CHICAGO (AP) — The Chicago teachers union decided Sunday to continue its weeklong strike, extending an acrimonious standoff with Mayor Rahm Emanuel over teacher evaluations and job security provisions central to the debate over the future of public education across the United States. Emanuel said he would seek a court order to end the strike, which he said is illegal under state law. Union delegates declined to formally vote on a proposed contract settlement worked out over the weekend with officials from the nation's third largest school district. Schools will remain closed Monday. Union president Karen Lewis said teachers want the opportunity to continue to discuss the offer that is on the table.
Post by rugbywife on Sept 16, 2012 19:52:56 GMT -5
It's funny; I am about as pro-union as it gets. In fact, I was on the last bargaining team for my local and my name is on our last contract. And yet, I hate strikes. Most teachers do, despite what many people say, we would, genuinely, rather be in the classroom.
There are very few issues that would make me want to strike. I would much rather work to rule than strike. Striking never looks good in the public eye; people who don't support your cause won't suddenly start to and those who might may end up not.
Other than the fact that we couldn't (as a two-teacher household) survive on strike pay for very long, I don't think it is a horribly successful bargaining technique. At least not here...we would be legislated back to work in less than a week, in which case I would be out a week's pay and our union wouldn't have gained any bargaining power. It sucks all around, let alone from the lost teaching time issue.
We saved a bunch of money recently in case we went on strike, so we wouldn't have to take out a line of credit. We aren't going to because they have essentially passed a law making it illegal, so now we just have extra savings. But I hate living in this kind of turmoil and uncertainty. My favourite years are always the 3 years when we have a contract and don't have to worry about this crap.
rugby - actually when a teacher strikes, they generally do not lose a dollar. They will still work a full school year and be paid their full salary. Yes, there may be a disruption in the timing of being paid with the delayed start of school, but they will get their full salary. It is one of the few unions that does not feel any economic consequences for a strike.
rugby - actually when a teacher strikes, they generally do not lose a dollar. They will still work a full school year and be paid their full salary. Yes, there may be a disruption in the timing of being paid with the delayed start of school, but they will get their full salary. It is one of the few unions that does not feel any economic consequences for a strike.
rugby - actually when a teacher strikes, they generally do not lose a dollar. They will still work a full school year and be paid their full salary. Yes, there may be a disruption in the timing of being paid with the delayed start of school, but they will get their full salary. It is one of the few unions that does not feel any economic consequences for a strike.
This varies state by state. In NY, for example, teachers lose a lot of money if they choose to strike because of the Taylor Law. Teachers don't get paid and get fined around twice their wages (+ taxes).
rugby - actually when a teacher strikes, they generally do not lose a dollar. They will still work a full school year and be paid their full salary. Yes, there may be a disruption in the timing of being paid with the delayed start of school, but they will get their full salary. It is one of the few unions that does not feel any economic consequences for a strike.
"Actually, rugby, allow me to tell you how your profession and union really work. Obviously your career and local involvement do not qualify you as much as my armchair spectator degree. HTH"
I'm interested to see what the Court does with this strike. I feel like for the past week, the issue was the evaluations and Karen Lewis was all, "These evaluations are UNTENABLE!!!!!ELEVEN!!!" And then suddenly today it was like, "Oh yeah, and we don't want any school closures."
I need to look at the issue of school closures a little more closely, but I'm pretty much ing that statement since it has not really been a focus of anything at all thus far. My thought is that it's just another way to make sure that teachers are employed. Is the CPS population growing? Do we need those schools to stay open?
Yes, we do need those schools to stay open. All of these schools are on the West and South sides (Bronzeville, North Lawndale, Garfield Park, Englewood), i.e. poor communities. Closing them will force kids into other neighborhood schools, which will then cause even more issues with the gangs in the city. It also affects the teachers of the schools where the students are shuffled to because they will have to deal with the gang tension, the overcrowded classrooms, the cut into their budget from new kids.
The neighborhood that I just moved out of was experiencing some effects of that, and it wasn't something to mess around with. I shouldn't be afraid to walk down the street in the afternoon for fear of ending up in the middle of a fight or for being attacked for a gang initiation.