Voice 1:
Post by Walter » Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:49 am
The Fair you were at must have been SEARCH Cambridge. SEARCH is clear - as all major agencies are - that a verbal offer is binding. You should contact your Associate. I think you'll be fine.
Voice 2:
Post by PsyGuy » Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:18 pm
SA has no enforcement ability/power to compel a binding agreement of an IS. Offers are rescinded/withdrawn all the time, and SA wont do anything.
The facts:
1) Offers are not rescinded or withdrawn all the time. This is a rare event and most likely to happen after a later reference check that wasn't available at the fair.
2) SEARCH has no interest in schools that treat candidates badly. Their success depends as much on candidate support and attendance as it does on school support and attendance. In these days of social media, their reputation is also at stake. If a school drops out - or is dropped - there are many more ready to fill the gap.
How soon to receive contract after accepting at a fair?
Response
Those are not 'facts" they are claims, and erroneous claims of an admin with an agenda employing smoke and mirrors. Of course leadership wants you to believe that they never do anything inappropriate and any such occurrence is the result of the IT.
1) Withdrawn/rescinded contracts are not uncommon in IE, they dont use the term "broken or breaking" but ISs and recruiters break contract for a variety of reasons, for falling enrollment, financial exigency, ownership influence (someone close to ownership needed your appointment), etc..
Withdrawn/rescinded contracts RARELY are the result of the IT. The "missing reference" excuse is nothing more than that, an excuse by an IS/leadership. Premium agencies have easy access to confidential references at the fair.
2) SA has significant interest in repping poor ISs, and they do, some of the worst ISs globally are repped by SA. These ISs provide a constant revenue stream in repeated staffing and recruiting needs.
There are two types of agency ISs those that have very little recruiting needs but give the agency status and prestige, and those ISs that generate large amounts of 'churn' from constant recruiting and staffing needs. Its these ISs that produce the revenue.
There is zero media concern for a premium agency, they hold all te power, there are essentially two agencies and your either with them or your not, regardless of their reputation. ISs post vacancies with the agency and they organize the fairs if you want access, you have little choice regardless of the reputation, or social media.
SA has little dependency on candidates. ITs are the commodity, whether the state fair or casting couch -, it is the ISs that are the client not, the ITs. IT fees just cover overhead, and separate the truly interested and qualified from the mass of applications that would pour in without a financial barrier to application. It is the placement fee paid by the IS that is responsible for revenue generation. The IT fee covers costs, the placement fee is profit.
There are also VASTLY more avenues for an IS to market and pursue recruitment, an agency dropping an IS is just saying good bye to coin.
1) Withdrawn/rescinded contracts are not uncommon in IE, they dont use the term "broken or breaking" but ISs and recruiters break contract for a variety of reasons, for falling enrollment, financial exigency, ownership influence (someone close to ownership needed your appointment), etc..
Withdrawn/rescinded contracts RARELY are the result of the IT. The "missing reference" excuse is nothing more than that, an excuse by an IS/leadership. Premium agencies have easy access to confidential references at the fair.
2) SA has significant interest in repping poor ISs, and they do, some of the worst ISs globally are repped by SA. These ISs provide a constant revenue stream in repeated staffing and recruiting needs.
There are two types of agency ISs those that have very little recruiting needs but give the agency status and prestige, and those ISs that generate large amounts of 'churn' from constant recruiting and staffing needs. Its these ISs that produce the revenue.
There is zero media concern for a premium agency, they hold all te power, there are essentially two agencies and your either with them or your not, regardless of their reputation. ISs post vacancies with the agency and they organize the fairs if you want access, you have little choice regardless of the reputation, or social media.
SA has little dependency on candidates. ITs are the commodity, whether the state fair or casting couch -, it is the ISs that are the client not, the ITs. IT fees just cover overhead, and separate the truly interested and qualified from the mass of applications that would pour in without a financial barrier to application. It is the placement fee paid by the IS that is responsible for revenue generation. The IT fee covers costs, the placement fee is profit.
There are also VASTLY more avenues for an IS to market and pursue recruitment, an agency dropping an IS is just saying good bye to coin.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: How soon to receive contract after accepting at a fair?
