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

[Coito ergo sum]

You think public school teachers in inner city school districts have it easy and are over-compensated. What I wonder is, why didn't you go into that field if it's such a cushy job with fantastic perks?

Look -- I never said they "have it easy" and are over-compensated. I said they were fairly compensated, all things considered. They certainly don't have it as bad as you try to paint it.

I wasn't looking for a cushy job when i left college, and I had other priorities. And, back when I graduated, teachers, were, in fact, earning very low salaries (mainly because up until that time teaching was primarily a second-income job filled by women who were obviously funneled to lower paying jobs). For most of the 20th century a teacher was the wife of the family breadwinner who otherwise would be a stay at home mom. So, there was a time when teachers were getting the shaft, compensation and benefits-wise. However, because that once was the case does not mean that that is the case with respect to the Chicago teachers.

[Cunt]

Before getting rowdy about the suggestion, has anyone tried babysitting kids while they read as an alternative to government schools?

Sure. From what I gather the USA is full of homeschooling religious nutjobs.

Yes, but what are their results? Better? Worse? Do the results matter? Or just the fact that they are being indoctrinated into the jew-zombie cult?

It seems that teachers expect a bit too much immunity from criticism.

It's not that, really. Teachers are subject to all kinds of criticism from their senior leadership that they expect and accept as part of the normal expectation of doing their job properly.

The problem is that they're constantly being criticised by ignorant media pundits, and members of the public "informed" by them, who haven't set foot in a school in 30 years and don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about. Mostly based on unfounded hunches and back-of-a-fag-packet "calculations" about how everything would work so much better if we only brought back the cane / got rid of "political correctness" / paid teachers the same as garbage collectors like they deserve / etc. etc.

Some of those ideas might work. For that matter, much of what goes on in schools today is nearly indistinguishable from what went on thirty years ago.

The problem with teachers is that they're expected to do two jobs for the price of one.

Not quite, but you are getting close...

Everything that used to be expected of parents, is now expected of teachers who have to provide the emotional attention and motivation to achievement that dysfunctional home lives lack. And the government likes to pretend that every problem caused by structural economic inequality, poverty and disadvantage, could be solved if teachers only educated people better (in larger classes with less money, of course). 'Cause it's easier to pass the buck than address the problem.

That's the first half...

In any case, they are clearly compromised and should be replaced with something...ANYTHING which demonstrates to work better.

That's a great suggestion. Now, let's see: the only thing that I know of that has consistently, in many different countries and settings, been DEMONSTRATED to work better, is halving class sizes, massively increasing budgets and improving facilities, since that's what they do in private schools, which get consistently better results. (Of course the other thing they do in private schools is not take students who are poor, or have learning or behavioural disabilities - but I assume we are talking about an inclusive solution to state education so that's not an answer.)

Problem sorted, eh?

The problem is that, either things are too good for teachers and they dare not spoil their gold-plated job.

Or, that they have really been worked harder than a person should...been forced to volunteer hours...been paid less than they deserve...been under-resourced and blamed for the shortcomings.

If THAT is true, then I think teachers are to blame. They have let their emotions be manipulated to the point where their job is not getting done. The only answer is not a strike, but simply walking away. And don't come back until their masters-level education says that they are being offered a fair deal.

I do think they either have it too good, or it's as bad as they say it is and they are stupid (or call it 'in love with teaching children') for accepting the deal.

I have even said as much to teachers. They are still teaching and suggesting that they deserve way better (except for one I know who walked away from teaching and makes a bit less money/has much more satisfaction working at his not-for-profit)

[Beatsong]

It all depends how the resources are going to be spent. Just paying a teacher more money isn't going to make them teach better, is it?

Well according economic mantra that we need low tax and deregulation so that companies can be free to pay enough to attract "the best people", sure, it should mean precisely that.

Offering a higher salary may attract a better qualified person (someone who could command a higher salary elsewhere), but it doesn't make the current teachers better.

Well that's a pretty tenuous difference. The point stands that after several decades of being told that businesses need freedom from pesky regulations and unions so they can spend as much as possible on motivating their directors, that rich people need to be taxed as little as possible to make it worth their while to run companies - indeed, to prevent them from launching a mass exodus from the country - it always seems ironic that when it comes to anyone else, what they get paid apparently has no effect on their motivation to work whatsoever.

And, if you reject the "economic mantra" then why would you assert it as a reason for paying more money?

Because I'm having a conversation with someone who regularly voices support of that economic mantra and whose opinions in threads such as this one are largely informed by it. So I'm interested to see if he's willing to see it applied with any consistency, or whether it's really just a smokescreen to argue for the economic privilege of the rich at everybody else's expense.

Oh but hang on, I forgot. Financial incentives are only necessary for the super-rich. The motivation for quality work that we're supposed to take for granted in their case doesn't apply to everyone else.

Straw man. Like I said, the financial incentives work, but you can't view them as simplistically as you are casting them. If I higher a person at work, more money will be an incentive to work more hours or work a little harder, but that doesn't mean that if you pay someone a million dollars more that you will get a million dollars worth of benefit from them.

