Posted on March 11th, 2009 by Aaron Janik | No Comments »
Filed under: ., Labor Law, Politics, Schools | 
President Obama laid out his education reform plan yesterday, and a litany of organizations of educators and education reformers have already given their take on it.
The American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten stated in a press release, “The AFT fully supports the President’s call for shared responsibility for education…” A bold move, maybe, since many AFT locals disagree with the President’s view on merit-based pay. Weingarten went onto state, “as with any public policy the devil is in the details.”
One of the arguments against merit based pay is that rewarding teachers with more pay based on the achievements of their students is biased and unfair. Critics of merit based pay feel that many low performing schools won’t improve just by giving the teachers more money.
Their argument is that money is not the only problem when it comes to these low performing schools. Parental responsibility and involvement coupled with socio-economic factors are just some of the reasons the areas these schools are underperforming and no amount of money will fix these problems until a conscience effort is made by all in the education process (i.e., families, teachers, administrators) to “fix the system”.
Proponents of the merit based pay system feel that by rewarding teachers who strive to improve, not only their students test scores, but themselves professionally, schools will retain the best and brightest of educators, who, in turn, will improve the educational process in their schools.
One thing President Obama did not address with much detail yesterday was the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. The NCLB has been a contentious issue since its enactment. Many feel it requires teachers to “teach to the test”, and it disregards classes such as music, PE, and art. As Obama gets settled and attempts to get the economy rolling again, a plethora of educators will be waiting to see what he does, if anything, with NCLB.
Posted on December 16th, 2008 by Aaron Janik | No Comments »
Filed under: ., Entertainment, Labor Law, The Financial Crisis |
This time last year, the Writer’s Guild strike was one of the top news stories, as negotiations over payment for online viewing and the definitions of writers and producers seemed to fluctuate nightly before our eyes. It’s a sign of the times, then, that the Screen Actor’s Guild can call for a strike vote over many of the same issues a year later and hardly even make a dent in the news cycle. Another sign? An open letter from prominent SAG members opposing the move.
In case you hadn’t heard, SAG has scheduled a strike vote to take place January 2, with voter cards to be counted later in the month.
Some Hollywood heavyweights came out against authorizing a strike today. In a letter penned Monday, over 130 Hollywood megastars urged the Screen Actors Guild to vote against striking. George Clooney, Alec Baldwin, Tom Hanks, Matt Damon, among many others, said authorizing a strike would create more economic hardship:
“We support our union and … the issues we’re fighting for, but we do not believe in all good conscience that now is the time to be putting people out of work…”
They called upon the SAG to join in talks when other Hollywood guilds contracts expire in three years. Among chief concerns of the stars is the financial effect a strike would have on the crews and craft services of movie productions. The stars also don’t see the need to use a strike as a bargaining tool. They contend a strike should only be used when negotiations fail.
There are a group of high profile celebrities that support authorizing a strike, including Mel Gibson, Holly Hunter and Martin Sheen.
On the web: Jonathan Handel has a copy of the letter at his blog, Digital Media Law.
Posted on February 20th, 2008 by Aaron Janik | 1 Comment »
Filed under: Entertainment |
So, I take no credit for this article, I am just reposting an article that someone else wrote.
Since I am studying for the bar, my mind is mush, and unless I am writing something to the effect of “Circuit Courts are courts of original and general jurisdiction” then I don’t think I should be attempting to inform anyone of any news.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-scotus21feb21,1,7055268.story
