Ten thousand unemployed apply for 90 jobs in Louisville, Kentucky

Source: World Socialist Web Site

By Hiram Lee
10 October 2009

Reflecting the increasingly desperate economic situation faced by millions, this week 10,000 unemployed workers applied for 90 jobs at a Louisville, Kentucky, General Electric (GE) plant.

The enormous response came within the space of just three days. GE had announced its intentions to add a second shift to its plant manufacturing washing machines in Appliance Park last Friday and began accepting applications on Monday. An earlier announcement by the GE plant calling for 13 maintenance workers who would receive $23 per hour drew 700 applicants.

The GE jobs promised a mere $13 per hour, plus benefits including dental coverage and eye care. The same jobs had previously paid $19 per hour until the decision by the IUE-CWA Local 761 to accept concessions in May, which included cutting wages for new workers and future hires.

Read more: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/kent-o10.shtml

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's sad to see a 1,000 to one chance for a job for factory workers but it's not sad to see the same odds for someone who just spend a decade in college and has debts up the ass?

I find them equally sad. Apparently you only care about the plight of certain people.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm in my final year of a doctorate and will be applying for jobs all over the world next year. I am a foreigner where I study, and I'm very glad that we have professors and lecturers from all over the world at my university - it makes it a better place. Just in my department, along with people from the UK, there are people teaching from Canada, Ireland, Australia, and the US. I like it that way, and I hope that in a field so specialized that employment wouldn't be based on economic protectionism.

......play off ethnic/racial differences to get the absolutely cheapest labor they can find. It's the "corporations stupid" that are the bad guys here, not ethnic/racial groups. They have been playing that shit here ever since the 70's.

Never once have I heard of one academic being hired over another because one was cheaper. It just doesn't happen.

You can't have it both ways.

I'll adapt a favorite view of mine to the following:
The fact that a person would spend all that time, money and effort to training in a field that offers no career opportunity speaks to their analytical talent. Sorry, but it's a losing position.

I think I was making a point that education does not make one more likely to get employment, and pointing out that in some job markets this kind of competition in the OP has been the norm for many years.

That favourite view of yours doesn't really stand up as far as I'm concerned. The idea that one gets an education in order to make money is absurd. One does so to better oneself. Right now I'm making more money than I ever had in my life doing what I love. I'm still poor, but I wouldn't change that.

Sometimes drastically. Same with an MBA or a legal degree or a medical degree. Besides, some of us start a course of study bc something calls us to it and it what we love.

Can we not always blame the victims of a shrinking economy, be they unskilled, skilled, and/or highly educated?

..............My belief is we put OUR people to work (or educate them to fill these jobs) BEFORE we "import" labor. AND, I am not being anti anything here. The corporations (HP, IBM etc) love this shit where they can pay a "foreigner" usually a LOT less than an unemployed qualified American using the excuse that they couldn't find a "qualified" American.

I've seen that happen dozens of times.

IME, it's the norm, especially for any job with benefits.

albeit they'll be overqualified for most of them. Someone who's looking to do factory work, not so many other options. So spare us the whingeing about the plight of the poor university graduates.

I know - my daughter got one against such odds.

................40 yrs over work experience: In fucking case you did not realize this it is A LOT easier for someone, anyone with a college degree to get SOME kind of job than for a poor motherfucker in Kentucky with AT MOST a high school diploma. So yeah, I know a LITTLE something about struggling to find ANY job to pay the rent and provide food for my family. So don't give me that shit about me caring only about "certain" people, I have been through those battles firstfuckinghand.

But I can understand your bitterness.

I have been unemployed in the past and frantic to find ANY job (not readily available to me in spite of my college degree - in fact that was a negative mark against me because it was assumed I would quit once I found something better). I finally got a job just before my 6 months of unemployment ran out.

So I understand the terrible swirl of emotions that just settle in for the long haul. Every day that cloud of misery hangs around you like a cloak. Sometimes it finds its home as depression, sometimes it is expressed in anger and resentment toward others deemed better off.

But you are still wrong. Not being able to find a job is sad for anyone, college degree or not.

...........to struggle to make ends meet a lot more than a couple of times. So, don't tell me how fucking hard it is. I now have two sons that are over 30 (non-college educated) that are struggling too without a job. It is hitting/hurting everybody, but if you do have an education OR a particular "skill" you have a better chance of getting a job. I really don't need someone to lecture me like I'm a child about labor issues.