Sure. But noone is suggesting paying them a million dollars more. In fact I wasn't suggesting paying them any more at all than has already been agreed. What "financial incentives work" certainly DOESN'T mean is that you can expect to get better results by paying LESS - which is what you implied earlier that kicked all this off.

Also, I suspect your financial comparisons are bunk. According to this site the figure of $47,000 is the MEDIAN household income in Chicago. I'm not sure but every reference I can find to the compared figure of 76K describes it as the AVERAGE or MEAN teacher's salary. These are of course two completely different things, and not in any way comparable. Not that that's going to matter to lunatic right wing propaganda sites. Furthermore - and I'm not sure about this in terms of how American demographic statistics are gathered, so am happy to admit if I'm wrong - but wouldn't "household income" include people with no or only part-time income? The retired, unemployed, students etc?

So, show me the real statistic, then? Unless you're suggesting that some small number of teachers are making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and the bulk of the teachers are making like $40,000 a year, your criticism doesn't make any sense. But, if you think that the the average of $76k doesn't reflect what the average teacher makes, then show me some source to back you up. If you think that the average income earner earns a lot more than $47,000 a year, then back that up to.

I did actually try and search for what the median income of Chicago teachers was, to make a direct comparison, but that information doesn't seem to be available anywhere. Neither could I find average or median earnings of full-time employed professionals in Chicago, though I expect that probably is available somewhere.

But there's no use pretending that the solution to incomplete data is just to use unmatching and incomparable data without caring. Even a statistics amateur like me can tell you that a median is not an average, and that in most cases regarding income, the median is significantly lower than the average. (What's the average income of you and Bill Gates, I wonder? WOW - THAT MUCH??? What do you two do to deserve THAT?!)

In the case of the teachers I don't know who's included when calculating the averages. If it includes headteachers and people in positions of senior leadership then yes, a few outliers earning much more than everyone else could skew the average considerably. In the UK for example the starting salary for a teacher is about £22,000, but senior leadership can be on several times that and some headteachers on over 100K.

Really though, I just don't know. I am however happy to compare any genuinely comparable statistics.

The fact remains, though, that making over $75k per year puts one in the top 10% of income earners. Not too shabby, ay? Or are you now going to pretend that $75k is not a lot of money to earn?

It doesn't sound like a fortune to me, but then I'm comparing it by conversion to UK income and your cost of living is a lot lower than ours. More to the point though, I expect the majority of the teachers aren't earning that much.

Wouldn't it be more meaningful to compare teachers' salaries with those in other jobs requiring similar qualifications, expected to work similar hours with similar levels of responsibility?

Yes!

And, that would show them to be even more overpaid, because other jobs requiring similar qualifications have to work a minim of 2050 hours a year, normally, and often more than that when they work overtime. Teachers put in far fewer hours in a year than that, because they get about 500 hours fewer just because they don't
work most of the summer and get huge numbers of vacation days that nobody else gets.

Well I have to state upfront that there's a potential for cultural miunderstanding here, as I'm going by what I know of teaching in the UK. So I'm happy to be corrected if anything I say doesn't apply - but going by previous comments in this thread by teachers in the USA, I suspect we're in a pretty similar ballpark.

Over here, state schools are in session for about 39 weeks of the year. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we call that 40 to account for teachers doing a few days work either end of each term and assume they take the rest of the summer off (which is probably a massive underestimate and wrong assumption, but it will at least get us started).

My calculations say that to put in 2050 hours a year within 40 weeks, a teacher would have to be working 51.25 hours a week. I think I can say with some confidence that the majority of teachers work at least that many hours. In the primary school where I currently work in a non-class-teaching role, for example, when I turn up just before class starts and sign the register, most of them are signed in from about 7.30 AM. And on the odd days I have to stay late, most of them are still there at 5 - 5.30. That's a 9 and a half to ten hour day right there, or say 9 hours if you allow for lunch (I don't know if that's included in your 2050 hours). THEN they have to take work home several times a week and often on weekends, which would get their total hours well above your figure. Then there's the fact that standing in front of a large group of challenging teenagers most of the day and trying to hold their behaviour and concentration together while meeing very exacting government targets is an incredibly stressful and emotionally draining job - just ask anyone who has done teaching and something else. And the intensity of focus and challenge of a job is normally taken into account when deciding how well people deserve to be renumerated for it per hour.

Rough figures, and as I say they may well be different for this case. Not that different by the sound of things though, and I've been pretty careful to err on the side of generosity. I think the reality is that you just have no idea how hard teachers work. You look at the long summer break and that's all you see. But really that's just the one perk to having a job that is fucking ball-breaking night and day the rest of the time.

But, let's run that analysis. Give me your idea of a job with similar qualifications, expecting similar hours, and with similar levels of responsibility.

Tricky - there are so many variables to any job. I'll think about it...

[Beatsong]

That's a great suggestion. Now, let's see: the only thing that I know of that has consistently, in many different countries and settings, been DEMONSTRATED to work better, is halving class sizes, massively increasing budgets and improving facilities, since that's what they do in private schools, which get consistently better results. (Of course the other thing they do in private schools is not take students who are poor, or have learning or behavioural disabilities - but I assume we are talking about an inclusive solution to state education so that's not an answer.)

Problem sorted, eh?

