UNT System to adopt at-will policy

[Skipper]

Valerie Gonzalez / Assigning Editor After four months of considering a move to at-will employment, UNT Chancellor Lee Jackson announced an adoption of the policy in a staff-wide email sent out March 20. The adoption of the at-will policy will allow institutions of the UNT System to fire staff employees for any reason that is not illegal­­ –– which federal and state laws describe as age, race, sex, disability, religion and national origin. “Effective June 1, all current and future employees within the UNT System, except faculty and individuals under contract, serve at-will,†Jackson wrote in the email. While the [...]

View the full article

[Harry]

This is big!!

[KRAM1]

Works for me. I am very much in favor of this move. Should also be done in all federal, state and local governments, school districts, etc,., etc. And each and every state in the nation should adopt "at will" work policies for their citizens. Hey, just my opinion...if you are a labor union guy you will probably disagree...

[UNTLifer]

This is big!!

And the right thing to do.

[rcade]

Government agencies should be required to justify why they're firing people. We all wanted answers when President Bataille was dumped.

[Harry]

Government agencies should be required to justify why they're firing people. We all wanted answers when President Bataille was dumped.

I disagree with this opinion rcade. Why should the government employee be treated any differently than those in the private sector? This policy hampers UNT in hiring and retaining the best and brightest - if someone isn't doing their job they basically cannot be fired. There was a time when the compensation differences for working in the government vs. the private sector made this type of policy more reasonable. However, with the financial meltdown and this ailing economy we have reached a point where the government employee has more stability, is being paid more and receives more retirement security than the private sector. These are employees being paid through the taxes generated from the private sector. I have a problem with that.

[rcade]

I disagree with this opinion rcade. Why should the government employee be treated any differently than those in the private sector?

Because the government employee is accountable to the public.

I agree with you there are drawbacks to not letting people be fired at will. But in general, I'd like to know that when somebody is fired from a government job the decision has to be justified.

[GL2Greatness]

Government agencies should be required to justify why they're firing people. We all wanted answers when President Bataille was dumped.

why should a government job be a job for life

if there is no need for your position or your position needs to be cut because of budget cuts then you should be let go....what more explanation does someone need just because they work for the government why should they not be subjected to being let go if there is not a need for them any longer

and if they violated a rule of employment that would be explained to them when they are let go just like anywhere else

and for those that know what was going on and that were able to read the available information we know why Dr. b was let go.....because she wanted to run the university as a president should and she did not want to let the idiot lee jackson run the university which is not the job of a chancellor in Texas

she wanted to raise tuition and lee did not and when she took it to the BOR he got mad

she wanted to stop the Denton campus from subsidizing the UCD and other dallas economic development projects and lee wanted to continue to use the Denton campus as a city of dallas economic development slush fund

she wanted to be informed when things were being taken from the Denton campus and she wanted a say in that and the idiot lee wanted to move it all to dallas to benefit his friends and associates and she resented that and questioned it

so lee the idiot fired her

[rcade]

why should a government job be a job for life

I never said that it should.

and for those that know what was going on and that were able to read the available information we know why Dr. b was let go.....because she wanted to run the university as a president should and she did not want to let the idiot lee jackson run the university which is not the job of a chancellor in Texas

Given all of that, do you think UNT would have been served by a rule that let Jackson fire her for no reason? I'd like to think there's a nice paper trail at UNT describing everything that went down when she was shown the door, and the Board of Regents and others can review it.

[meangreendork]

Have any of you actually read the new policy? It's basically a softened version of the private sector's policy. Instead of the private sector's insta-fire, this one requires some review process and has appeals built into it. I think it's better than the old "you gotta commit murder to get fired" system and it's better than the private sector's, "good morning, by the way, you're fired" system.

[FirefightnRick]

Hey, just my opinion...if you are a labor union guy you will probably disagree...

I'm a labor union guy and I agree with you 100%

Rick

[GL2Greatness]

I never said that it should.

Given all of that, do you think UNT would have been served by a rule that let Jackson fire her for no reason? I'd like to think there's a nice paper trail at UNT describing everything that went down when she was shown the door, and the Board of Regents and others can review it.

well you are missing out on the very large fact that UNT did not have the "at will" policy in place when she was fired.....and she was really not "fired" per say anyway she was made uncomfortable enough and compensated enough that she walked away

so even with the former policy in place and before the "at will" policy was in place what you are concerned about already happened and it happened to the highest official of the university.....so really the policy that you favor was already a failure and really it is only an avenue for stupid lawsuits from lower level employees that will not be bought out to step away

again if there is a budget cut there is no need for a huge drawn out "why you are being let go" pity party and if someone is let go because of some unjust factor there are plenty of rules, laws, government agencies, and shyster lawyers in place to handle their potential issue just like the fool professor with the big chief tablet legal filing at the south dallas flagship campus......and of course since her "case" was junk it was tossed....even before the "at will" policy was in place.....which shows again that even idiots with ZERO actual legal issues for their firing will get their day in court of they desire one so there is no need for a complex system of giving a big long explanation and justification to everyone that is let go for any reason

there are plenty of state and federal laws dealing with employment there does not need to be special university specific policies in place to justify why someone is being let go

hell UNT could not even fire a provost making well into the 6 figures for blatant plagiarizing so I don't think there is a rash of unjust firings going on around UNT that anyone needs to be protected from and if there are as shown by the big chief legal filing they will get their day in court even if they get tossed right back out for being wrong

Edited March 28, 2012 by GL2Greatness

[Monkeypox]

As it is, and trust me as a person who has hired and fired in both the public and private sector, and has to interview and train people. With or without this policy, it's a PITA the fire, find, interview, hire, and train new people - so much so, that in BOTH sectors you put up with more incompetent asshats that need firing than you should.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

As it is, and trust me as a person who has hired and fired in both the public and private sector, and has to interview and train people. With or without this policy, it's a PITA the fire, find, interview, hire, and train new people - so much so, that in BOTH sectors you put up with more incompetent asshats that need firing than you should.

