• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chicago Teachers Union Gives 10-Day Strike Notice

joko104 said:
No, because Bloomfield Hills is a clean, nice place to live and much of Chicago is a dangerous dirty hellhole of over priced housing for what you get.

Chicago teacher pay isn't based upon skill, but seniority, so teacher quality and teacher salary have no relationship in Chicago. Don't tell us the starting salary of a teacher in Chicago. What is the salary AND benefits AND retirement AND insurance values total of a teacher who has been there for 15 years?

More importantly, what is the number of non-teacher staff and administrators and their salaries? What is the total budget expenditures for salaries that are NOT teachers compared to the total for those who are? Administrators pursue raises by hiding behind teachers.
Click to expand...

Joko, are you from Chicago? If so, you may be interested in this link: Family Taxpayers Foundation
 
This is just the Wisconsin teacher strike debate all over again. However, because of how heads Chicago the teachers will win anything and everything they want - though will make it appear a compromise...
... CORRECTION, the administrators will get everything they want.
 
MaggieD said:
Joko, are you from Chicago? If so, you may be interested in this link: Family Taxpayers Foundation
Click to expand...

I was in Chicago for about a decade. I was totally 100% non-political and lived in a flat across from the club I worked at. My life was only about survival and pleasure. I moved to a quiet little city in West Florida a little over 4 years ago. Total change in about everything of my life.

In my opinion, while Chicago has its wealthy areas, a lot of options and diversities, it also is a dirty, dangerous and corrupt city overpriced to live in and many other drawbacks, plus I hated the weather. Cold. Damp. Windy. Dirty air. I don't like snow.
 
MaggieD said:
What an understatement. You can't even be honest.
Click to expand...
wow. he acknowledges that tenure may need revision and you then accuse him of lying

NYC's Rubber Rooms were finally disbanded in 2010, after years of sending teachers accused of wrongdoing to these daycare centers for the duration of time it took to arduously work through the firing process, where they received full pay, ran businesses out of them, slept, did crossword puzzles, and stayed on the public school system's payroll.
Click to expand...
notice that this was the NEGOTIATED method to keep teachers out of the classroom, while recognizing that none of those teachers assigned to report to the 'rubber room' had been determined to be guilty of anything
that approach was consistent with American values that it is wrong to punish someone without a fair hearing
let me point out that in such a negotiation the employer was sitting at the table and agreed to such a plan. where is your expressed angst against the employer for not fashioning a more reasonable, cost-effective approach?

At the time of disbanding, there were 550 teachers sucking up $30 million a year from "the children" they love so much. From 2008 to 2010, the school system was only able to dismiss three teachers for incompetence and 45 for misconduct including corporal punishment, sexual harrassment or crimes.
Click to expand...
and that the employer was only able to document inappropriate conduct/teaching against less than 10% of those accused tells us what, exactly? to me it says there were too many teachers who were unfairly alleged to have acted inappropriately, because the employer was without the facts to support such allegations. and THAT is the very reason why tenure is important to teachers; without it, they are vulnerable to those in authority who can find no wrong doing but who express displeasure at the teachers' beliefs/opinions in a political work environment

And, of course, that resolution did nothing to resolve this issue:
While the agreement may solve the thorny public relations problems for the city and the union, it does nothing to address the more costly absent teacher reserve pool, which consists of teachers who have lost their jobs because of budget cuts or when a school is shut down for poor performance, but have not been accused of incompetence or wrongdoing. Those teachers, who number about 1,100, do not have permanent classroom jobs but draw full salaries; the city spends roughly $100 million annually on the pool.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

and that the employer has a pool of employees - whose only action was to be well performing - it has contracted to pay, but no positions to place them in, why is that the blame of the teachers/union and not because of the employers' incompetence to enter into such a fiscally irresponsible agreement?