Is the claim here that the US spends less per pupil than "many different countries?"

No (I have no idea whether that claim is correct).

The claim is that state schools spend less per pupil than private schools, and they spend it differently. It was suggested by Cunt that we look at what has been demonstrated to work in achieving better results (get that: "demonstrated", not "pulled out of our arses on some internet forum with no evidence whatsoever". His word, not mine.)

Private schools get consistently better results than state schools, so it seems logical that if you want to get better results, that's one place we can confidently look. Spend more money, and massively reduce class sizes.

Yeah but, yeah but, uh....

And you're slagging off the people who are taking a stand just to prevent the government from INCREASING class sizes.

[Coito ergo sum]

It all depends how the resources are going to be spent. Just paying a teacher more money isn't going to make them teach better, is it?

Well according economic mantra that we need low tax and deregulation so that companies can be free to pay enough to attract "the best people", sure, it should mean precisely that.

Offering a higher salary may attract a better qualified person (someone who could command a higher salary elsewhere), but it doesn't make the current teachers better.

Well that's a pretty tenuous difference. The point stands that after several decades of being told that businesses need freedom from pesky regulations and unions so they can spend as much as possible on motivating their directors, that rich people need to be taxed as little as possible to make it worth their while to run companies - indeed, to prevent them from launching a mass exodus from the country - it always seems ironic that when it comes to anyone else, what they get paid apparently has no effect on their motivation to work

Again, you oversimplify and strawman. One, most people who run businesses are not rich. The person who owns the average store in a strip mall in the United States, or a pizza restaurant, etc., makes a middle class income when it's all said and done, and works twice the normal working hours. Those are the people that get taxed when we raise taxes, not just "the rich" (millionaires and billionaires).

And, sure, money is a good motivator, nobody said it wasn't. And, I haven't objected to reasonable wages. What I'm saying is that in total, teachers in Chicago are doing quite well. 1.6 times the average is darn good, plus their better than average benefits, and nice working conditions, and union representation with job security that most other workers don't get, massive vacation time, and 2+ months off in the summer.

And, if you reject the "economic mantra" then why would you assert it as a reason for paying more money?

Because I'm having a conversation with someone who regularly voices support of that economic mantra and whose opinions in threads such as this one are largely informed by it. So I'm interested to see if he's willing to see it applied with any consistency, or whether it's really just a smokescreen to argue for the economic privilege of the rich at everybody else's expense.

I've not voiced support for the "mantra" you described. Yours is just a strawman mischaracterization of my view, if you're trying to attribute that to me.

I don't argue for privilege for the rich and never have. You suggest that I'm in favor of tax breaks for the rich, when I'm not. I'm in favor of, during a recession or tough economic times, that we not saddle small business with more taxes, because I know how hard it is to take the plunge to hire people. Making it more expensive doesn't help.

I also really don't care too much how much Chicago decides to pay its teachers. That's up to the collective bargaining process. There is a union, and management. They negotiate. Whatever comes of it, comes of it. But, in my opinion, everything the teachers are demanding is excessive under the circumstances, particularly given the poor results of Chicago schools and the dearth of funds available to fund the demands.

Oh but hang on, I forgot. Financial incentives are only necessary for the super-rich. The motivation for quality work that we're supposed to take for granted in their case doesn't apply to everyone else.

Straw man. Like I said, the financial incentives work, but you can't view them as simplistically as you are casting them. If I higher a person at work, more money will be an incentive to work more hours or work a little harder, but that doesn't mean that if you pay someone a million dollars more that you will get a million dollars worth of benefit from them.

Sure. But noone is suggesting paying them a million dollars more. In fact I wasn't suggesting paying them any more at all than has already been agreed. What "financial incentives work" certainly DOESN'T mean is that you can expect to get better results by paying LESS - which is what you implied earlier that kicked all this off.

So, there is a point at which you would object to additional money, right? Where is your line, then?

I did not imply that earlier in this thread. I stated that given the piss poor results, we could probably achieve the same results with less expensive teachers. I stand by that. But, that is different than what you just tried to attribute to me.

Also, I suspect your financial comparisons are bunk. According to this site the figure of $47,000 is the MEDIAN household income in Chicago. I'm not sure but every reference I can find to the compared figure of 76K describes it as the AVERAGE or MEAN teacher's salary. These are of course two completely different things, and not in any way comparable. Not that that's going to matter to lunatic right wing propaganda sites. Furthermore - and I'm not sure about this in terms of how American demographic statistics are gathered, so am happy to admit if I'm wrong - but wouldn't "household income" include people with no or only part-time income? The retired, unemployed, students etc?

So, show me the real statistic, then? Unless you're suggesting that some small number of teachers are making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and the bulk of the teachers are making like $40,000 a year, your criticism doesn't make any sense. But, if you think that the the average of $76k doesn't reflect what the average teacher makes, then show me some source to back you up. If you think that the average income earner earns a lot more than $47,000 a year, then back that up to.

I did actually try and search for what the median income of Chicago teachers was, to make a direct comparison, but that information doesn't seem to be available anywhere. Neither could I find average or median earnings of full-time employed professionals in Chicago, though I expect that probably is available somewhere.