We, too, have our contract. It took just over a week and that was only due to some delays in hearing back from our references. Then again, I was never worried because this is a school with a good reputation and a HOS who values his word, his school's reputation, and the integrity of the process--and we knew that before we interviewed with him.
All agencies rep bad ISs.
I agree that one should be careful and that there are bad apples all around. I agree that teachers are commodities. I would also point out that even with a contract in hand ITs have little recourse, so a letter of intent, a contract, and a promise are not that different all things considered. Know what you are getting into.
All agencies rep bad ISs.
I agree that one should be careful and that there are bad apples all around. I agree that teachers are commodities. I would also point out that even with a contract in hand ITs have little recourse, so a letter of intent, a contract, and a promise are not that different all things considered. Know what you are getting into.
Reply
@Thames Pirate
Leadership can have a great reputation until they dont. Leadership can improve an ISs leadership, but they also leave behind a poor reputation if thats what they cultivate when they leave.
SA reps more poor ISs than ISS amongst the premium recruiting agencies.
A contract is different, its very impractical to enforce, but an MOU and LOI do not have the same technical or legal weight as a contract.
Leadership can have a great reputation until they dont. Leadership can improve an ISs leadership, but they also leave behind a poor reputation if thats what they cultivate when they leave.
SA reps more poor ISs than ISS amongst the premium recruiting agencies.
A contract is different, its very impractical to enforce, but an MOU and LOI do not have the same technical or legal weight as a contract.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: How soon to receive contract after accepting at a fair?
Leadership that have a reputation established over time have it for a reason. If they care about the reputation of the school (again, with a track record over time) and the school has a good reputation, you can rest a bit easier as well. Nothing is guaranteed, sure, but at some point there has to be trust on both sides--trust that the candidate quits looking and trust that the school will honor its commitment and quit interviewing. Yes, a contract is stronger, but even those are limited in usefulness.
In our situation we heard a girl at the fair office talk with an associate about having accepted an offer. The associate was very clear that she had to have paperwork from the school and not to quit the process until she had a contract in hand. When we came back just over an hour later, the same lady asked us from whom we had accepted an offer. She smiled, spoke fondly of the director, and said nothing about having a contract in hand. Clearly she knew which directors were and were not reputable, and clearly she knew that while she couldn't throw a school under the bus (as you said, the schools are the clients), she gave us different advice from the other girl. That is a reputation cultivated over time by that HOS. Our prior research, our people skills in assessing him (and the principal, who was also at the interview), and the wording of the offer allowed us to feel comfortable accepting a verbal offer only. The behavior of the school since then has been nothing but exactly as we expected it--regular contact regarding the references, and the contract now in hand--which is word for word what he had told us to expect and in a timeframe that is faster than he had anticipated.
However, if we had no prior knowledge of the school, felt at all unsure of either the director or of our people-reading skills, or if the associate had said to have paperwork in hand, we would have insisted on paperwork.
I agree that it is wise to advise caution, but there are exceptions to every rule. The most reputable schools are that way for a reason.
In our situation we heard a girl at the fair office talk with an associate about having accepted an offer. The associate was very clear that she had to have paperwork from the school and not to quit the process until she had a contract in hand. When we came back just over an hour later, the same lady asked us from whom we had accepted an offer. She smiled, spoke fondly of the director, and said nothing about having a contract in hand. Clearly she knew which directors were and were not reputable, and clearly she knew that while she couldn't throw a school under the bus (as you said, the schools are the clients), she gave us different advice from the other girl. That is a reputation cultivated over time by that HOS. Our prior research, our people skills in assessing him (and the principal, who was also at the interview), and the wording of the offer allowed us to feel comfortable accepting a verbal offer only. The behavior of the school since then has been nothing but exactly as we expected it--regular contact regarding the references, and the contract now in hand--which is word for word what he had told us to expect and in a timeframe that is faster than he had anticipated.
However, if we had no prior knowledge of the school, felt at all unsure of either the director or of our people-reading skills, or if the associate had said to have paperwork in hand, we would have insisted on paperwork.
I agree that it is wise to advise caution, but there are exceptions to every rule. The most reputable schools are that way for a reason.