A college degree is POISON in most jobs out there. Most jobs, in fact the vast majority, don't require much education beyond high school.

The more education you have, the harder it is to find work.

Are you stupid?

when I was a teacher for eight years. It is a GIVEN I have a college degree because of the field I was in.

I just can't leave the experience out.

Then if you are NOT interviewing for a job that REQUIRES
THOSE DEGREES, DON'T LIST THEM.

If you are interviewing for a job as a janitor, in the little
boxes that ask for school history, print the words "Some College".

:eyes:

on the work history section I have to put down I taught for eight years. There is no getting around it. In order to teach public schools, you have to have a college degree. You don't have to spell it out; it can be inferred by the employer. It's simply common sense.

not fun. We hauled junk metal, cleaned up alleys and whatever we could find. When things got better, we bought a tiny house for $22,000, which is now paid for. Far from rich, but we're fairly safe.

Hang in there.

that many college graduates have education debt that requires them to pay a few hundred to a thousand dollars a month? This means they require higher wages, so even if they can get a job eaisier than non college educated folk, many of those jobs just won't cut it.

In 2006, with a master's degree, I could only get minimum wage employment in my home state of Michigan. Their economy is worse now. Often times, when looking for jobs that don't require a certain type of education (those that do being too hard to get - something like one in three hundred), the person with less education will have an advantage because they will have a longer more stable work history. Employers become uneasy when they see someone in their 20s or 30s with a total of a few years of work history broken up into chunks of a few months at a time. I don't like the fact that I'm penalized economically for having the courage to pursue what I love. Next time, when you don't know what you're talking about, maybe don't say anything.

............and you ain't smart enough to "adapt your resume" to the job you are applying for, then you wasted a lot of fucking money on an education. You are now finding out that if you are a younger person in the work force there is a bias against you no matter if you invented peanut butter. The "new" people starting a job ALWAYS get the shit. AND, yeah, if you have cleaned "shitters" for 10 years you will have a better chance for the "shitter" job than a nineteen year old. If you want to argue that having ANY skill/education has NO effect on your chance of getting a job over a totally unexperienced/uneducated individual, then not only did you waste your money on an education, but more importantly you ain't too bright.

Not only am I a lot smarter than you, I'm also a much better person. I got an education (most of which I'd paid for, though I now get paid for my PhD research) to better myself. I did it because I realized that I'd rather have a life pursuing what I love than just making enough money to get by and worrying about being poor someday. I'm poor now, and I'll always be poor - that's fine. I have not wasted one cent on my education, and wouldn't have if it had cost 10 times what it did.

I, unlike you, am able to understand - in part because of my education - that people have different views of the world. I am able to understand that you are a shallow person for whom money means all, and if someone else doesn't share that view with you, you think they are stupid. Way to go. I hope you're really proud of yourself.

How do you feel? You seem to fucking love capitalism but equally get mad at it when it screws you and everyone else in the ass. Why is that? Did you really think you could have it both ways? Many years ago I saw it as a ruse, and I haven't looked back since. Sure that means that I'm poor and can't get jobs, but I also know that it has no bearing on how smart I am or what kind of person I am. I am well respected in my field all over the world. That is worth a lot to me - more than money.

What I do has value in this world that cannot be measured in dollars. If what you've spent your life doing can only be measured in dollars - and thus be bought and sold - I am sorry for you, but it's not my fault. Don't take it out on me. I think that everyone has value and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. That includes you. The fact that you don't feel the same for me does not bother me all that much personally, but it gives me pause when I think about the future that we are creating for this world.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Refusing to take part in a discussion and resorting to sarcasm and name calling. That helps. I suggest that you go and actually read some Marx (I know you're too the right of him, but you may learn something), and a little less Pat Buchanan. Then you might be able to understand how you've been putting your foot in your mouth so as to do so less in the future. Not that I fucking care - I'm done with this shit. No point in talking to a brick wall - especially a brick wall that just swears at you.

I am not sure what you want. Do you want to be assigned a job so you do not have to compete? What if they assigned you a job you did not like? Or are you lobbying for free education?

Elitism implies the existence of an elite, which I am firmly against.