Well, let's start with vouchers. I actually think that says it all.
Click to expand...
why would the teachers be supportive of vouchers? there is a finite budget for education. every dollar sent to a private contractor is a dollar less available to the public education system
vouchers will only provide a taxpayer subsidy to those affluent parents who can now afford to send their kids to private schools. it is but another transfer of tax benefits from the working person to the elite

If they wanted to help students, they would clearly demonstrate that by bargaining at the table for them.
Click to expand...
that is not the purpose of the union. its fiduciary responsibility - one required by federal law - is to represent the employees. the teachers. now, of course, when the desires of the teachers aligns with the needs of the students, that strengthens the union's/teachers' argument. but make no mistake, the union is representing the interests of the teachers ... its purpose is NOT to represent the interests of the students. the education department receives taxpayer money to do that

They would present an evaluation system.
Click to expand...
what makes you believe they do not do this
the problem is, an effective evaluation system requires work on the part of the administrators. it is they who want an evaluation system that places a premium on easiness rather than accuracy

They would insist on policing themselves.
Click to expand...
what makes you believe that they do not now do this
their authority is limited, but be assured, most teachers know who the weak links are in their group. just as i would bet no one here defends co-workers who do not pull their own weight, that is also true of teachers
but let's face the facts. there is a defined mechanism to get rid of poorly performing teachers. but management is too lazy to follow that protocol. it is easier for them to ignore the problem and allow the inferior teachers to inflict themselves on another class of students
in short, your anger is misplaced. the persons who are allowing weak teachers to remain in the class rooms are education managers. the union cannot defend the indefensible (tho by law, they must attempt to represent them, too); management needs to get off its ass and actually follow the procedure to document the lousy teachers' performance record so that they can either be re-trained to become fully performing or they can be forced to do something other than teach
and you have provided the evidence to show why i am correct in this damnation of education management. less than 10% of the accused teachers assigned to the rubber room were actually found to be problematic teachers ... that is an indictment of the quality of school management


I don't blame teachers. I blame the teachers' unions.
Click to expand...
and you betray your ignorance of unions. the unions are the employees they represent. by federal law the employees are required to conduct democratic elections to elect their union leadership

They are greedy pigs interested only in making sure they promote divisiveness between teachers and the school system to protect their own jobs.
Click to expand...
that ignorance of unionization appears once again
those 'greedy pigs' you castigate are our educators, who are performing their fiduciary responsibility required under law: they are representing the interests of the teachers who elected them to do so

And, most of all, they would recognize and respect that CPS is out of money.
Click to expand...
when you have no money to buy something, do you then go shopping to purchase stuff you cannot afford? that is what the chicago schools did. they are wanting the teachers to work more hours for zero additional pay. what would you or anyone else on this board think if your own employer wanted you to expand your work schedule but offered you no additional money for that additional work?
my guess is, if you had a union, you would RUN to your rep and insist that he do something to address that inequity
and if you are like most represented employees, you would then go behind his back and complain that he did not do enough
 
justabubba said:
wow. he acknowledges that tenure may need revision and you then accuse him of lying


notice that this was the NEGOTIATED method to keep teachers out of the classroom, while recognizing that none of those teachers assigned to report to the 'rubber room' had been determined to be guilty of anything
that approach was consistent with American values that it is wrong to punish someone without a fair hearing
let me point out that in such a negotiation the employer was sitting at the table and agreed to such a plan. where is your expressed angst against the employer for not fashioning a more reasonable, cost-effective approach?


and that the employer was only able to document inappropriate conduct/teaching against less than 10% of those accused tells us what, exactly? to me it says there were too many teachers who were unfairly alleged to have acted inappropriately, because the employer was without the facts to support such allegations. and THAT is the very reason why tenure is important to teachers; without it, they are vulnerable to those in authority who can find no wrong doing but who express displeasure at the teachers' beliefs/opinions in a political work environment



and that the employer has a pool of employees - whose only action was to be well performing - it has contracted to pay, but no positions to place them in, why is that the blame of the teachers/union and not because of the employers' incompetence to enter into such a fiscally irresponsible agreement?


why would the teachers be supportive of vouchers? there is a finite budget for education. every dollar sent to a private contractor is a dollar less available to the public education system
vouchers will only provide a taxpayer subsidy to those affluent parents who can now afford to send their kids to private schools. it is but another transfer of tax benefits from the working person to the elite


that is not the purpose of the union. its fiduciary responsibility - one required by federal law - is to represent the employees. the teachers. now, of course, when the desires of the teachers aligns with the needs of the students, that strengthens the union's/teachers' argument. but make no mistake, the union is representing the interests of the teachers ... its purpose is NOT to represent the interests of the students. the education department receives taxpayer money to do that


what makes you believe they do not do this
the problem is, an effective evaluation system requires work on the part of the administrators. it is they who want an evaluation system that places a premium on easiness rather than accuracy