Reply
@Thames Pirate
Bad leadership isnt hatched bad, at one time they were all too some degree noble and good leadership. Theer isnt trust on both sides. There is you trust them until you find out you were wrong. Leadership does what its told. If ownership says dismiss X IT because reasons, either your looking for a job, or both of you are looking for a job. There is no trust on the leadership side, because they cant give you what isnt theres to give. The IS has all the power and resources in that "your word is your bond" claim.
No your associate could assumed you heard the previous news, they were tired, or anyone of numerous other reasons, including that they dont really know or are misrepresenting the IS and recruiter. Theres nothing clear in that scenario other than being naive.
Bad leadership isnt hatched bad, at one time they were all too some degree noble and good leadership. Theer isnt trust on both sides. There is you trust them until you find out you were wrong. Leadership does what its told. If ownership says dismiss X IT because reasons, either your looking for a job, or both of you are looking for a job. There is no trust on the leadership side, because they cant give you what isnt theres to give. The IS has all the power and resources in that "your word is your bond" claim.
No your associate could assumed you heard the previous news, they were tired, or anyone of numerous other reasons, including that they dont really know or are misrepresenting the IS and recruiter. Theres nothing clear in that scenario other than being naive.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: How soon to receive contract after accepting at a fair?
In a not-for-profit school with a board that is made up of multiple stakeholder groups, you will not have a HOS doing what ownership says because there is no "ownership." Yes, the IS has the power, but a board isn't going to say "don't send a contract to X" when they haven't met X and X was hired at a job fair. But of course, researching the school structure (including the board) is part of research, and it is an often overlooked part of research. When the board is involved in which teacher at a fair to hire, it is the worst kind of nepotism, and that stuff stinks enough for people to know.
No, the associate did not assume we heard the previous news because she never saw me. She was not so tired she was losing her mind and gave very lucid instructions in all other areas. She knew the HOS by reputation at the very least.
I would recommend being cautious, sure, but I wouldn't say it's naiveté. I would say it was a very calculated risk. There IS a difference.
Is it so hard for you to believe there are reputable HOSs out there or is it just hard to believe someone on this board might have ended up at a reputable school with a reputable admin? What happened to you that you are so jaded?
No, the associate did not assume we heard the previous news because she never saw me. She was not so tired she was losing her mind and gave very lucid instructions in all other areas. She knew the HOS by reputation at the very least.
I would recommend being cautious, sure, but I wouldn't say it's naiveté. I would say it was a very calculated risk. There IS a difference.
Is it so hard for you to believe there are reputable HOSs out there or is it just hard to believe someone on this board might have ended up at a reputable school with a reputable admin? What happened to you that you are so jaded?
Reply
@Thames Pirate
"Ownership" in IE is a reference term, in can refer to a single individual who 'owns' the IS or a board or other body that exercises ownership control, it is a generic term, much as 'leadership' refers to various grades, classifications and titles of professional educator staff that exercise management/administrative and supervisory authority.
A board can, does and has rescinded/withdrawn/nullified/suspended contracts without what would commonly be accepted as reasonable grounds. An IS board is not equivalent to a public/regulated school board, that is more bound by regulatory authority than its own bylaws, etc.
You dont know the associate didnt see you, you just believe they didnt, because you didnt observe indicators of recognition. You dont know the associates fatigue level, many professional maintain a high degree of functioning despite various levels of fatigue.
You dont know what she knew of the reputation of the HOS, nor if the reputation is accurate. You think its accurate, because you want it to be true.
The inexperienced rarely believe they are naive. The nativity of most novice ITs is the miscalculation of the risk based on insufficient sample size of data and self authentication of their own assumptions.
I dont need to believe, belief is an extension of faith, I have data, and only data matters. Yes, I know a number of leadership, including HOSs who are honorable, they are a very distinct minority.
"Ownership" in IE is a reference term, in can refer to a single individual who 'owns' the IS or a board or other body that exercises ownership control, it is a generic term, much as 'leadership' refers to various grades, classifications and titles of professional educator staff that exercise management/administrative and supervisory authority.
A board can, does and has rescinded/withdrawn/nullified/suspended contracts without what would commonly be accepted as reasonable grounds. An IS board is not equivalent to a public/regulated school board, that is more bound by regulatory authority than its own bylaws, etc.
You dont know the associate didnt see you, you just believe they didnt, because you didnt observe indicators of recognition. You dont know the associates fatigue level, many professional maintain a high degree of functioning despite various levels of fatigue.