However, yes, I do think that education should be free - the idea that it has anything to do with money-making, apart from being trained in a trade, is absurd.

I also feel strongly that the minimum wage should be a realistic figure, on which anyone could make a living - I don't think competition for a minimum wage job should be fierce - that is a bad sign for the economy. When a situation arises, such as we are in now, there should be a government funded safety net. That means universal healthcare, some sort of subsidized housing, and something like the UK job-seekers allowance - meaning that anyone looking for work is entitled to a level of dignity they will not get by being homeless. If jobs don't exist in an economy, I really don't think that it's the fault of those willing to work for the minimum wage, so they shouldn't be the ones to suffer from it.

These may be described by some as Socialist positions, but I don't think they are - I think they are positions that anyone who believes in human rights and the equality of all should adhere to.

That would definitely change education in the US.

What figure do you fee minimum wage should be and why? I think 100$ an hour would suffice for anyone.

As to your point about subsidized housing. Public housing already exists. What more are you looking for?

I don't think that private universities should be abolished. I have gone to private universities in the US, and now I'm at a UK public university. There are differences, but as there are also great differences between the countries' education systems, so I don't think a side-by-side comparison would be valid. I DO think that education - at all levels - should be free in state schools. I think it would also be fine to give subsidies to students to make up the difference between those tuition fees at private schools and what the same education would cost the state.

OR I think having a student-loan system as exists in the UK would be great: students get the loans they need to pay for tuition (tuition is much less than in the US) and provide them with a certain standard of living. The amount which is paid back on those loans is determined by how much money the former student is making after leaving a university. After a certain number of years, if the loan hasn't been paid back in full, the remainder is forgiven.

Setting what the minimum wage should be without also guaranteeing health-care and job-loss benefits would only fix a small part of the problem. However, it should be set at above the poverty line in every location, adjusting for inflation, and taking into account what it would realistically cost to rent a place to live, buy food, get to and from a job, etc. There could be a law requiring each location where cost of living is above the national average to pay more.

As for public housing existing, it isn't that easy to get, and there isn't enough of it. It would help if there was a law in the US like they have in France which states that no one can be evicted from their home between the months of November and May when putting someone out on the street with nowhere else to go would be tantamount to murder.

Would all schools be equal? What if more kids wanted to go to one school than capacity, how would they be selected? I guess if they were all equal, that wouldn't be as much of a problem though.

Why limit minimum wage to the poverty line? Why not make it 100 or 150$ an hour and then people cannot just live, but live well.

How easy should public housing be to get and how much should there be? Would the November-May rule apply in Hawaii?

Does economics determine their standing? Different universities are better for different students, no matter what "rankings" say. That will always be the case, because they have different instructors and offer different programs. So there would be no change there. Apart from that, where one university excels, if everyone who qualified for entry could afford to go, it would only be better - and what is wrong with that?

As to your other points .... they aren't points. You know that the first doesn't make economic or any other kind of sense and is just silly, the second I can't answer, because I don't know anything in-depth about things like urban planning etc., and for the third, you're just being silly - the US is a big place, and that's why there are state governments and laws to take care of things on a statewide level.

Obviously importing anything from another country in exactly the same form is not going to work. You know that. However, do you really think that what we have now is working? Do you think everything's ok? So ok that 10,000 people are applying for 90 jobs is how ok it is.

that would occur after making it free. How would you handle those #'s? And would all public school then be funded equally? There are a lot of details that would need to be worked out.

Why does your idea to raise the minimum wage make economic sense then? You haven't outlined that.

Seems like we should go back to our policies from the 50's. Hard to argue that they weren't working.

Many countries have free higher education, and funding it is no problem. The UK student loan system, for example, is a good one - universities aren't free, but there is give-and-take between the students and the lender about what "free" should mean. As far as the number of students, again, it's really no problem with the current system - it would simply mean that everyone who was accepted was allowed to go to a college. Yes, that would mean that colleges would have to raise their standards about who would be accepted, but isn't that a good thing? I really don't think not having money should keep anyone away from the education that they think is best for them. I have had that attitude for myself, and it has meant that I've gone into debt. I don't know if I will be able to pay off that debt, and it doesn't really bother me. I would rather have my education and be dirt-poor than not have it.