Agreed. I never understood this until I was in the position of having to hire and manage. Your hands are tied on what you can ask candidates. It makes for an uncomfortable interview process because you never really get to know the candidate.

So, when you hire one whose personal life is constantly pulling them out of their job and screwing up your company, you have to walk on eggshells and document to the moon to be able to get rid of them.

To me, At-Will is simply a give back: You can't totally qualify someone up front without threat of discrimination, so we give you a pass on the backside if the hire is screwed up.

[Monkeypox]

Just how much freaking time it wastes to get another employee on the HOPES they're not as big a screw-up as the last one.

[oldguystudent]

So it says, "Faculty under contract." What does it mean for the future of tenure? Two good reasons that professors should be allowed tenure, even with some of the crappiest faculty members I've met in my life hanging out in crevices.

1) Academic freedom. You don't become Tier 1 by forcing your faculty to come up with research topics and results that agree with the opinions of the regents, the general public, or your average Mean Green Football fan. Sometimes you even breed the occasional Timothy Leary or Ted Kaczynski. Other times, you breed Nobel laureates.

2) See #1 and tell me how UNT would attract any decent faculty in the future if it's a true at-will employment policy that would guarantee nothing?

Out there in the real working without a net world, they give you contracts, but tenure is an implied lifetime contract. You give me opportunity at Arlington and Denton, one has tenure, one has at-will, guess where I'm headed.

[KRAM1]

Because the government employee is accountable to the public.

I agree with you there are drawbacks to not letting people be fired at will. But in general, I'd like to know that when somebody is fired from a government job the decision has to be justified.

It shouldn't have to be justified to you.

[KRAM1]

Out there in the real working without a net world, they give you contracts, but tenure is an implied lifetime contract. You give me opportunity at Arlington and Denton, one has tenure, one has at-will, guess where I'm headed.

Where and why? So, some "guarantee" of lifetime employment is the only factor? I think that is perhaps one factor, but the only one? Seems to me that any good employee, hard working employee including profs and teachers should have enough self-confidence to not need the guarantee...sure, in the academic world there probably should be some safeguards regaring academic freedom, but one's quality and quantity of work should be the determining factor, yes?

[GL2Greatness]

So it says, "Faculty under contract." What does it mean for the future of tenure? Two good reasons that professors should be allowed tenure, even with some of the crappiest faculty members I've met in my life hanging out in crevices.

1) Academic freedom. You don't become Tier 1 by forcing your faculty to come up with research topics and results that agree with the opinions of the regents, the general public, or your average Mean Green Football fan. Sometimes you even breed the occasional Timothy Leary or Ted Kaczynski. Other times, you breed Nobel laureates.

2) See #1 and tell me how UNT would attract any decent faculty in the future if it's a true at-will employment policy that would guarantee nothing?

Out there in the real working without a net world, they give you contracts, but tenure is an implied lifetime contract. You give me opportunity at Arlington and Denton, one has tenure, one has at-will, guess where I'm headed.

actually this is what it says

“Effective June 1, all current and future employees within the UNT System, except faculty and individuals under contract, serve at-will,” Jackson wrote in the email.

so it exempts faculty and it exempts others that are under individual contracts....you were not reading what it said correctly

and usually faculty that are not tenured are under some type of contract and or tenure track agreement that spells out the time period they have to try and obtain tenure before their employment goes under review

usually it is 3 to 4 years to gain tenure or to go for a tenure review and than subsequent to the results of that tenure review you are either tenured, you are given an extended period of time to undergo a second tenure review, or you are given a year or so to find a new job and wrap up your affairs at the current university....in some cases you might be retained and not given a second chance to go for tenure and then you would be given contracts usually 3 years in length or so subject to renewal

[Monkeypox]

actually this is what it says

“Effective June 1, all current and future employees within the UNT System, except faculty and individuals under contract, serve at-will,” Jackson wrote in the email.

so it exempts faculty and it exempts others that are under individual contracts....you were not reading what it said correctly

and usually faculty that are not tenured are under some type of contract and or tenure track agreement that spells out the time period they have to try and obtain tenure before their employment goes under review

usually it is 3 to 4 years to gain tenure or to go for a tenure review and than subsequent to the results of that tenure review you are either tenured, you are given an extended period of time to undergo a second tenure review, or you are given a year or so to find a new job and wrap up your affairs at the current university....in some cases you might be retained and not given a second chance to go for tenure and then you would be given contracts usually 3 years in length or so subject to renewal

Exactly. And in a number of cases, tenure TRACK employees are actually at-will(depending on terms of contracts, obviously). At-will is a default.

[oldguystudent]

you were not reading what it said correctly

Thanks for clarifying. That's an important exemption in my opinion.