- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Wages should be set by the market. The easy way to set the wage is to allow firing of teachers. There are plenty of young people who would love to become a teacher for those kind of wages. Why not give them a chance, are they worth less?
The 8th grade achievement scores and drop out rate are pretty bad.
BTW, just for sake of getting facts out there? 39% of Chicago Public School teachers (who must live in the city of Chicago, by the way) send their children to private schools (as of 2004). But, then, they can afford it.
Public schools no place for teachers kids - Washington Times
Young people have that chance every day and many are taking advantage of it.
As a person who sat on the table during these proceedings - the answer is a definitive and loud YES.
I think you were asleep at those proceeding just like some of those bad teachers sleeping in class and reading the news paper when he/she is supposed to be teaching.
How does making a wiseguy personal attack on me negate reality?
What "reality is that"?
The regulations are so onerous that principals rarely even try to fire a teacher. Most just put the bad ones in pretend-work jobs, or sucker another school into taking them
Your article lays the blame at the feet of administrators who through their own laziness or incompetence cannot follow established procedures agreed to by both sides.
Your article lays the blame at the feet of administrators who through their own laziness or incompetence cannot follow established procedures agreed to by both sides.
How does making a wiseguy personal attack on me negate reality?
Sure, but only if your compensation is fair in the first place. Think about hourly wages. On average a teacher in Illinois work 5.5 hours and earn 71000 per year. Yes, they do some work after school, but they also got more vacation so I can still use the number of hours.
That means they earn 50 USD per hour and that does not include their excellent benefits. That wage is simply too high for the government to afford, and they need to be cut. There is simply no money, so if they do not cut in salaries, then they need to cut somewhere else which will hurt school performance. But I want to know, why do the left defend teachers who earn 50 USD per hour? How about defending the ones who earn 8 USD per hour, and is paying the teachers through indirect taxes?
Wages should be set by the market. The easy way to set the wage is to allow firing of teachers. There are plenty of young people who would love to become a teacher for those kind of wages. Why not give them a chance, are they worth less?
that's cute. unionistas use their power to make it nigh on impossible to fire any of their members, and then blame administrators when they don't manage to fire that many.
Union teachers get the gold in benefits, and when you add that in it get's way out of line compared to the private sector. Also It's not what the government can afford it's simply too high for the tax payer to afford.
Because private sector pays for public sector. It is only fair to expect public salaries to be based on market demand.Why should it compare to the private sector when it is not the private sector.
Because private sector pays for public sector. It is only fair to expect public salaries to be based on market demand.
Another problem in Chicago is that they all receive the same wage, no matter if they teach on a good school or a really bad one. What should be done is to reduce wages in schools in rich areas.
I don't see any real benefit in this. It's not like poor districts are having trouble attracting qualified teachers.
Teachers pay should simply be based on performance, as is everyone else's. Unions and other organizations with direct business before the government should also be prohibited from contributing money to campaigns.
I also believe pay should be based on performance and demand, but we got to be reasonable. That is not going to happen in Chicago.I don't see any real benefit in this. It's not like poor districts are having trouble attracting qualified teachers.
Teachers pay should simply be based on performance, as is everyone else's. Unions and other organizations with direct business before the government should also be prohibited from contributing money to campaigns.
I agree.....pharmacutical companies....health insurance companies....defense contractors....financial companies...virtually every major corporation in the country would be restricted from contributing money. I personally agree with that idea.
I also believe pay should be based on performance and demand, but we got to be reasonable. That is not going to happen in Chicago.
While Chicago has no problems filling any positions even among the worst schools, they have 100s of applicants in the richer areas. They should start by reducing wages in the richer areas.
I agree...which is why I'm 100% against campaign contributions. The power of the unions has more to do with actual moblization than campaign contributions. I'm just against the idea that public employees are some separate beast where we strip away their rights to contribute to campaigns and even some cases collectively bargain. It's ridiculous.....Teachers should not be able to dump buckets full of money into campaigns of people who will directly determine their compensation, etc. There is a clear conflict of interest there and it's the same conflict of interest seen with defense contractors that dump buckets full of money into campaign coffers come election time.
The compensation for drugs by Medicare and Medicaid is 100's of billions of dollars. The fact that we unlike every other western country don't negotiate our prices costs us tons. Insurance companies fleece Medicare and medicaid all the time. In fact you can't go a couple of years without a massive fraud case to the tune of billions. Financial companies make big money by working with pensions or governments that want to sell bonds in the market. There's also been multiple fraud cases associated with both.I don't know how much business pharmaceutical, insurance, or financial companies do with governments but I imagine it's not often, so I don't have any problems with them donating to campaigns.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?