But there's no use pretending that the solution to incomplete data is just to use unmatching and incomparable data without caring. Even a statistics amateur like me can tell you that a median is not an average, and that in most cases regarding income, the median is significantly lower than the average. (What's the average income of you and Bill Gates, I wonder? WOW - THAT MUCH??? What do you two do to deserve THAT?!)

That is exactly the point I made. There isn't a teacher in the Chicago school system making all the money, and the rest of the teachers make a pittance, thereby skewing the average up in the way you describe between me and Bill Gates. They're a union, and the salaries go on a scale based on seniority. To suggest that there is some whacked out and skewed salary dispersion will require, I think, some evidence to back it up. Otherwise, in a union model, salaries are normally disbursed pretty normally.

In the case of the teachers I don't know who's included when calculating the averages. If it includes headteachers and people in positions of senior leadership then yes, a few outliers earning much more than everyone else could skew the average considerably. In the UK for example the starting salary for a teacher is about £22,000, but senior leadership can be on several times that and some headteachers on over 100K.

It wouldn't include management - but, I would expect that if it was in the union's interest to point out that the $76k was not indicative of what rank-and-file teachers make, then they would point that out. And, the union would certainly have those numbers. Since they are in possession of that information, if they are choosing not to make it public, then I expect that it isn't as dramatic as you suggest.

Really though, I just don't know. I am however happy to compare any genuinely comparable statistics.

Like I said, if union could show the $76k was grossly distorted, then they would. It would make their position much more sympathetic to many, many people.

The fact remains, though, that making over $75k per year puts one in the top 10% of income earners. Not too shabby, ay? Or are you now going to pretend that $75k is not a lot of money to earn?

It doesn't sound like a fortune to me, but then I'm comparing it by conversion to UK income and your cost of living is a lot lower than ours. More to the point though, I expect the majority of the teachers aren't earning that much.

Well, if it's an average salary with a normal distribution, I would expect a pretty even distribution. If, for some reason, a few high seniority teachers are raking in a million a year each, or something like that, then there will be a skewed system. Again, that would be something the union would really love to have out there, because it would make their position more sympathetic.

what are the odds, though, of teachers in Chicago earning more than $100,000 per year, even with, say 20 years experience? I mean -- $100,000 per year is in the top 5% of the entire population. So, if there are a bunch of teachers skewing the average, say, making $150,000 and up, then they'd be near the top 1%. Occupy Chicago ought be shitting on their cars in the teacher parking lots, if they're making that much.

Wouldn't it be more meaningful to compare teachers' salaries with those in other jobs requiring similar qualifications, expected to work similar hours with similar levels of responsibility?

Yes!

And, that would show them to be even more overpaid, because other jobs requiring similar qualifications have to work a minim of 2050 hours a year, normally, and often more than that when they work overtime. Teachers put in far fewer hours in a year than that, because they get about 500 hours fewer just because they don't
work most of the summer and get huge numbers of vacation days that nobody else gets.

Well I have to state upfront that there's a potential for cultural miunderstanding here, as I'm going by what I know of teaching in the UK. So I'm happy to be corrected if anything I say doesn't apply - but going by previous comments in this thread by teachers in the USA, I suspect we're in a pretty similar ballpark.

Over here, state schools are in session for about 39 weeks of the year. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we call that 40 to account for teachers doing a few days work either end of each term and assume they take the rest of the summer off (which is probably a massive underestimate and wrong assumption, but it will at least get us started).

My calculations say that to put in 2050 hours a year within 40 weeks, a teacher would have to be working 51.25 hours a week. I think I can say with some confidence that the majority of teachers work at least that many hours.

i would love to see the evidence, but in the US when working a job making $76k a year with the benefits they get, I think people are working 60+ normally. The public schools anywhere I've lived have empty parking lots long before rush hour (when most others are returning home from work).

In the primary school where I currently work in a non-class-teaching role, for example, when I turn up just before class starts and sign the register, most of them are signed in from about 7.30 AM. And on the odd days I have to stay late, most of them are still there at 5 - 5.30. That's a 9 and a half to ten hour day right there,

Big deal -- take out an hour for lunch and a 9 hour day is a normal day. That's an 8 hour day. We all work from 8 to 5, with an hour for lunch, or something like that. That's minimum, for what secretaries making $40,000 a year work.

or say 9 hours if you allow for lunch (I don't know if that's included in your 2050 hours).

definitely not included.

THEN they have to take work home several times a week and often on weekends, which would get their total hours well above your figure. Then there's the fact that standing in front of a large group of challenging teenagers most of the day and trying to hold their behaviour and concentration together while meeing very exacting government targets is an incredibly stressful and emotionally draining job - just ask anyone who has done teaching and something else. And the intensity of focus and challenge of a job is normally taken into account when deciding how well people deserve to be renumerated for it per hour.

Well, that would seem to make it reasonable to pay them a decent wage, which they get, plus really good benefits, and job security (most people in the US can be fired if their boss doesn't like their attitude or something -- teachers have "just cause" employment and recourse to appeal discipline) -- all that is worth something.