You dont know what she knew of the reputation of the HOS, nor if the reputation is accurate. You think its accurate, because you want it to be true.
The inexperienced rarely believe they are naive. The nativity of most novice ITs is the miscalculation of the risk based on insufficient sample size of data and self authentication of their own assumptions.
I dont need to believe, belief is an extension of faith, I have data, and only data matters. Yes, I know a number of leadership, including HOSs who are honorable, they are a very distinct minority.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: How soon to receive contract after accepting at a fair?
Geez, you really enjoy arguing, don't you?
Yes, it's possible the associate saw me, but that doesn't translate to assuming I heard her instructions to the other teacher since she repeated all but the one about the contract. Yes, it's possible she was tired or that it wasn't an oversight, but given the way she spoke it was obvious she did hold the HOS in high esteem. Yes, I wished it to be true, but as I said, prior knowledge of this individual and his dealings pointed in that direction. So I suppose wish and expect in this case are almost interchangeable. Everything we know about this individual, both from direct interaction and from our other research, has been precisely in line with this expectation, and the associate's words were simply another piece of data.
As to the board, yes, I mentioned that it was part of research and that they are the de facto "ownership." I am aware of the composition of the board at the school in question. I am also fairly familiar with the actions of the board through public media, school media, and teacher grapevine. So while boards sometimes can and do rescind contracts, a) they generally don't do it for a candidate hired at a fair who has not yet had any dealings with the board or the community, b) they generally don't do it on a whim, and c) this particular school/board does not have a history of such actions. It is not logical for them to send a HOS and principal to a fair to hire, then tell the same person entrusted with the job to go back on the verbal commitment to someone they don't know for no reason and after other good candidates have been hired by other schools. Therefore, again, it was a calculated risk, but one which was deemed minimal in this particular instance.
You call me naive, but you are basing that solely on my disagreeing with you on a few issues (but not really this one). The reality is that I would encourage people to exercise extreme caution (seriously, how many candidates know anything about the board or the HOS's involvement with accrediting agencies, for example? Not many, so for most candidates the degree of familiarity with the school and the people involved wouldn't be anywhere near ours). I would also posit that while I am a fair judge of character, my husband is an exceptional one; I have rarely seen someone so able to quickly size up people, situations, and behavior as he is. That extra advantage allowed us to feel confident in our acceptance (where the F2F confirmed what our research had told us about the individual--as you have said, the F2F is about fit, and we were sizing him up as much as he was us) where most people would either be naive or incautious. Yes, it was still technically a risk--you are absolutely right about that. It was, though, not as much of one as you seem to think. But you know neither the school nor the situation, so I guess I can understand your skepticism and mistaken belief that it was naiveté rather than a carefully considered risk. Thankfully, as we have a contract in hand, we can now say that our assessment was spot on.
I agree that without such careful planning, one should always have paperwork.
Yes, it's possible the associate saw me, but that doesn't translate to assuming I heard her instructions to the other teacher since she repeated all but the one about the contract. Yes, it's possible she was tired or that it wasn't an oversight, but given the way she spoke it was obvious she did hold the HOS in high esteem. Yes, I wished it to be true, but as I said, prior knowledge of this individual and his dealings pointed in that direction. So I suppose wish and expect in this case are almost interchangeable. Everything we know about this individual, both from direct interaction and from our other research, has been precisely in line with this expectation, and the associate's words were simply another piece of data.
As to the board, yes, I mentioned that it was part of research and that they are the de facto "ownership." I am aware of the composition of the board at the school in question. I am also fairly familiar with the actions of the board through public media, school media, and teacher grapevine. So while boards sometimes can and do rescind contracts, a) they generally don't do it for a candidate hired at a fair who has not yet had any dealings with the board or the community, b) they generally don't do it on a whim, and c) this particular school/board does not have a history of such actions. It is not logical for them to send a HOS and principal to a fair to hire, then tell the same person entrusted with the job to go back on the verbal commitment to someone they don't know for no reason and after other good candidates have been hired by other schools. Therefore, again, it was a calculated risk, but one which was deemed minimal in this particular instance.