As for the minimum wage, historically every time the minimum wage is increased it is a boon for the economy, so that's simple. Furthermore, if the minimum wage were a real living wage, an awful lot of money could be saved on social services.

I know that all of this would come at the expense of the wealthy, and I'm fine with that. I do not think that anyone's work is worth 100 times anyone else's work. I know that being a doctor is very difficult and needed work, but I don't think that doing it entitles someone to hundreds or thousands of times the income of a guy making hamburgers - I need to eat so as not to die, and I like hamburgers to boot. There are some people who make well over hundreds of times what a minimum wage earner makes, and those people are just ridiculous - if you can find me a CEO who deserves being worth a million times what I or any other poor person is worth to this world, I'll eat my hat (and I like my hat).

And many people travel to the US for education. Texas is an excellent example of some of the consequences. If you are in the top 10% of your class, you get automatic admission to the state school of your choice. That has been the promise. Unfortunately, as the population has increased in Texas, its had unintended consequences. Everyone wants to go to UT Austin and now there is take of making it top 5% or raising tuition to expand the school, but that wasn't the promise. It would be similar to raising the Social Security retirement age to 70.

If that is the case, then imagine the boon that would result if the minimum wage was raised to 100$/hour.

The percentage of people who make 100 times that of a burger flipper are very few. 10x is more common. I do agree that doctors are overpaid though.

edited for spelling.

The $100/hr thing is a canard. That would just cause inflation. It's a conservative argument that gets trotted out any time there is talk of raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage ought to be the minimum that a person could be asked to do work for without exploiting them, but it is not - it is the minimum that people can be paid without the economy collapsing and there being mass revolt. And as I said before, raising the minimum wage without guaranteeing basic rights such as healthcare for those workers is only going to fix one very small part of the problem.

I know that people travel to the US for education, but people also travel to other countries - not only the US. It's just a matter of what university is better for the student. This often comes down to departments and individual professors, and the can't be in two places at once. There are a lot of people from all over the world studying in my department too.

I don't know what to say about Texas - it's not my problem if they've screwed up. There are a lot more students at my university than ever before too - it's meant raising tuition (however, because of a reasonable student loan program, it's not that big of a deal), and it's also meant that it's more competitive. The competition aspect is a good thing. I do not think it would be a bad thing to see the day when universities are so full that a state has to create more of them.

100$ an hour would cause inflation, but your raise would not. Care to elaborate on that?

A lot of countries have two-tier education systems that work well as well. I wonder what your reaction would be if you were told that you couldn't go to college and you were better suited for welding work though. I actually think a two-tier system might work in the US, but I doubt it would ever pass politically.

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were told that you could not qualify for college now due to the adjustments that have been made. Probably not.

I'm not the one to explain to you how inflation works and how minimum wage increases have historically helped the economy - you can just go look that stuff up. Look at what countries have the highest standards of living, and check out how these things I'm proposing work in them. They will all be slightly different, but have more in common with each other than any one of them does with the US systems.

The US does have a two-tiered education system as is: people who can afford to go to college, and people who can't. As far as who gets to go where, it's based on applications already, so your proposition that it would be different under a free-education system is spurious. When applying for undergraduate schools I got into some, and I didn't get into some. For my master's degree I got my first choice of school, and for my PhD I only applied to one. The only thing that could have stopped me going to any of this would have been fear of paying back the debt incurred by taking on the education. I don't care about that, so it's a moot point.

Basically what you're arguing is that the children of well-off families are entitled to education and that poor children aren't - do I have that correctly?

You may want to start looking for refunds for some of your educational expenses if you can't answer that simple question.

As you may have noticed, nothing is ever free. You may be able to move the burden around, but it will never be free. I used to live on Long Island where school taxes alone were 10K a year. Now they're about 20K. Are the schools fantastic? Not a chance.

Why do you keep pursuing higher education when you've admitted that it is a hindrance to employment. Very strange.

They are not. Money is meaningless, and an unfulfilling job is torture. Can you not understand that education and money-making have NOTHING to do with one another? It would be like expecting true love to have an impact on one's finances. While I am poor, I love my life more than most seem to like theirs. I sometimes worry about money, but I never make large decisions based on it either - doing so would be pointless. Since I don't care about making a lot of money, acting as if it were going to sometime happen would be absurd. I love what I do, and there would have been no way for me to get where I am today without my education - it's as simple as that. I'm also a world-renowned expert in my field, and that's something that money can't buy - only hard work and a clear vision can make that happen.

