Highest Paid Teachers Reject 16% Raise - Go on Strike.

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

Yes, you are parsing. You started off this thread by grousing about the teachers' avg. salary (by comparing their avg. to an avg. that includes non-college educated professions...not cool) over and over and over again. But once it was made clear that their actual salary wasn't the issue they were striking over, you tried to lump it all into the category of "compensation" in order to justify your off-target, ill-informed bitching.

Or do you not understand the difference between "I'm not happy with my salary" and "I'm happy with my salary, but not the way in which I am evaluated and raises are given"?

[Seth]

I think the strike should've been averted beforehand also, but Coito (and the National Review, to absolutely nobody's surprise) are using money to frame the argument against the strike. However, if you listen to the reasons the teachers have for striking, money really isn't one of them. Salary negotiations went well and the two sides are pretty well done on that. The teachers' bigger grievances have to do with unfair (in their view) job security and performance evaluation methods.

Correct. The function of teacher's unions is to prevent teachers from being fired or evaluated. That's pretty much it. They will defend KNOWN child-molesters and utter incompetents because their agenda has nothing whatever to do with educating children, it's completely and only about keeping union members employed and slopping at the public trough.

That's why they object to any sort of performance-linked salary arrangement or any provision that allows a school board to fire a teacher for malfeasance, incompetence or non-performance.

I don't know about Chicago, but in New York City, the union-contract rules for firing a teacher are so byzantine that it can take seven years...or forever...to fire incompetent teachers or known pedophiles. They have a whole "rubber room" building in NYC specifically for teachers who cannot be in contact with children for various reasons to spend their days running internet businesses and idling about because NYC cannot get through the termination process due to the obstructionism of the unions.

I'd be very surprised if the situation is any different in Chicago, the home of corrupt union politics.

[tantamount]

I wonder just how much people feel a school teacher who has a masters degree and 5-10 years experience should make? Waiter/waitress type wages? Minimum wage?

Or are we trying to have it both ways, i.e. saying "education is a priority" but refusing to pay for it?

Haven't you heard?
Teachers, policeman, firemen, transit workers, anyone who works in a state or federal building...
They're not real jobs, they don't affect (un)employment rates, they don't deserve real wages.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES,

Yes, you are parsing. You started off this thread by grousing about the teachers' avg. salary (by comparing their avg. to an avg. that includes non-college educated professions...not cool) over and over and over again. But once it was made clear that their actual salary wasn't the issue they were striking over,

You keep saying that, but you are flat wrong. I'm sick of you continually stating that referencing the salary is not cool. It is a major sticking point. I cited authority above. You're wrong. Stop kicking this horse. It is part of what they're striking about.

you tried to lump it all into the category of "compensation" in order to justify your off-target, ill-informed bitching.

I didn't lump anything together with anything else. Their pay and benefits, and how they get raises, among other things, are all on the table. nothing was agreed to, and they aren't striking ONLY about class size and such. They are ALSO striking because they aren't agreeable to the pay, benefits, and other items.

Or do you not understand the difference between "I'm not happy with my salary" and "I'm happy with my salary, but not the way in which I am evaluated and raises are given"?

They did not say they were happy with their salary, or the proposed raises. That's what you're inventing.

[Seth]

I wonder just how much people feel a school teacher who has a masters degree and 5-10 years experience should make? Waiter/waitress type wages? Minimum wage?

Or are we trying to have it both ways, i.e. saying "education is a priority" but refusing to pay for it?

Haven't you heard?
Teachers, policeman, firemen, transit workers, anyone who works in a state or federal building...
They're not real jobs, they don't affect (un)employment rates, they don't deserve real wages.

They deserve ordinary wages, not extraordinary ones. And they do NOT deserve to be permitted to organize a union. That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen, allowing public employees to form unions and negotiate with, essentially, themselves. That's WHY Chicago teachers make nearly twice the average wage.

The notion of public-sector unions is completely asinine. If you work for the government, you work at the pleasure of the People and you take what they are willing to give you or you go get a job in the private sector if that's not good enough for you.

[Gerald McGrew]

You keep saying that, but you are flat wrong. I'm sick of you continually stating that referencing the salary is not cool. It is a major sticking point. I cited authority above. You're wrong. Stop kicking this horse. It is part of what they're striking about.