Rough figures, and as I say they may well be different for this case. Not that different by the sound of things though, and I've been pretty careful to err on the side of generosity. I think the reality is that you just have no idea how hard teachers work. You look at the long summer break and that's all you see. But really that's just the one perk to having a job that is fucking ball-breaking night and day the rest of the time.

I know quite a bit. Don't assume I'm unfamiliar with teachers and schools. I'm quite familiar with them.

Everyone who gets paid good money works ball-breaking work. You don't get paid in the top 10% or 15% or even 20% of the population for doing an easy job.

But, let's run that analysis. Give me your idea of a job with similar qualifications, expecting similar hours, and with similar levels of responsibility.

Tricky - there are so many variables to any job. I'll think about it...

Very tricky.

[Beatsong]

Again, you oversimplify and strawman. One, most people who run businesses are not rich. The person who owns the average store in a strip mall in the United States, or a pizza restaurant, etc., makes a middle class income when it's all said and done, and works twice the normal working hours. Those are the people that get taxed when we raise taxes, not just "the rich" (millionaires and billionaires).

That surely depends which taxes you raise, and how.

I don't argue for privilege for the rich and never have. You suggest that I'm in favor of tax breaks for the rich, when I'm not. I'm in favor of, during a recession or tough economic times, that we not saddle small business with more taxes, because I know how hard it is to take the plunge to hire people. Making it more expensive doesn't help.

Fair enough. I may have been overgeneralising about your views, sorry.

I also really don't care too much how much Chicago decides to pay its teachers. That's up to the collective bargaining process. There is a union, and management. They negotiate. Whatever comes of it, comes of it. But, in my opinion, everything the teachers are demanding is excessive under the circumstances, particularly given the poor results of Chicago schools and the dearth of funds available to fund the demands.

But what they're demanding at this point is not to do with their own pay but to do with conditions - and specifically conditions (such as class sizes) that directly impact upon the results you are referring to.

In the case of the teachers I don't know who's included when calculating the averages. If it includes headteachers and people in positions of senior leadership then yes, a few outliers earning much more than everyone else could skew the average considerably. In the UK for example the starting salary for a teacher is about £22,000, but senior leadership can be on several times that and some headteachers on over 100K.

It wouldn't include management - but, I would expect that if it was in the union's interest to point out that the $76k was not indicative of what rank-and-file teachers make, then they would point that out. And, the union would certainly have those numbers. Since they are in possession of that information, if they are choosing not to make it public, then I expect that it isn't as dramatic as you suggest.

Fair point. I'd still prefer actual comparable statistics though.

Big deal -- take out an hour for lunch and a 9 hour day is a normal day. That's an 8 hour day. We all work from 8 to 5, with an hour for lunch, or something like that. That's minimum, for what secretaries making $40,000 a year work.

I'm not getting you. Are you saying that eight hours is the same as nine hours?

You were the one who was trying to claim they worked so much less. All I was trying to show is that their hours are comparable, over the year, to other professions. It's misleading for you to harp on about the summer break in isolation because that is just one part of the fact that the distribution of their hours over the year, is different from that of people in many 9-5 jobs. You're focusing on the part of the year where they work fewer hours and ignoring those parts where they work more.

Well, that would seem to make it reasonable to pay them a decent wage, which they get, plus really good benefits, and job security (most people in the US can be fired if their boss doesn't like their attitude or something -- teachers have "just cause" employment and recourse to appeal discipline) -- all that is worth something.

Indeed. It seems like part of your problem here is that you live in a country where most other people are so shafted by antiquated labour laws based on dishonest capitalist myths. Personally if I were in your shoes I'd be celebrating the fact that there's a least one small part of one profession out there managing to achieve what is reasonable, and thinking about how the same can be achieved for others.

Everyone who gets paid good money works ball-breaking work. You don't get paid in the top 10% or 15% or even 20% of the population for doing an easy job.

[/quote]

I take it you haven't met many real estate agents then.

[Coito ergo sum]

Again, you oversimplify and strawman. One, most people who run businesses are not rich. The person who owns the average store in a strip mall in the United States, or a pizza restaurant, etc., makes a middle class income when it's all said and done, and works twice the normal working hours. Those are the people that get taxed when we raise taxes, not just "the rich" (millionaires and billionaires).

That surely depends which taxes you raise, and how.

Raising income tax rates will raise their income tax. Obama hasn't limited the income tax hikes he calls for to "millionaires and billionaires." Small businesses are primarily subchapter S corporations and partnerships, which are taxed at the individual income tax rate.

I don't argue for privilege for the rich and never have. You suggest that I'm in favor of tax breaks for the rich, when I'm not. I'm in favor of, during a recession or tough economic times, that we not saddle small business with more taxes, because I know how hard it is to take the plunge to hire people. Making it more expensive doesn't help.

Fair enough. I may have been overgeneralising about your views, sorry.

Fine.

I also really don't care too much how much Chicago decides to pay its teachers. That's up to the collective bargaining process. There is a union, and management. They negotiate. Whatever comes of it, comes of it. But, in my opinion, everything the teachers are demanding is excessive under the circumstances, particularly given the poor results of Chicago schools and the dearth of funds available to fund the demands.

But what they're demanding at this point is not to do with their own pay but to do with conditions - and specifically conditions (such as class sizes) that directly impact upon the results you are referring to.

