Threw themselves on our mercy. There are lines around the block twice to be a teacher in the Chicago area. There is no shortage of teachers willing to take on the burdensome low-paying jobs that are teachers today. I wonder why that is? Could it be they're not low-paying? Nope. Can't be that. Could it be that it's not burdensome? Nope. Can't we that. Could it be that moms find it a wonderful way to work and raise a family? Nope. Can't be that.
So. Why then?
Me? My "pay" was docked when Governor Quinn raised my state income tax by 67%. 'Course teacher pensions don't count. They're state-tax free. So it doesn't come of their pockets. My "pay" was docked last year when my real estate tax bill went up by 15%, 70% of which goes towards schools.
My next-door neighbor, on the other hand, had his pay docked when he was laid off eight months ago. The guy across the street had his pay docked when he was forced to take a 5% pay cut or get a new job.
There's plenty of people sacrificing each and every day. That the Chicago Teachers' Union finds 16% over four years unacceptable is ludicrous. That they absolutely refuse to implement (in a trial program) evaluations that they themselves had a part in creating is ludicrous. That they absolutely reject merit pay is ludicrous.
But. It's all for the children.
Why? Is this just a stick it to the rich type viewpoint?
I could understanding raising salaries in poor performing areas if those distracts were having difficulties attracting qualified teachers but that clearly isn't the case. I don't see anything that leads me to believe public school teachers in affluent neighborhoods are better, doing less work, etc.
Like virtually every non-public job, pay should be based entirely on performance. A good teacher who consistently sees better results than his peers should expect to be paid better. As it is right now, a teacher will always be paid more than the person hired after him and less then the one before him no matter who does what. Needless to say there is not much incentive to perform.
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.
Money in campaigns are dangerous. This idea that teachers unions pose some risk that all these other organizations don't is just ludicrous. In the state I live in there was a hotly contested issue regarding the privatization of prisons and of course...they donated millions to the individuals that were pushing the legislation.
The reason they should get higher paid is because they have to endure much worse conditions. Its like asking why a Gastroenterolog should be paid more than an average specialist. It is because they have to deal with the digestive system.
Wages should be based on demand, not by what we think they deserve. I don't support the current system, and yes I am in favour of performance wages as well, but not a standard for all schools in America. Each school should be allowed to determine how much they give in performance salary.
Conditions might be different but I don't think they're any worse in less affluent neighborhoods.
In my experience, friends who are teachers almost unanimously agree teaching in more affluent neighborhoods is more difficult because the parents are so involved. Drawbacks to the less affluent neighborhoods tend to involve less desirable places to eat lunch, etc.
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.
There is no such thing. Lower wages will lead to to lower costs, and higher wages will lead to higher costs.A race to the bottom. Hope you win that race to the bottom in your job.
No you don't. If you work in public sector, then you are paying for the public sector. Rather, the public is paying you for doing a job. Yes you have to return some of the money, but if I give you 100 USD, and then take 30 USD back, then you are not paying me. (with the exception if you had an additional private sector job)btw - I workd in the public sector and I help pay for the public sector. So your snap answer broke in pieces.
Let me get this straight. Chicago public school teachers make $75K/year on average, work a five hour day, have summers off, cadillac health benefits and guaranteed, defined pensions, and they think they should be paid more than that if they work a 7 hour work day?
If that is correct, they have got to be effing kidding me.
I wonder what Obama thinks about the strike.
A race to the bottom. Hope you win that race to the bottom in your job.
btw - I workd in the public sector and I help pay for the public sector. So your snap answer broke in pieces.
IMO, no one, in any occupation, should be allowed to strike, ever, under any circumstance. If they walk out on their job, they should be fired. If you're unhappy with your current job, or your current pay/benefits/hours, etc., find a new job.
I have no problem with unions in the private sector. In the private sector, politics don't come into play. You have two sides negotiating at arm's length spending -- or not spending -- the company's money. What's unfair about that? Nothing, in my opinion.
In the public sector, you have two sides negotiating within the political arena spending taxpayers' money. Political pressures make negotiating at arm's length impossible from the "management side."
But how and why do you attribute that to teachers?
I have no problem with unions in the private sector. In the private sector, politics don't come into play. You have two sides negotiating at arm's length spending -- or not spending -- the company's money. What's unfair about that? Nothing, in my opinion.
In the public sector, you have two sides negotiating within the political arena spending taxpayers' money. Political pressures make negotiating at arm's length impossible from the "management side."
Public sector unions should be illegal everywhere, there's no doubt about it.
I have no problem with private sector unions, but I don't think they should be allowed to strike. No one should be allowed to skip out on work for days, weeks or months in a strike, and still be able to keep their job. There are too many people out there who would be happy to take those jobs permanently to allow that to happen.
I think private sector unions go on strike, truly, only as a last resort -- because it's costing them money out of their pockets. A teachers' strike as an example? Costs teachers nothing. They're going to have to make up all those days and, of course, they'll be paid for them.
Twice the salary of working people? WTF? Are you implying that teachers don't work?
It's being said that you are a teacher. So, how much do you make, and are you making twice what people in your town make?
I make a good amount of money, but it's not quite double the average in my town. I do, however, know teachers living in a very low income small town who make over $65,000 - $70,000. That's at least double the average income in the town.
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?