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Mark D Morin wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:29:41 -0700, "teachrmama" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:53:49 GMT, [email protected]
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
> >> >>pay.
> >> >
> >> >??? So if your week's pay is $500, you make $400 of it on Christmas?
> >> >Doesn't make a lot sense, so I suspect you were trying to say
> >> >something else (and failing)?
> >>
> >> sorry, meant "weak" not "day"
> >>
> >>
> >> >Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
> >> >divided up,
> >>
> >> and functionally, I still don't see the difference between saying that
> >> and saying paid time off...
> >
> >Because, Mark, if it were paid time off, the pay for the number of days we
> >have off would be figured into the yearly total and divided by 12 also. It
> >isn't.
>
> umm they are.
> are classes in session on christmas day and thanksgiving in your
> district?

Ever seen people playing basketball and marching in parades on holidays?
Ever been a teacher who worked with the kids who are in those games
and parades? If I signed up to be one of the people supervising on
Christmas day, extra money would be added to my check because I am
not paid for Christmas day otherwise.
 
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Mark D Morin wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:26:46 GMT, anon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark D Morin wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:53:49 GMT, [email protected]
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>>Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
> >>>divided up,
> >>
> >>
> >> and functionally, I still don't see the difference between saying that
> >> and saying paid time off...
> >
> >Just as I see no reason that one shouldn't point out that 100% of
> >medical patients die after receiving a doctor's care...functionally
> >speaking, of course. So why then do I get the feeling that you wouldn't
> >appreciate that particular characterization of your industry? It's
> >accurate, isn't it?
>
> If the question was patient mortality, you'd have a point.
>
> >
> >More so, at least, than your argument that teachers (or any other
> >professional with a similar work agreement) are paid "for" their time
> >off.
>
> paid for time off isn't the same thing as paid time off. I don't see
> anyone saying that a person is getting paid because they took time
> off.
>
> What I do see people saying is that one has a contract that covers as
> certain time frame--september through june. If you get into counting
> days, fine. I didn't and I don't. I had an academic contract. I was
> not present for holidays and my check didn't waver.
>
> >There's a big difference, after all, between being paid "for"
> >one's time off and being paid "while" one is exercising time off.
>
> as noted above
>
> > And
> >there's the rub. The pay that a teacher might receive "during"/"over" a
> >break is not compensation for "not working".
>
> did anyone say s/he was?

Yes. CBI said, "Most people would call getting paid for not working a paid
vacation." Followed by his continued claim that we have paid vacations.
 
"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:29:41 -0700, "teachrmama" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:53:49 GMT, [email protected]
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
> >> >>pay.
> >> >
> >> >??? So if your week's pay is $500, you make $400 of it on Christmas?
> >> >Doesn't make a lot sense, so I suspect you were trying to say
> >> >something else (and failing)?
> >>
> >> sorry, meant "weak" not "day"
> >>
> >>
> >> >Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
> >> >divided up,
> >>
> >> and functionally, I still don't see the difference between saying that
> >> and saying paid time off...
> >
> >Because, Mark, if it were paid time off, the pay for the number of days
we
> >have off would be figured into the yearly total and divided by 12 also.
It
> >isn't.
>
> umm they are.
> are classes in session on christmas day and thanksgiving in your
> district?
> Or maybe your contract is written to cover such that holidays are not
> in the covered period--you'd have a contracted period that started and
> stopped but hey, if it works for you. The contracts I've signed have
> been continuous, for the entire academic year.

Well, Mark, I know exactly what my contract says. It says that I work for
183 days. If I work any day besides the 183 days in the contract, I am paid
extra. So, obviously, those days are NOT covered in my contract, even
though they fall during the months of the contract. I sure hope you listen
to what your patients and colleagues have to say a lot better than you
listen to what the teachers in this group have been explaining to you. Your
"I know better than you" attitude could cause some real problems!