They haven't taken pay and raises off the table. They SAY they are focusing on the non-monetary things, because, of course that is in their interest to appear altruistic. But, if they TRULY were altruistic about it, they would state unequivocally that they agree to all the financial terms. But, they haven't. All of them are still part of the negotiations.,

In the case of the teachers I don't know who's included when calculating the averages. If it includes headteachers and people in positions of senior leadership then yes, a few outliers earning much more than everyone else could skew the average considerably. In the UK for example the starting salary for a teacher is about £22,000, but senior leadership can be on several times that and some headteachers on over 100K.

It wouldn't include management - but, I would expect that if it was in the union's interest to point out that the $76k was not indicative of what rank-and-file teachers make, then they would point that out. And, the union would certainly have those numbers. Since they are in possession of that information, if they are choosing not to make it public, then I expect that it isn't as dramatic as you suggest.

Fair point. I'd still prefer actual comparable statistics though.

I can only work with the numbers we have, and if the union won't release information helpful to them, then I'm not going to assume it exists.

Big deal -- take out an hour for lunch and a 9 hour day is a normal day. That's an 8 hour day. We all work from 8 to 5, with an hour for lunch, or something like that. That's minimum, for what secretaries making $40,000 a year work.

I'm not getting you. Are you saying that eight hours is the same as nine hours?

An 8 hour day is 8 am to 5pm, which is 9 hours, assuming the employee takes an hour for lunch. So, 8 to 5 for 180 days or so during the year is no great shakes, or 7:30am to 4:30pm. To suggest that teachers are at school, generally speaking, from 7:30am to 7:30pm on a regular basis is belied by the empty teacher's parking lots at schools. If teachers generally were working those hours at the schools, the lots would be pretty full after 3:30pm. The reality is that if you drive past a school, the teachers are gone not long after the school buses leave.

You were the one who was trying to claim they worked so much less.

They do work a lot less over the course of one year.

All I was trying to show is that their hours are comparable, over the year, to other professions.

But, you haven't shown that and the hours are not comparable.

It's misleading for you to harp on about the summer break in isolation because that is just one part of the fact that the distribution of their hours over the year, is different from that of people in many 9-5 jobs. You're focusing on the part of the year where they work fewer hours and ignoring those parts where they work more.

They don't work more. If you have evidence that they do, present it. Simply claiming it is not evidence. And, they don't work 16 hour days like you implied in your summary -- toiling 7:30am to 7:30pm, and then grading papers until 10pm or 10:30pm. That's a load of bull.

Well, that would seem to make it reasonable to pay them a decent wage, which they get, plus really good benefits, and job security (most people in the US can be fired if their boss doesn't like their attitude or something -- teachers have "just cause" employment and recourse to appeal discipline) -- all that is worth something.

Indeed. It seems like part of your problem here is that you live in a country where most other people are so shafted by antiquated labour laws based on dishonest capitalist myths. Personally if I were in your shoes I'd be celebrating the fact that there's a least one small part of one profession out there managing to achieve what is reasonable, and thinking about how the same can be achieved for others.

It's not reasonable. It creates unnecessary costs, and causes substandard teachers to be retained longer than they otherwise would be, and at will employment is not "based on dishonest capitalist myths."

Everyone who gets paid good money works ball-breaking work. You don't get paid in the top 10% or 15% or even 20% of the population for doing an easy job.

I take it you haven't met many real estate agents then. [/quote]

I have, and those that make good money work hard for their money. A real estate agent making $76,000 a year plus paying for their own benefits, etc., is among the top of their profession -- very few make that much -- and such a person doesn't get summers off, works odd hours to work around other people's schedules, often on weekends, and show houses many times without selling them. Median income for real estate agents in the US -- http://www1.salary.com/real-estate-agent-Salary.html -- about $37,0000. The median income for teachers in the US is about $51,000 http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Education-Traini ... achers.htm

:-)

[Kristie]

I have, and those that make good money work hard for their money. A real estate agent making $76,000 a year plus paying for their own benefits, etc., is among the top of their profession -- very few make that much -- and such a person doesn't get summers off, works odd hours to work around other people's schedules, often on weekends, and show houses many times without selling them. Median income for real estate agents in the US -- http://www1.salary.com/real-estate-agent-Salary.html -- about $37,0000. The median income for teachers in the US is about $51,000 http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Education-Traini ... achers.htm

:-)

My soon to be sis-in-law is a real estate agent in Indianapolis. She makes quite a bit more that $76,000 a year. Plus, she sets her own hours. She never goes to work before 10 am and is done by 6 pm. She takes plenty of week long vacations, also! And, she's only in her mid 30's, so it's not like she's been doing it for 30 years and has this great agency built up.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sounds great -- she must be really good at what she does. But, salary data is the salary data, one example aside.

She also has no union. She either works for herself or is an at will employee, and she sets her own hours because she only gets paid if she produces sales.

I'm not even trying to get into this comparison bit. If the real estate agents were striking, and they were looking for sympathy because of the same reasons (under the same conditions) as the Chicago teachers, I'd tell them to pound sand to. But, this is the thing with unions -- they not only want to negotiate their own salaries, they want solidarity from everyone else. Yet, they don't worry too much themselves about what anyone else is making.

