March 29, 2002
Dear Mr. Daniels and
Members of the Board,
Naturally, we are
very disappointed in the approval of the proposed non- regular teaching contract whereby long-serving ASIJ teachers will receive
approximately a 30% reduction in income, due to their becoming 60 years old. We
realize that you are very committed and we appreciate the time you spend on ASIJ matters, but in the Ricketson Theater meeting
in January, you stated that you would be willing to continue the dialogue with those concerned until the issue was satisfactorily
resolved. We hope you will honor that commitment.
We are requesting another meeting in early April. Much credence seems
to have been given to a couple of surveys that were very poorly written and completed with little chance of any staff discussion
regarding these issues. These surveys were basically written, collected, counted
and interpreted by the Administration (Business Director) amidst objections from members of the FSCC. It also seemed strange to be compared to Nishimachi and Canadian Academy.
We have never before been compared to Nishimachi nor Canadian Academy. What about Taipei American School, Singapore
American School, American School in London, Seoul Foreign School, or Hong Kong International?
We do not intend to
be whiners and complainers, and we are not trying to be a divisive element of the faculty, but being allowed to stay at
ASIJ was not the issue. ASIJ has had a very workable retirement policy
for nearly 40 years. This goes back to the days of the American passage of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Acts (ADEA) in the mid 1960s. Over these years,
the retirement policy has been used very infrequently, but the language and the interpretation was always to allow capable
teachers to continue employment at ASIJ on a year-by-year basis. There were some
who were not allowed to stay and most of the faculty understood these reasons. Possibly,
more often, the teachers realized it was time to leave.
The interpretation
of the retirement policy changed very dramatically in the past couple years. This
was a change that took place with no discussion and no agreement from the faculty.
Under basic Japanese law, this is illegal. Several of us have spent many
years on FSCC and other committees to work with the Board on the adoption and revisions of these personnel policies--and we
find it very appalling to see them unilaterally re-interpreted and changed. THIS
is the cause of our concern.
We are very happy
to see that one of our long-serving teachers will be taken on tour of the US for fund-raising purposes and that some retired
long-serving teachers will be flown here for the centennial celebrations next year. We fully support these efforts, which
both recognize the value of these long-serving teachers and provide tangible evidence of gratitude for their services. But does it not seem ironic that current long-serving teachers will at the same
time have an income reduction of nearly 30%? What kind of an educational message
are we sending to our students by saying that a person is no longer worth as much when they become 60 years of age? We know from comments of returning alumni that they are glad to see that some of their teachers are still
here. Even recent graduates comment that there are so many new teachers. Peter Cooper has mentioned in a memo in 1996 that, "The alumni are genuinely
pleased to know that several of their teachers continue to work at ASIJ."
The notification of
mandatory retirement to the affected teachers was definitely handled in less than a professional manner. Those of us (average length of service of about 22 years) who were summoned to Peter Cooper to be told
that our employment would be terminated were extremely upset at his lack of respect and tact.
We were called down in the middle of our teaching day (with no mention of what the meeting was about), into an office
with Peter and a subordinate administrator serving as a witness, with no exchange of pleasantries or discussion of our job
performance or school contributions, to be succinctly told that a decision was made to not extend anyone's contract, and then
dismissed to go about our teaching for the rest of the day. This was described
by the teachers as shocking, rude, weird, incomprehensible, dumbfounded, and hard to believe. From Jeffrey Bernbachs book, Job Discrimination 2, (page 10): "When a person
loses a job, is denied a promotion, is sexually harassed, or is relegated to a lesser post because of age, sex, race, religion,
ethnicity, or a physical handicap or illness, the emotional consequences often far exceed any financial lossesemotional distress
must never be taken lightly."
The main concerns
expressed by the Board and Administration have been renewal, cost, and evaluation.
Regarding renewal:
This year there were over 30 vacancies that needed to be filled. Is something wrong with a median length of ASIJ service of
6 years? Is something wrong with a median age of 47? With 25% of the staff
with 4 years or less at ASIJ? With 75% of the staff with 13 years or less at
ASIJ? Look at all the grade level changes, subject or department
changes that are made within the group that does stay, not to mention the educational advancement through sabbaticals, conferences,
and course work. Our jobs are constantly changing with new students, new curriculum,
and new colleagues.
Regarding cost: If the school is in financial need, then why do we have all the new construction projects,
new programs, and new positions created? Must a group of teachers be made to
cut back, so that construction projects can be carried out? The alumni would
attest that facilities do not make a school --relationships between people make a quality school such as ASIJ.
Regarding evaluation: We have been repeatedly told that ASIJ faculty are one of the best faculties in the
international school scene. Good evaluations should then be expected; but
if a teacher is considered to be stagnant, then an evaluation should show that. If
evaluations do not show that, then the evaluators are at fault, not the teachers.
A few more quotes,
this time from pages 22-25 of the book, Age Discrimination in the American Workplace, by Raymond Gregory. (We know that we are in Japan, but we are the American School in Japan).
"Since the enactment
of the ADEA, the Supreme Court in its decisions relating to age discrimination has repeatedly affirmed that it is the very
essence of age discrimination for an older employee to be fired because the employer believes that productivity and competence
decline with age."
"Federal Court of
Appeals Judge Richard Posner has written: To some, age stereotyping is every bit as vicious as racial stereotyping."
"The Commonwealth
Fund Report (1990) revealed no correlation between age and ability to perform, except in those jobs demanding strenuous physical
labor."
"The Wirtz (former
Labor Secretary) report found that 70% of those employers who set age limits for hiring did so without having any data to
support a need for age limits."
"From a 1987 ruling
from the US Court of Appeals Chicago: The justices wrote: Congress enacted
the ADEA precisely because many employers and younger business executives act as if they believe that there are good business
reasons for discriminating against older employees. Retention of senior employees
who can be replaced by younger, lower paid persons frequently competes with other values, such as profits or concepts of economic
efficiency. The ADEA represents a choice among these values. It [ADEA] stands for the proposition that this is a better country for its willingness to pay the costs
for treating older persons fairly."
Hopefully, the Board
would agree that ASIJ is a better school for its willingness to pay the costs for treating older persons fairly.
Awaiting another meeting
with you,
Sincerely,
Representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee on
ASIJ Retirement Policies and other interested faculty.