>
> I still think you are making a distinction without a difference.
>
> ====================================================
> I've read that I flew up the hills and mountains of
> France. But you don't fly up a hill. You struggle
> slowly and painfully up a hill, and maybe, if you work
> very hard, you get to the top ahead of everybody else.
>
> Lance Armstrong
> Cyclist and cancer survivor
>
> http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
"Joni Rathbun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Mark D Morin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:29:41 -0700, "teachrmama" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:53:49 GMT, [email protected]
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >>If Christmas falls on a weekday my pay for that day is 80% my weeks
> > >> >>pay.
> > >> >
> > >> >??? So if your week's pay is $500, you make $400 of it on
Christmas?
> > >> >Doesn't make a lot sense, so I suspect you were trying to say
> > >> >something else (and failing)?
> > >>
> > >> sorry, meant "weak" not "day"
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >Teachers are paid for days worked only. However that pay may be
> > >> >divided up,
> > >>
> > >> and functionally, I still don't see the difference between saying
that
> > >> and saying paid time off...
> > >
> > >Because, Mark, if it were paid time off, the pay for the number of days
we
> > >have off would be figured into the yearly total and divided by 12 also.
It
> > >isn't.
> >
> > umm they are.
> > are classes in session on christmas day and thanksgiving in your
> > district?
>
> Ever seen people playing basketball and marching in parades on holidays?
> Ever been a teacher who worked with the kids who are in those games
> and parades? If I signed up to be one of the people supervising on
> Christmas day, extra money would be added to my check because I am
> not paid for Christmas day otherwise.

Actually, for a band director, this isn't directly paid. This is considered
part of the job, and is supposedly covered by the miniscule subsidy amount.
I believe it was $875 for high school band last year in my district-which
hardly covers giving up every Friday night and most Saturdays for the fall
semester, beginning band a month before school starts (including a week of
24 hour band camp), and probably supervising a major trip at some time
during the year, usually over Thanksgiving or Christmas, but sometimes
during the Spring semester. I believe sports coaches also get a subsidy,
which is similarly paltry, and marching band directors, football coaches,
and cheerleading coaches get the highest subsidy amount in my district.

This is WHY I choose not to teach high school band.



>
>
>
 
"Jim Not-From-Here" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>
> You are generalizing beyond your data. The fact that the district that
> hired you paid you that way does not, in any way, indicated that this is the
> general practice. Please remember that there are several thousand different
> school districts in this country, and each of them has its own practices.

Interesting.....

So when you guys talk about how your experience it is "proof." When
someone else does it is "generalizing."

When you guys say how YOU get paid it is how things are. When someone
else does they should remember that things are different all over.

Got it.

--
CBI
 
Joni Rathbun <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > I receive no check Christmas week.
> >
>
> I never have either. My December check comes the last day we are
> in school - before we leave for Winter/Christmas break. My next
> check come two weeks into January and pays me for two weeks worth
> of work.

In that case you are not paid for Christmas week. But you should
remember that there are thousands of different districts and they all
do it differently. Some get a normal paycheck despite not having
worked.

--
CBI
 
"Seveigny" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > Wrong. I don't even know where to begin on this one. There are many ways
> > that a doctor can be held responsible for things that happen when he is
> not
> > there.
>
> Okay, choose one way that a doctor can be held responsible for things that
> happen when he is not there. Just to make it easy for you, eliminate sole
> practioners.

Surgeons have been held responsible for machines in the OR that were
not maintained correctly and malfunctioned.

The biggest area of torts in most fields is missed diagnoses. Which
means that when you have an MI in the Macdonald's parking lot you
might sue the doctor who just did your physical for failing to
diagnose your heart disease.

If the a medical student or nurse makes a mistake the doctor in charge
will be named in the suit for not providing proper oversight.

The doctor is repsonsible for everything his staff does, including
physicians and nurse practitioners (and locum tenens doctors) in his
employ.

It is not common at all for people to sue their doctor for not warning
them to not be idiots - like if they have a stroke while mixing
cocaine with meds that don't mix with it or for giving nitroglycerine
to someone who is taking Viagra but either got it form a friend or
another practitioner and didn't mention it.

--
CBI, MD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back