Do Two Wongs Make A Right Or Not?

[Dafydd]

Do Two Wrongs Make a Right?
This has been on my mind for a while now.
Education here in Utah is going through some really hard times. We rank dead last in the Nation for per capita pupil spending. Different studies by various organizations place Utah between 10 and twenty percent behind last place. This means that Utah spends less on it's children than any other state in the union by at least ten percent. In a State that claims to be the "Family" State this one fact seems to be proof otherwise. The dominant religion (my religion, Mormonism) places a big emphasis on the importance of family, to the point of creating a mood that birth control of any kind is wrong. Thus Latter Day Saints pride themselves in having large families. You know when some one is not using birth control and thus a "good Mormon" do to the number of children they have. One of my neighbors has eleven children and the father is a self employed house painter and the mother does not work out side the home (an other Mormon ideal). This is just an example of the financial problem created by this attitude. Such families do not put an adequate amount of money into the system to cover the cost of educating their children. Well truth be told most people with children in school don't pay enough tax to cover the cost, other sources are supposed to make up the difference. Things like income from State Lands set aside to defer education costs, and people that pay tax but don't have children being educated. Over the years the number of children has increased dramatically, but the 'other sources' of money has not. Year after year the State Legislature has struggled with the problem, and school districts desperately try to cope with dwindling resources. One of the ways the district I work in copes is to not reimburse teachers for unused sick days when the teacher retires. I would not find this a source of complaint except that the district does buy back sick days from administrators and custodial staff. Just not from teachers!
The point.
A friend of mine has submitted his paperwork to retire this year. He has accrued over 180 days of sick leave. In other words he has worked hard and came to work many times when he could have called in sick with a minor illness. Most of us do this, just not to this extrema. I have told him to use them or lose them many times over the years. With just two months to go and with chronic back pain he has not been here each Friday for the past month and I don't expect to see him any Friday for the next month.
Last Friday at lunch I applauded his stand to use at least a few sick days before he finishes. Another educator retorts my accolades with the all to common "Two wrongs don't make a right". And went on to say what he is doing is morally wrong. I've heard this countless times over the years and even believed it at one time. But I don't think it is correct any more.
As a photographer I use a negative process. Take a photograph and produce a negative (a wrong image if you will), and project that onto a piece of photographic paper that is also negative (the second wrong if you please) and the two negatives make a positive image.
When Mahatma Gandhi choose to use Civil Disobedience (http://www.akidsright.org/p_gandhi.htm) to oppose a wrong done to his country it was illegal. He broke the law in his country to fight oppression. It was a long hard battle but in the end he and his followers won, British rule ended, his people were free to govern themselves. Two wrongs made a right.
I have stated my opinion. I could go on to site wars and the civil rights movement. But we should all know such stories. So I pose you with the question.
Do two wrongs make a right or not?

 

[divedude]

You mention religion a lot in your post.
In my observation over the short years I've been here I found that religion plays a very large part in wars, death and distruction if there was no religion telling people what they can and can't do the world would be a far better place. no jews killing moslems or Irish Belfast troubles ect. If we just had a moral sense of right and no religion, we wouldn't worry about who's right and who's wrong.

 

[Dafydd]

People will use what ever is handy when they need an excuse. The doctrines of the Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Muslims don't advocate the actions they have perpetrated for political reasons. Politics create wars, religion gets the blame.
This is an interesting topic, and in the polite company that is found on this board would make for quality discussion. But I would rather not see this topic sur plant my intent with the first response.
So I'll restate my question.
When you perceive a wrong in your society, can you right the wrong by opposing it, when opposition is considered wrong? Or can you do wrong to make right? Or does the act of doing wrong in the eyes of some negate the right that could be?

 

[The Chairman]

made an airplane!!!

 

[Dafydd]

Originally posted by NetDoc
made an airplane!!!

And a NetDoc makes me smile.
Thanks...

 

[viper]

As a person who belongs to a society of people who follow but don't always practice good moral judgement, I would like to offer my opinion.
It seems that your friend with the bad back is finally utilizing a benefit that is offered by his employer. In today's society of employer's " padding" benefit packages to include (1) paying your mortgage, (2) providing a car, (3) paying for daycare and also (4) providing a membership at a local healthclub, I feel your fellow educator who voiced his concern should look inward at himself.
As to the question of morality, ask yourself this............... Is my friend sick? Yes! It's that easy. Your friend is sick and he's taking time off that has been provided as part of a benefit package by his employer. Is your fellow educator that has a concern with this issue, willing to adjust his benefits and subsequent pay to be morally correct. Is he willing to transfer his unused sick days to you? Would you use them if you had them? This isn't about morals, it's about an agreement between an employee and his employer.


Steve

 

[wheezy]

The answer you seek young grasshopper... is NO... but you see the fact is that

"Three Lefts Do"

 

[AllenG]

Some random thoughts -

1. In every state I have ever lived, I have seen a listing that proclaims said state to have the lowest degree of something with regard to investing in children's education. The measure may be $$/capita or $$/student or COL-adjusted $$/capita or % of state budget dedicated to K-12 education. But somehow, every group that wants to increase educational funding has a listing that shows its state to be dead last.

2. The key to improving education is not how much money is spent, but how it is spent. There is no evidence that simply increasing spending improves education. If there is one lesson that should have been learned about education, it is that money does not cure the problems ailing America's schools. The most comprehensive survey of spending and performance was conducted by Professor Eric Hanushek, chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Rochester. After reviewing close to 400 studies of student achievement, Hanushek found no strong or consistent relationship between student performance and school resources, at least after variations in family inputs are taken into account. (Eric A. Hanushek, "Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student Performance: An Update," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, University of Rochester, Summer 1997, pp. 141-164.)