You call me naive, but you are basing that solely on my disagreeing with you on a few issues (but not really this one). The reality is that I would encourage people to exercise extreme caution (seriously, how many candidates know anything about the board or the HOS's involvement with accrediting agencies, for example? Not many, so for most candidates the degree of familiarity with the school and the people involved wouldn't be anywhere near ours). I would also posit that while I am a fair judge of character, my husband is an exceptional one; I have rarely seen someone so able to quickly size up people, situations, and behavior as he is. That extra advantage allowed us to feel confident in our acceptance (where the F2F confirmed what our research had told us about the individual--as you have said, the F2F is about fit, and we were sizing him up as much as he was us) where most people would either be naive or incautious. Yes, it was still technically a risk--you are absolutely right about that. It was, though, not as much of one as you seem to think. But you know neither the school nor the situation, so I guess I can understand your skepticism and mistaken belief that it was naiveté rather than a carefully considered risk. Thankfully, as we have a contract in hand, we can now say that our assessment was spot on.
I agree that without such careful planning, one should always have paperwork.
Re: How soon to receive contract after accepting at a fair?
"I dont need to believe, belief is an extension of faith, I have data, and only data matters. Yes, I know a number of leadership, including HOSs who are honorable, they are a very distinct minority."
Hi Dave, can I see your data on this? And the survey instrument you used to collect the data?
Hi Dave, can I see your data on this? And the survey instrument you used to collect the data?
Re: How soon to receive contract after accepting at a fair?
Congratulations. I hope you realize that this could have gone very wrong for you very quickly and apply the knowledge toward any similar future situations.
Good luck at your new job.
Good luck at your new job.
Reply
@Thames Pirate
I consider my position sufficiently strong to withstand debate, otherwise I wouldnt advance it.
It doesnt translate that she wasnt aware you heard her previous instructions either. What you refer to as obvious is just a professional face, you dont know if they hold the HOS in high regard, its not like if they held them in low regard they could tell you either. For all you know the associate was aware of you and believing you may have heard less than complimentary advice, put on a smile and added a few endearing comments to protect the business interests of the agency. It may very well have been nothing more than PR.
Your prior research may be inaccurate, unreliable and/or bias. Your observations and conclusions may be no more than a behavioral confirmation.
So your data of the board is comprised of advertising, PR, and gossip? Do you expect that subversive opinions and sources of information are going to be readily available or published?
Boards dont generally withdraw or rescind contracts arbitrarily, but they do, and that conclusion contradicts the previous statement that they dont. How do you know they dont have a history of arbitrarily rescinding contracts or appointments, they told you so, or their better at hiding their actions than you are at discovering them.
There are a number of scenarios that sending a recruiter to a fair to recruit and then withdrawing the contract/appointment is not only logical, but a good idea. What you and ITs consider reasonable and good cause often differs from what leadership and ownership consider reasonable and good cause.
I base my responses on data and argument. Your assessment of your spouses ability to determine character has a certain degree of bias, perhaps you need to observe a greater and broader range of people? Thats the problem with sociopaths they act and look just like everyone else. Despite your claims, I have serious reservations in regard to your husbands ability as a human polygraph.
It could just as much be a greater risk than you believe, and underestimated the risk. Contracts really dont mean very much.
I consider my position sufficiently strong to withstand debate, otherwise I wouldnt advance it.
It doesnt translate that she wasnt aware you heard her previous instructions either. What you refer to as obvious is just a professional face, you dont know if they hold the HOS in high regard, its not like if they held them in low regard they could tell you either. For all you know the associate was aware of you and believing you may have heard less than complimentary advice, put on a smile and added a few endearing comments to protect the business interests of the agency. It may very well have been nothing more than PR.
Your prior research may be inaccurate, unreliable and/or bias. Your observations and conclusions may be no more than a behavioral confirmation.
So your data of the board is comprised of advertising, PR, and gossip? Do you expect that subversive opinions and sources of information are going to be readily available or published?
Boards dont generally withdraw or rescind contracts arbitrarily, but they do, and that conclusion contradicts the previous statement that they dont. How do you know they dont have a history of arbitrarily rescinding contracts or appointments, they told you so, or their better at hiding their actions than you are at discovering them.
There are a number of scenarios that sending a recruiter to a fair to recruit and then withdrawing the contract/appointment is not only logical, but a good idea. What you and ITs consider reasonable and good cause often differs from what leadership and ownership consider reasonable and good cause.
