First, this issue was raised by the parents...not the teachers, not the administration, not the union...
Some of the parents apparently care about the quality of teaching when so many substitutes are trying to cover for so many teachers being absent so often.
Not only it this a huge additional expense on the taxpayers, but a quality issue of the educational experience.
So many parents do not care about their kids education, it is good to see that some, finally, apparently do care.
It seems that the teachers and their unions do not care enough about the students education.
The second point : if one is really sick, then one should stay home or go to the hospital to get well.
That is apparently not the case here. The sick days are just another industrial union benefit...like three months off in the summer, every major and minor holiday off, two weeks paid at Christmas...
I hear what you are saying but it is a job. What do parents do at their job when they need to take a day off? Would it not be better to deal with a few slackers and have subs or teachers aides that they feel are A+ to step in to cover when needed.
You raise some decent points. We actually had a day before a holiday here where the district said that we couldn't have any substitutes.
I wonder if people ever stop to consider the fact that sick days are meant to be taken if they are sick? Is it a lie if they call in sick and use that day for personal business?
I have worked in a couple of manufacturing plants that do not have sick days. The plants run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Each worker works their 8 hour shift or until they are relieved. The person will be forced to work another shift if his relief doesn't show up. 16 hour shifts are not uncommon.