Look at your first series of posts in this thread. They're all focused on the fact that the avg. teacher's salary in Chicago is $76k. You didn't start down the "Uh...I meant compensation as a whole, not just salary" until it was pointed out that they're not striking because they think $76k per year is insufficient.

And the "not cool" remark was about you trying to compare teachers' avg. salary with overall avg's, which include unskilled, non-college educated professions. Either you knew how inapt that comparison was, making you guilty of dishonest spin, or you didn't, making you ignorant of the facts.

I didn't lump anything together with anything else.

Oh FFS. You tried to lump their salary in with "other compensation issues" in order to justify your carping about them making $76k per year, even though there's been absolutely nothing to indicate that they're striking because they think their salaries are too low.

Their pay and benefits, and how they get raises, among other things, are all on the table. nothing was agreed to, and they aren't striking ONLY about class size and such. They are ALSO striking because they aren't agreeable to the pay, benefits, and other items.

Show me where the union has said they're striking because they didn't like their pay.

They did not say they were happy with their salary, or the proposed raises. That's what you're inventing.

Show me where the union has said they're striking because they didn't like their pay. And while you're at it, just how much do you think a professional with a masters degree and 10 years experience should earn per year?

[Coito ergo sum]

A top sticking point? Pay increases to compensate teachers for working a longer school day. But just how do teachers’ salaries here compare to teachers’ salaries across the country?

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/ ... hers-make/

Pay increases are a "top sticking point."

Show me where the union said they were happy with their pay.

[Gerald McGrew]

Right....pay increases.

I asked: Do you not understand the difference between "I'm not happy with my salary" and "I'm happy with my salary, but not the way in which I am evaluated and raises are given"?

I obviously have my answer. Either the difference is beyond you, or you are so dug in you'll forever refuse to acknowledge it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Right....pay increases.

I asked: Do you not understand the difference between "I'm not happy with my salary" and "I'm happy with my salary, but not the way in which I am evaluated and raises are given"?

When they say "pay increases" they don't just mean the manner in which they are evaluated. They are upset about the manner in which they are evaluated ALSO, but in addition to that, they are not happy with their present pay.

Again - where do you get the idea that they're happy with their salaries? Citation needed.

I obviously have my answer. Either the difference is beyond you, or you are so dug in you'll forever refuse to acknowledge it.

LOL -- I'm dug in? I showed you a fucking quote from a union member and you rewrite it to mean what you want it to mean.

[laklak]

I have no idea what teachers should be paid. Probably more than they get at the moment, but then again I deserve to be paid more than I get at the moment. They're free to seek employment elsewhere if they're unhappy with their current situation, I'm sure there are plenty of qualified people who could fill their positions.

That said, I don't think you can evaluate a teacher's effectiveness strictly on standardized test scores.

[Gerald McGrew]

they are not happy with their present pay.

You've not shown that at all. And as I said, I have my answer on whether or not you understand the difference between being ok with your present salary, but not being happy with your pay raise schedule and what it's based on.

If that is beyond you, this discussion is impossible.

[Ian]

556584_10151139265519712_1527850658_n.jpg (21.22 KiB) Viewed 556 times

[Coito ergo sum]

they are not happy with their present pay.

You've not shown that at all. And as I said, I have my answer on whether or not you understand the difference between being ok with your present salary, but not being happy with your pay raise schedule and what it's based on.

If that is beyond you, this discussion is impossible.

I have. I've posted the link twice, which stays that pay increases are a major sticking point, and the words were quoted from a union leader.

You have presented no evidence for you're quoted material that they are happy with their present pay.

And, this is now yet another time where you pepper your comments with bullshit imputations that either I'm an idiot or something is "beyond me." I'm going to tell you right now to knock that juvenile bullshit the fuck off. It's irritating, uncalled for, snide, and snarky. I've resisted responding to your silly imputations, but since they're becoming more frequent, I thought I would tell you now to fuck off with that shit.

[Coito ergo sum]

556584_10151139265519712_1527850658_n.jpg

So, then they ought to be back in the classroom fulfilling their altruistic dreams of educating the chil'run and fulfilling their passion to be inspiring teachers.

[Ian]

556584_10151139265519712_1527850658_n.jpg

So, then they ought to be back in the classroom fulfilling their altruistic dreams of educating the chil'run and fulfilling their passion to be inspiring teachers.

You can't seem to get out of the mindset that they're focused on money.

You're focused on money. They're striking because of other matters.

Captain Obvious to the rescue!