I base my responses on data and argument. Your assessment of your spouses ability to determine character has a certain degree of bias, perhaps you need to observe a greater and broader range of people? Thats the problem with sociopaths they act and look just like everyone else. Despite your claims, I have serious reservations in regard to your husbands ability as a human polygraph.
It could just as much be a greater risk than you believe, and underestimated the risk. Contracts really dont mean very much.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: How soon to receive contract after accepting at a fair?
I translate the associate's words--an unsolicited "oh, he's doing great things in that school, you'll really enjoy working with him, really upstanding . . . " when all we said was the name of the school (and which she didn't do for other schools) as holding him in high regard personally.
I also realize research can be limited or misleading, but it DOES yield results. Otherwise, why do it? And I said teacher grapevine, not gossip. That means talking to people who have worked with the individual, for example, and reading things on here and similar sites. I suppose one could use the word gossip to refer to all reviews, anecdotes, etc., but then why have sites like this? We also looked at parent reviews, expat forums, what the local media said about the school, and anything else we could find. It's a top tier, USDOS endorsed school, so there is a fair amount out there.
Again, I suppose it's possible that ALL the data we collected and our own observations could be wrong. It's possible that a school that has no known history of bugging out on verbal commitments or having the board interfere with hiring could all of a sudden have the board decide against us for no real reason and without knowing us. It's possible they kept word of such actions off of the internet entirely (because THAT is easy to enforce after you have already burned the teacher and have no legal connection to them). Yes, those possibilities exist.
They did say pending references, so it was always possible they could turn up a liar in our past who sabotaged us--of course, that's not dishonesty on the school's part, and it wasn't a concern for us. There is the possibility that a person would take advantage of the non-binding part of the notice and the protections afforded by local labor laws to decide to stay--but a contract would have been issued by that point anyway, so whether it was given in the hotel room or the next week is moot.
I am agreeing that it is not necessarily a good piece of advice to do what we did and that in most scenarios one should have a contract. I am saying that we based our choice to make an exception on our data for THIS SCENARIO. And just because you don't trust anyone doesn't mean my husband isn't a fantastic judge of character. Believe it or not, sociopaths are few and far between, and while they may fool even the most astute person, the reputation would out them. So no, we didn't just trust my husband's judgment of character. No, we didn't just trust the associate in the office. We didn't just trust what we read on the school website. We didn't just trust that because the school is not-for-profit nothing could happen. We didn't just trust what our contacts reported. We didn't just trust the local media. We didn't just trust ISR. We put ALL of the evidence together. So it was a calculated risk, but it was minimized by the fact that we had a LOT of data.
By the way, if contracts "really don't really mean very much," why the insistence on one?
Again, ultimately you have to trust that a school will honor its word, whether that is given through a handshake, a letter of intent to hire, or a contract. All of these can be rescinded with minimal difficulty. What protects ITs is precisely what we amassed--information.
But seriously, why continue with this nonsense? I agree that it is a risk and one people should, for the most part, not take.
I also realize research can be limited or misleading, but it DOES yield results. Otherwise, why do it? And I said teacher grapevine, not gossip. That means talking to people who have worked with the individual, for example, and reading things on here and similar sites. I suppose one could use the word gossip to refer to all reviews, anecdotes, etc., but then why have sites like this? We also looked at parent reviews, expat forums, what the local media said about the school, and anything else we could find. It's a top tier, USDOS endorsed school, so there is a fair amount out there.
Again, I suppose it's possible that ALL the data we collected and our own observations could be wrong. It's possible that a school that has no known history of bugging out on verbal commitments or having the board interfere with hiring could all of a sudden have the board decide against us for no real reason and without knowing us. It's possible they kept word of such actions off of the internet entirely (because THAT is easy to enforce after you have already burned the teacher and have no legal connection to them). Yes, those possibilities exist.
They did say pending references, so it was always possible they could turn up a liar in our past who sabotaged us--of course, that's not dishonesty on the school's part, and it wasn't a concern for us. There is the possibility that a person would take advantage of the non-binding part of the notice and the protections afforded by local labor laws to decide to stay--but a contract would have been issued by that point anyway, so whether it was given in the hotel room or the next week is moot.