If everyone spent their lives worrying about money and how every aspect of their personal lives could help them make more, the world would be an absolutely despicable place. As is, only most Americans and a fair lot of others feel that way, so there are still some save havens for the sane. Is money virtuous? Should greed be the measure of a man?

Until it means the ability to eat and to have a roof over your head.

In the beginning of the thread, you lamented that your education was holding you back from employment, so I suppose things must have changed over the weekend.

Are you starting to get it now?!?! I did not "lament", but simply pointed out, that my education does not help me find employment - just a statement of fact.

Money is not important, but having shelter and food are important, but you still seem to think that these are not human rights, but should have to be paid for, even if the current minimum wage means that while working a job someone may not have enough money for these things - what does it mean then? Is it so ridiculous to demand that a job pay someone enough to live with dignity? Is it absurd to suggest that someone who can not find a job when there are none should be given this same amount of dignity?

If I were a Christian, like my mother, I would fear for your soul. As is, I simply fear for a world filled with those who share your outlook - it is a grim and nasty place that you inhabit. I can tell you that there are other worlds out there, and that they too could be made better if so many greedy people were not doing everything in their power to stop that from happening.

I am still waiting for your economic model proving that your wage rise would not cause inflation. I know you weren't keen on 100$ an hour. How about 50$ an hour?

Wanting to have actual working plans is not greedy, its smart.

I love the job that I have, where I live, the woman I love, my friends, my career, etc. - all great. I wouldn't trade my life for any other in the world.

As for suggesting that a minimum wage increase would cause inflation, you are just plain wrong - look at minimum wage increases throughout history - I'm sure there are webpages about that or something. I can't make it my mission to do some simple internet searching for you.

As to providing a specific number, you know that that isn't at all what I suggested. You brought that into the discussion, and you are welcome to keep arguing with yourself about it, or you could just look up the historical economic information for yourself and put the argument to rest.

As far as "working plans" go, I guess I must be smart - my life is great, and I've never cared about how much money I make, just about doing what I love. Maybe if more people had working plans based on that, instead of making money, more people would be as happy as I am.

So you admit that raising the minimum wage to 100$ an hour would be a great idea. We could eliminate poverty overnight.

Your inability to provide any evidence to support your argument makes me wonder about the effectiveness of your education though.

Cheers!

Is the general standard of living better in the Cambodia, or in the US? The US or Sweden? How do wages compare in those countries? How do other things compare?

I do not have to "provide evidence" to support this, because it's the truth - look it up, because I can't be bothered - I have work to do.

As for questioning my education because of my perceived lack (because you can't be bothered to look up the facts) of economic expertise, you are just being absurd. My formal education has nothing to do with economics. As someone who hates money, why would it? I am an expert on those things that I do know a lot about, and that's what matters to me. About everything else, I know enough to get by, or I ask people who are experts - something you are unwilling to do.

education for a job which requires it. Period. I have been on both sides of the fence, so I KNOW what I am talking about. I never had trouble getting any kind of entry level or semi-skilled position before I received a college degree.

You can't adapt your resume if you have done a professional job for eight years, especially. It can't be done. Period.

I've got a teaching degree and am trying to get certified here in MI (originally certified in Ohio but then moved and let it lapse while staying home with my kids). I've interviewed for two parapro positions (only need an associate's degree for those, not a teaching degree, so definitely a step dowon), and I was told by a principal that people with master's degrees were applying. I didn't get either one. Frankly, I'm lucky to be subbing.

should hire you, invest time and money to train you when you have a proven track record of leaving versus hiring someone who would stay? I'm sorry you feel penalized....

I was pointing out that those with an education do not have an advantage in the job market when the jobs requiring that education don't exist. Plain and simple.

struggling to find ANY job. What was true twenty, thirty and forty years ago is no longer the case. And highly educated people have ALWAYS been told that they are over-qualified (and/or under-experienced) for jobs that are considered below their grade. Employers don't want to hire them bc they know they will be (a) dissatisfied and (b) gone as soon as they can find something better.