3. I would suggest that you have unnecessarily confused the picture by invoking concerns re education spending, religion, or righting a wrong. Sick leave, like health insurance or tuition reimbursement or a pension, is a benefit, not a right. An employer offers a benefit structure and if an individual likes the package of job opportunity, compensation and benefits, he/she accepts the position. The teacher accepted a position without the benefit of sick leave buy-back and that's what he/she should accept.

4. Your statement that you "don't expect to see him any Friday for the next month" suggests that the future use of sick leave may not, shall we say, conform to the terms of benefit (i.e., the employee may have a back problem, but the leave is more of a "mental health day"). One doesn't generally plan to be sick. If, as you may assert, the planned nature reflects a limited capacity to work five days per week, let the individual confer with an occupational health physician, who perhaps can provide a more objective assessment.

5. Would I question going to the doctor just before one retires and one's health insurance coverage ends? No, because it is a bona fide benefit of employment which one has a right to legitimately access (i.e., based on medical necessity) as long as one is an employee. Buy-back apparently wasn't a benefit of employment and to push the limits of a benefit beyond the stated terms seems inappropriate.

6. A more discretionary utilization of sick leave may "reward" the employee, but it punishes the teacher's co-workers, who may have to cover for him/her, and the students, who don't get always get meaningful instruction when a substitute teacher is present. You started from the lofty values of investing in children, but now seem to be advocating that the teacher should short-change the students because, being charitable in one's assumptions, the teacher thinks he/she should have had a richer employment benefit. I don't buy it.

 

[Dafydd]

AllenG,
Thank you. Your articulation was very thought provoking.
There is a point that I did not make that may shed more light on this instance. My friend's doctor has already told him not to over work and back pain should be an indication that he should stay home. He just has not done it in the past. Most weeks the stress builds all week and the worst day is the last.
Yet my real question was not this at all but whether it is morally right to oppose what you think is wrong, even when others will view your opposition as an immoral act? The Two Wrongs = Right issue.
Or, how can I as a teacher create an incentive for my school district to by back my sick days when I retire? The other groups of employees have done it (administration and janitorial) but my union refuses to even bring it to the table. A substitute teacher will cost the district somewhere between 1/2 3/4 of what they pay the teacher. If more teachers would use their sick days for minor reasons (cold, sore throat, back pain, etc.) the district might be willing to negotiate retirement buy back to the tune of say 50%. For this reason I use my sick days when I am even a little sick. Am I wrong?

 

[AllenG]

Dafydd -

Thanks for the response. Where, among other things, I run a medical rehabilitation center for patients who have had catastrophic or traumatic health care problems resulting in physical or cognitive disabilities, I can assure you that I am more than sensitive to the issue of individuals with disabling conditions who push the limits, sometimes at their own peril, in order to secure or sustain their independence and self-sufficiency.

And again, a few observations:

1. You wish to return to the issue of two wrongs making a right, but I am unclear as to whether the first wrong has been established. You note that the janitors and administration have this benefit, but the teachers do not. Are there benefits which teachers have that the other unions do not? Is the compensation package for public school teachers higher relative to private school teachers than the hourly wages of school janitors relative to other commercial property janitors?

2. You offer the rationalization that since the school is doing you wrong, it's okay to "use my sick days when I am even a little sick." If, as you indicate, your union has refused to even bring the issue to the table, why do you start by blaming/punishing school administration? If you are displeased with your representation for purposes of collective bargaining, if the school actually can afford to provide this benefit, wouldn't the target of your ire and your recourse for remedy be with your representation? And would you feel equally justified in withholding your dues or the power to represent you in order to to remedy your displeasure with your representation?

3. Notwithstanding the actions of your union, one may assume that a budget-concious school administration will be less than enthusiastic about adding a buy-back provision. And sick leave has always been a difficult benefit for most employers: it rewards those who use it and those who abuse it, but it, in effect, punishes those who don't use it. Perhaps a variant can be crafted to reward those who haven't used it for an extended period. For example, the program could be structured to buy back hours upon retirement if one's sick leave balance is greater than a certain level. It's not everything you want, but it would give management an avenue to reward those who have been frugal in their use of sick leave.

4. Re use of substitute teachers, that is a whole other issue. Here in Connecticut, substitute teachers reportedly are paid $65 per day; since these positions typically carry no employee benefits, the total cost including fringes (e.g., FICA) generally is about $72 per day. Now compare that to a starting teacher at $35,000 per year plus about a 35% fringe cost and you see that a regular teacher costs $262.50 per day (and the differential only grows when you consider more senior/higher paid teachers). This only complicates the matter since, one may assume, a substitute may only cost a quarter of what a regular teacher does. This is probably going to cap what a school is willing to even consider for a leave buy-back.

5. No, I still haven't addressed your original question re two wrongs, but abstract debate which fails to consider the specifics of a situation doesn't necessarily produce anything more than vague generalizations or astute observations of the obvious (my two strong suits!).


Having said all this, I do hope that you will find sufficient enjoyment and satisfaction in teaching until such time that our society decides to establish greater equity in compensation of teachers compared to, say, CEOs who successfully bankrupt previously successful companies, movie stars who complain about the rigors of waiting around for a 10-second shot and then having to repeat it because the wind mussed up their hair, and individuals who contribute to society by catching objects, throwing objects, or running (i.e., athletes).