My disdain for unions comes from the fact that they not only demand more money -- they can demand a million dollars a minute, for all I care -- but, they demand that everyone else support them in their efforts. When I was a kid, and the teachers went out on strike in my school system, I remember my mom had to drive us to the school, where we were warehoused while the teachers picketed. That was an early exposure, in grammar school, to a union strike, and those teachers on that picket line my mom was driving me past (through, actually), were mean-ass bastards. They shouted at our car (and all the other cars in which parents were bringing their kids to the school) and they attempted to block our way. My mom, a fairly young mother at the time and an immigrant with little understanding how things worked, was quite frightened by them.

Another incident occurred when I was in my mid 20's. I went to a supermarket which was on strike, but I had no idea they were on strike. I was just running in real quick to get something. I parked my car, and started toward the store entry door, and suddenly I was confronted by angry faces and profanity-laden shouts. I didn't quite register what was going on at the time, I just proceeded on and saw how empty the store was. I walked around and asked a store manager who was manning the fort what was going on, and he said they were on strike. I thought about it for a second, and decided I would make purchase and leave. As I left, I received more shouts. I told them to fuck off, and advised them that I would likely have honored their picket line, had they not been such assholes when I was walking in -- I had no idea they were on strike, and I don't deserve their shit. I got back to my car, and luckily I am a fairly perceptive person, and I checked around my car before getting in. There were "star nails" tossed under my car and behind the tires. I would have backed over them had I not swept them away. Fucking assholes.

That's really the difference, for me, Kristie.

[Kristie]

I don't even know how real estate agents were brought up. I just read your post and wanted to chime in.

[Gerald McGrew]

They haven't taken pay and raises off the table. They SAY they are focusing on the non-monetary things, because, of course that is in their interest to appear altruistic. But, if they TRULY were altruistic about it, they would state unequivocally that they agree to all the financial terms. But, they haven't. All of them are still part of the negotiations.

Because they can't. Current law makes it illegal for them to strike over non-monetary issues. That's why I posted the links to statements from teachers and the unions listing the reasons why they are striking. http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-teachers- ... 51216.html

"Although untested in the courts, a provision added to the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act last year could prohibit teachers from striking on all matters except compensation involving pay and benefits."

That's why the union keeps saying "we are close" on pay/compensation issues. By law, they can't say that's not really why they're striking. They are striking over working conditions (air conditioning in schools), class sizes, school closures, and tying their raise schedules to standardized test scores.

[Gerald McGrew]

Indeed. It seems like part of your problem here is that you live in a country where most other people are so shafted by antiquated labour laws based on dishonest capitalist myths. Personally if I were in your shoes I'd be celebrating the fact that there's a least one small part of one profession out there managing to achieve what is reasonable, and thinking about how the same can be achieved for others.

Very true. When comparing the median income in Chicago to the avg. teacher's salary, it's interesting that what stands out to some people is that the teachers average $76k per year, while others notice that the median for everyone is only $46k per year. To me, $76k per year for a high-stress job that requires you to have a masters degree seems fair. OTOH, the fact that half the population in Chicago makes less than $46k per year is disgraceful. How the hell can you have much of an economy when half your population doesn't make enough money to buy much of anything?

It reminds of a campaign stop Romney had at a steel plant, where he told the workers that there are gov't. employees who make more money and get better benefits than they do. "Elect me" he told them, "and I'll cut their pay and benefits". All I could think was, WTF good does that do the steel worker?

It's basically a difference in philosophies, where one side is "float all boats" and the other is "shoot holes in the other guy's boat".

[Seth]

Indeed. It seems like part of your problem here is that you live in a country where most other people are so shafted by antiquated labour laws based on dishonest capitalist myths. Personally if I were in your shoes I'd be celebrating the fact that there's a least one small part of one profession out there managing to achieve what is reasonable, and thinking about how the same can be achieved for others.

Very true. When comparing the median income in Chicago to the avg. teacher's salary, it's interesting that what stands out to some people is that the teachers average $76k per year, while others notice that the median for everyone is only $46k per year. To me, $76k per year for a high-stress job that requires you to have a masters degree seems fair. OTOH, the fact that half the population in Chicago makes less than $46k per year is disgraceful. How the hell can you have much of an economy when half your population doesn't make enough money to buy much of anything?

It reminds of a campaign stop Romney had at a steel plant, where he told the workers that there are gov't. employees who make more money and get better benefits than they do. "Elect me" he told them, "and I'll cut their pay and benefits". All I could think was, WTF good does that do the steel worker?

It's more "fair" of course. Oh, and it reduces the tax burden the steel workers have to pay for those trough-sucking government workers. That in turn translates to government consuming much less of the national GDP, which translates directly into more money being available to the free markets to use to stimulate the economy and improve the prosperity and wealth of the steel workers.

By the way, teachers are only worth what we, the People are willing to pay them, on an individual basis, according to their qualifications and skills at the job, and at the lowest possible salary that a competitive marketplace for labor can provide for us. If teachers don't like those constraints, they are free to take up garbage collecting or shit-shoveling in the private sector because there are millions of other people out there who can do their jobs cheaper and better than some union teacher who thinks public employment is a right, not a privilege.