Maybe you are the most sympathetic person in the world. I have no idea. But it does sound as though you don't know much about the things that face people whose situation is different than yours.

employers consider you "overqualified." I don't regret my degrees, but they sure can be a hindrance.

Somethings gotta break,This is scary and sad.

After 18 months of being unable to locate a new job, the talking heads on TV don't need to tell me how hard it is to find a job.

Thanks "W", you and your party really managed to &%#@ up the economy for your corporate masters.

to, I'll give some credit.

Maybe not everyone's idea of a great job, but it's a living.

you don't drive, eat, wear shoes or go the dentist. At 13 an hour your wife works too and you do double shifts when you can and have a 2nd and maybe 3rd part time job.

I guess this all depends where you live,here is the Midwest I would do ok...In Boston,SanFran or Seattle this wouldn't be the case.

Median US household income 50+K. 2008 compensation for top GE execs 12-20 Million each, not including good old boy networking perks and other intangible or untraceable income. Guess it all depends on what your comfortable with.

WHAT WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? :mad:


AND WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE OUTRAGEOUS CEO COMPENSATION IN THIS COUNTRY? :grr:

$13 * 52 weeks * 40 hours = $27,040. Figure the company will likely need 5%-10% overtime that is another $2K to $4K. Gross pay is more like $29K to $31K plus benefits.

In a 2 income family that's $60Kish which is above median household income. So while it isn't great it isn't quite as bad as you indicate. Sad to see the wage go from $19 to $13 though. There are many people who would see a substantial upgrade moving to that kind of employment picture.

It is better than a lot of jobs that are open out there. In my area, most jobs being advertised are paying $9/hr or less.

The new hires are taking a 240/wk pretax cut or about 12K a year in lost income. Sure a job is better than no job and a job w/ bennies is better than one without and its better to eat out of a dumpster than starve and its better to live in a tent than sleep on a bench and I'm betting that management and execs didn't give up a damn thing and don't give a damn.

Meanwhile, if you think that wages everywhere can remain stable despite declining sales, extreme uncertainty, credit crunch, and dismal unemployment that's affecting US manufacturers, then you don't understand how business works very well. IMO, of course.

The fact of the matter is the benefits were already a given and the wages were reduced. If you think that labor should bear the burden while managements parties on just state it clearly.

It gets old.

It's kind of astonishing to me that you think labor and manufacturing companies aren't both taking hard punches in the gut these days.

Meanwhile, benefits are a legitimate form of payment just like a paycheck. They're enumerated in dollar terms on the company's tax return. The only difference is they are tax-preferred, which means the worker gets more payment and the government gets less, dollar for dollar of the pool allocated to labor expense. Also, the company does not have to pay matching money on Social Security when it pays its employees with benefits, again increasing the labor allocation (i.e., the money that makes hiring possible). This economic behavior was the intent of the legislation that established the employer-pays incentives for health care sixty years ago.

My husband doesn't make much more than that and I don't work. All of our bills are paid, we have a nice 3 bedroom apartment, and my kids never go hungry. We aren't on welfare, and we have some money in the bank. It is possible to to live on that salary in the midwest.

was a life-changer for me. After 10 years in one district, I moved and went to another one. Because of a Master's degree in special ed and years of experience, I was paid very well. But after two years, I was not rehired. No doubt whatsoever in my mind that age, education and experience worked against me. A first year teacher without a Master's is lots cheaper.

I have a feeling ageism is rampant in this country along with hiring freezes.

I fear that I will be nonrenewed at the end of this school year so they can get someone cheaper. My school district is very poor and is getting hit with a big ticket out-of-district placement next year. This is my second year there so they can get rid of me for any reason. Hiring an inexperienced teacher could save them over 15K a year.

It's scary.

you are terminated, non-renewed, or resigned in lieu of a dismissal, the chances are you will never again work as a public school teacher in the United States. You spend years going into the field, spend thousands of dollars to get trained in this job, only to be treated like a piece of crap when you try to become a good teacher, a process which takes a good 4-5 years minimum. Now school districts don't even give teachers a chance as long as there are hundreds in line to take a teacher's place. Only nepotisms will survive to have careers in this dysfunctional system.

This is one of the great scandals in public education, and one of the least known.

School districts don't want qualified people anymore because they are too expensive. Better to can people like yourself so it makes it difficult if not impossible to get hired again.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Hekate