I am agreeing that it is not necessarily a good piece of advice to do what we did and that in most scenarios one should have a contract. I am saying that we based our choice to make an exception on our data for THIS SCENARIO. And just because you don't trust anyone doesn't mean my husband isn't a fantastic judge of character. Believe it or not, sociopaths are few and far between, and while they may fool even the most astute person, the reputation would out them. So no, we didn't just trust my husband's judgment of character. No, we didn't just trust the associate in the office. We didn't just trust what we read on the school website. We didn't just trust that because the school is not-for-profit nothing could happen. We didn't just trust what our contacts reported. We didn't just trust the local media. We didn't just trust ISR. We put ALL of the evidence together. So it was a calculated risk, but it was minimized by the fact that we had a LOT of data.
By the way, if contracts "really don't really mean very much," why the insistence on one?
Again, ultimately you have to trust that a school will honor its word, whether that is given through a handshake, a letter of intent to hire, or a contract. All of these can be rescinded with minimal difficulty. What protects ITs is precisely what we amassed--information.
But seriously, why continue with this nonsense? I agree that it is a risk and one people should, for the most part, not take.
Reply
@Thames Pirate
Your translation is subject to inaccuracy and deception.
Is your position that bad data and conclusions are superior to no data and the subsequent conclusions? The objective is data and findings with high validity and reliability.
Does this grapevine manufacture a particular varietal and vintage? I understand you would like to maintain the position that grapevine and gossip are indistinct.
Its unlikely all the data is in error, its how the data applies to you, and if the your welfare is going to be a casualty of artifact of margin of error.
Contracts arent really enforceable, theyre like a toothless puppy, that thinks its a wolf.
It doesnt mean he is a good evaluator of character either, such claims are not self authenticating.
Its relatively easy for an IS to conceal misconduct, there is little regulation to provide oversight.
About 1 in 20 individuals have non-acute pseudo-form sociopathic behavior. They are just better at concealing it then most people are at detecting it.
Commitment and consistency, and the pervasiveness of ego. Leadership has an image to protect, an image to maintain and an image to advance. They dont want a threat to their ego or image, once they commit to something the tendency much like momentum is self reinforcing to be be consistent with that behavior.
IT contracts are adhesion contracts, they have no protections for you. An IT with a few exceptions is essentially an at will employee. Even basic terms such as remuneration are stable by the grace of leadership/ownership. Your contract likely includes terms that your salary will comply with the compensation scale set by ownership, and may even indicate a date or term of time that salary scale applies, but ownership can simply vote or wholly decide to change that policy. ITs have arrived on site, to find their contracts voided and required to execute all new contracts with far less favorable terms, and there is little an IT can do about it.
I continue because we disagree on what is and isnt nonsense. If you feel this is nonsense as indicative of your comment why do you persist?
Your translation is subject to inaccuracy and deception.
Is your position that bad data and conclusions are superior to no data and the subsequent conclusions? The objective is data and findings with high validity and reliability.
Does this grapevine manufacture a particular varietal and vintage? I understand you would like to maintain the position that grapevine and gossip are indistinct.
Its unlikely all the data is in error, its how the data applies to you, and if the your welfare is going to be a casualty of artifact of margin of error.
Contracts arent really enforceable, theyre like a toothless puppy, that thinks its a wolf.
It doesnt mean he is a good evaluator of character either, such claims are not self authenticating.
Its relatively easy for an IS to conceal misconduct, there is little regulation to provide oversight.
About 1 in 20 individuals have non-acute pseudo-form sociopathic behavior. They are just better at concealing it then most people are at detecting it.
Commitment and consistency, and the pervasiveness of ego. Leadership has an image to protect, an image to maintain and an image to advance. They dont want a threat to their ego or image, once they commit to something the tendency much like momentum is self reinforcing to be be consistent with that behavior.
IT contracts are adhesion contracts, they have no protections for you. An IT with a few exceptions is essentially an at will employee. Even basic terms such as remuneration are stable by the grace of leadership/ownership. Your contract likely includes terms that your salary will comply with the compensation scale set by ownership, and may even indicate a date or term of time that salary scale applies, but ownership can simply vote or wholly decide to change that policy. ITs have arrived on site, to find their contracts voided and required to execute all new contracts with far less favorable terms, and there is little an IT can do about it.