[Gerald McGrew]

It's more "fair" of course. Oh, and it reduces the tax burden the steel workers have to pay for those trough-sucking government workers. That in turn translates to government consuming much less of the national GDP, which translates directly into more money being available to the free markets to use to stimulate the economy and improve the prosperity and wealth of the steel workers.

If you honestly think reducing gov't salaries and benefits will result in significantly more take home pay for steel plant workers, well....I have some "waterfront property" you might be interested in.

By the way, teachers are only worth what we, the People are willing to pay them, on an individual basis, according to their qualifications and skills at the job, and at the lowest possible salary that a competitive marketplace for labor can provide for us. If teachers don't like those constraints, they are free to take up garbage collecting or shit-shoveling in the private sector because there are millions of other people out there who can do their jobs cheaper and better than some union teacher who thinks public employment is a right, not a privilege.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...we know. The conservative approach to labor is "race to the bottom" capitalism where workers should be willing to accept any pay or conditions offered, because they're lucky to have jobs at all!

We get it guys.

[Beatsong]

Again, you oversimplify and strawman. One, most people who run businesses are not rich. The person who owns the average store in a strip mall in the United States, or a pizza restaurant, etc., makes a middle class income when it's all said and done, and works twice the normal working hours. Those are the people that get taxed when we raise taxes, not just "the rich" (millionaires and billionaires).

That surely depends which taxes you raise, and how.

Raising income tax rates will raise their income tax.

No it won't, if you limit the income tax rises to income over a specified amount, above what struggling small business owners make but below what millionaires make. And, income tax is not the only form of tax, by a long way.

Obama hasn't limited the income tax hikes he calls for to "millionaires and billionaires."

No but he could do if he chose to (ie if such an idea could be sold to the American public, which it obviously can't). C'mon dude - progressive taxation, it's not a hard concept. Most countries have it.

We're going round in circles here but the bottom line is that you're simply wrong in insisting that "raising rax" as a general concept, MUST of necessity result in higher taxes for a SPECIFIC subsection of society (in this case, small business owners). The manipulation of various tax rates is far more complex and subtle than that and governments have enormous scope to vary how they tax different types and amounts of wealth, according to different political priorities. I'm sure you know that, really.

But what they're demanding at this point is not to do with their own pay but to do with conditions - and specifically conditions (such as class sizes) that directly impact upon the results you are referring to.

They haven't taken pay and raises off the table. They SAY they are focusing on the non-monetary things, because, of course that is in their interest to appear altruistic. But, if they TRULY were altruistic about it, they would state unequivocally that they agree to all the financial terms. But, they haven't. All of them are still part of the negotiations.

That's a pretty standard way of negotiating anything though. You don't commit yourself to anything until you have an entire deal you are happy with, in case the other party uses your statement of commitment to swing things against your interests. If you say "I accept X, no matter what", then X ceases to function as a bargaining chip for you. If you say "I'm willing to entertain accepting X, as long as you accept the things I want you to", then X still has the potential power to make the other party give you what you want.

The fact remains you've tried to make this whole thread about the financial settlement when that's not what the strike is about. Also, you consistently evade the point about class sizes. The connection between class sizes and educational results is well known, and it's one of the main reasons why private schools GET better results. Yet the government in this dispute wants to INCREASE class sizes even more. The teachers are striking (partly) to insist upon a factor in school organisation that will have a clear effect upon both the educational experience, and the results, of student

You have complained about how "pisspoor" the results are, and how we should look at whatever methods we can to get better ones. Yet the teachers are striking precisely on that basis, to avoid a change that is likely to influence results negatively. And instead of supporting that aspect of their case, you support the government in their drive to compromise results even more. That's a completely self-contradictory position.

To suggest that teachers are at school, generally speaking, from 7:30am to 7:30pm on a regular basis is belied by the empty teacher's parking lots at schools. If teachers generally were working those hours at the schools, the lots would be pretty full after 3:30pm. The reality is that if you drive past a school, the teachers are gone not long after the school buses leave.

I never suggested teachers were at school from 7.30 to 7.30 (although if you include marking time at home, that may well be the working day of many of them). At my school it's generally about 7.30 to 5 or 5.30. YMMV. I don't know about your comments about empty parking lots. 3.30 seems incredibly early to leave to me and in this country it simply wouldn't be possible. Teachers have to do tons of paperwork as well as their preparation, marking etc. and it has to be done some time. If they're leaving straight after classes finish, then it's not getting done and they'll be sacked. In fact, contracts here specify a certain number of hours they have to be at school, which is larger than the direct contact hours. I've only ever know one teacher who left at 3.30 and that was because he got up at 4.00 every morning to be at school for 6.30 AM>

Like I said the teachers who have chimed in on this thread have told similar stories to me. The problem is we can all only relate our own experience.

All I was trying to show is that their hours are comparable, over the year, to other professions.

But, you haven't shown that and the hours are not comparable.

Yes I have. My previous post on that subject showed that quite clearly, as far as is possible with rough figures, using the full time total hours for a year that you supplied - and it didn't involve working 7.30 - 7.30. Read it again.