Another Non-Truth from the Tiverton Teachers’ Public Face
Here’s what the NEA’s man in Tiverton, Patrick Crowley, had to say when I suggested that a particular legal claim of his — that a failure of the administration to pay the teachers for their day of striking proved that they were not considered salaried and were therefore entitled to overtime — was, well, deceptively selective:
I am arguing that the law has many other sections and decades of case law. Maybe Justin should cite my entire letter since he seems to have been forwarded a copy of it. He seems to have left out a few sections, including the case citations, the RELEVANT section of law, and the other sections cited.
If he doesn’t. I’d be happy too.
At the time, I thought that last word was a typo, but it may be the correct “too,” after all, considering that Crowley never got around to further explanations or to sending me or publishing his letter. Luckily, a little persistence has paid off, and I’ve managed to find a copy of the original document, on NEA letterhead, no less (PDF). As readers can see for themselves, the letter contains a single case citation, and it is irrelevant to the point that I was making, relating, instead, to the penalties for not paying overtime “if it is the policy now of the school committee to consider the teachers non-exempt employees.”
Presumably some teacher or other in the Tiverton system will have occasion to correct any students who’ve gotten the idea from the teachers’ union that lies of omission are perfectly acceptable in rhetorical writing.
There’s no overtime until a worker exceeds 40 hours of work a week. Lunch breaks don’t count.
Let’s start making teachers earn some overtime – but we must verify – all work for which they want compensation must be performed on school premises!
No going home at 2:00 p.m. any more morons – just be sure to thank your pal Crowley for that overtime!
Justin, you have already stated for the record you don’t care for the facts. So distort away. I love the way you argue… “you proved me wrong, therefore I am going to claim you didn’t address my question.” Classic.
No, Pat, I stated that I didn’t care about the specifics of the math as presented by you and went on to clarify that my issue was with the small range of changed in which you’ve been operating and in the limited amount of information that you’ve made available to the public. I even proceeded to write a post exploring some of the math.
You, on the other hand, prove your disregard for facts, math, and plain good presentation with every comment that you make.