I continue because we disagree on what is and isnt nonsense. If you feel this is nonsense as indicative of your comment why do you persist?
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: How soon to receive contract after accepting at a fair?
Why are you so sure the data is bad? Since the expected outcome--the school following through and honoring its promise to send the contract--has already happened, I would say that the data seems to have been good. Again, when the data comes from multiple sources, it is more likely to be accurate--so we got multiple sources. You are right that it is a risk--something I have repeatedly acknowledged. The data just meant it was a very calculated one.
Yes, the grapevine is fantastic--hey, former colleague who now runs PD in a number of schools across the region including this one--what can you tell me about the school? Hey, former colleague whose father is HOS in the same region and works closely with HOS in question, what does he know and what do you know? Hey, IT friend who used to work at this school, what is your impression? Hey, we were in the city (for an unrelated reason), arranged a tour of the campus, and got a chance to shoot the breeze with you current teachers--what would you say? Hey, former colleague who is part of an organization on which HOS sits on the board, what can you tell us? If that is gossip to you, fine--but then let's be consistent and call sites like this one gossip sites. Or, if they are distinct, tell me the difference and I will tell you if I used grapevine, gossip, or some combination thereof.
The point is that you CAN get a lot of independent data this way, and when numerous sources give the same information or insight, that's independent verification.
No, having data verified doesn't make my husband a good judge of character, but his success with this skill over the years indicates he is. But that's not something I could easily verify on a forum like this, now, is it? Suffice it to say that I know him and his abilities far better than you do, so we're going with my assessment on this one. Though in this instance, his skill was not really necessary as this HOS is as pretty easy read, highly transparent, and exactly what we had deduced from our many sources. Sure, he could be a skilled sociopath, fooling us and everyone around him--but if his behavior follows what he says and we get the contract, then what do I care if in his heart he is simultaneously plotting to sink our futures?
And while it's easy to conceal some things, the internet is a big place. There is little regulation to provide oversight of wronged teachers.
Again, if contracts are unenforceable, why is it even a risk to walk out without one as opposed to with one? There isn't really a difference, is there? We are all just relying on the good graces of a school to keep us employed.
I am trying to figure out why you insist it was such a poor decision when even having a contract is essentially meaningless, why you insist we couldn't possibly know enough to make an informed decision simply because, well, you just think so, and why you want so badly to discredit me. That is why I persist.
Yes, the grapevine is fantastic--hey, former colleague who now runs PD in a number of schools across the region including this one--what can you tell me about the school? Hey, former colleague whose father is HOS in the same region and works closely with HOS in question, what does he know and what do you know? Hey, IT friend who used to work at this school, what is your impression? Hey, we were in the city (for an unrelated reason), arranged a tour of the campus, and got a chance to shoot the breeze with you current teachers--what would you say? Hey, former colleague who is part of an organization on which HOS sits on the board, what can you tell us? If that is gossip to you, fine--but then let's be consistent and call sites like this one gossip sites. Or, if they are distinct, tell me the difference and I will tell you if I used grapevine, gossip, or some combination thereof.
The point is that you CAN get a lot of independent data this way, and when numerous sources give the same information or insight, that's independent verification.
No, having data verified doesn't make my husband a good judge of character, but his success with this skill over the years indicates he is. But that's not something I could easily verify on a forum like this, now, is it? Suffice it to say that I know him and his abilities far better than you do, so we're going with my assessment on this one. Though in this instance, his skill was not really necessary as this HOS is as pretty easy read, highly transparent, and exactly what we had deduced from our many sources. Sure, he could be a skilled sociopath, fooling us and everyone around him--but if his behavior follows what he says and we get the contract, then what do I care if in his heart he is simultaneously plotting to sink our futures?
And while it's easy to conceal some things, the internet is a big place. There is little regulation to provide oversight of wronged teachers.
Again, if contracts are unenforceable, why is it even a risk to walk out without one as opposed to with one? There isn't really a difference, is there? We are all just relying on the good graces of a school to keep us employed.
I am trying to figure out why you insist it was such a poor decision when even having a contract is essentially meaningless, why you insist we couldn't possibly know enough to make an informed decision simply because, well, you just think so, and why you want so badly to discredit me. That is why I persist.