what makes you believe that they do not now do this
their authority is limited, but be assured, most teachers know who the weak links are in their group. just as i would bet no one here defends co-workers who do not pull their own weight, that is also true of teachers
but let's face the facts. there is a defined mechanism to get rid of poorly performing teachers. but management is too lazy to follow that protocol. it is easier for them to ignore the problem and allow the inferior teachers to inflict themselves on another class of students
in short, your anger is misplaced. the persons who are allowing weak teachers to remain in the class rooms are education managers. the union cannot defend the indefensible (tho by law, they must attempt to represent them, too); management needs to get off its ass and actually follow the procedure to document the lousy teachers' performance record so that they can either be re-trained to become fully performing or they can be forced to do something other than teach
and you have provided the evidence to show why i am correct in this damnation of education management. less than 10% of the accused teachers assigned to the rubber room were actually found to be problematic teachers ... that is an indictment of the quality of school management



and you betray your ignorance of unions. the unions are the employees they represent. by federal law the employees are required to conduct democratic elections to elect their union leadership


that ignorance of unionization appears once again
those 'greedy pigs' you castigate are our educators, who are performing their fiduciary responsibility required under law: they are representing the interests of the teachers who elected them to do so


when you have no money to buy something, do you then go shopping to purchase stuff you cannot afford? that is what the chicago schools did. they are wanting the teachers to work more hours for zero additional pay. what would you or anyone else on this board think if your own employer wanted you to expand your work schedule but offered you no additional money for that additional work?
my guess is, if you had a union, you would RUN to your rep and insist that he do something to address that inequity
and if you are like most represented employees, you would then go behind his back and complain that he did not do enough
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree with you more. More later. I'm about to go visit mom. ;)
 
With the states Education ranking being down at number 28, maybe the administrators better put in some performance goals that the teachers have to meet to get full pay. Come on they can do it, only 3 places to go before they are in the top 50%.
 
DVSentinel said:
With the states Education ranking being down at number 28, maybe the administrators better put in some performance goals that the teachers have to meet to get full pay. Come on they can do it, only 3 places to go before they are in the top 50%.
Click to expand...

ok, now describe for us what those performance goals might be for the individual teacher
 
joko104 said:
No, because Bloomfield Hills is a clean, nice place to live and much of Chicago is a dangerous dirty hellhole of over priced housing for what you get.

Chicago teacher pay isn't based upon skill, but seniority, so teacher quality and teacher salary have no relationship in Chicago. Don't tell us the starting salary of a teacher in Chicago. What is the salary AND benefits AND retirement AND insurance values total of a teacher who has been there for 15 years?

More importantly, what is the number of non-teacher staff and administrators and their salaries? What is the total budget expenditures for salaries that are NOT teachers compared to the total for those who are? Administrators pursue raises by hiding behind teachers.
Click to expand...

Chicago does NOT compete in the same market area with Bloomfield Hills. So lets try this again shall we?

The so called 'law' of supply and demand would indicate that Bloomfield Hills would offer low wages since demand for a low supply of jobs is more than plentiful. They have hundreds of applicants for every opening they have. However, the opposite it true in that they have wages in the top ten of over 70 tri-county school districts.

On the other hand, Detroit which has to fill hundreds of positions cannot do so while offering low wages in the bottom quarter of the same 70 tri-county school districts.

Supply and demand seems not be a any sort of 'law' here at all.
 
Kandahar said:
It's the fault of the teacher's unions for lobbying the government for inefficient tenure policies, and it's the fault of the government for listening to them.
Click to expand...
I asked for a demonstration, not an unsubstantiated claim. Again, can you please demonstrate that "the low efficiency of tenure is the fault of unions and not of the government or other groups"? Demonstration requires that you show causation with facts not that you just keep repeating your argument.


I provided three such examples in my previous post. Innovation is never clearly better than the status quo...that's why it's innovation. Teacher's unions routinely reject ideas which, on their face, make economic sense. That doesn't mean that they'll all work as intended, but we'll never know if no one is allowed to try them. Furthermore, it isn't the union's place to decide what is and isn't the best organizational policy for the students. That's the voter's job.
Click to expand...
Again, you have repeated your argument which is NOT a demonstration that your argument is correct. Again, please show what "education innovation" teacher's unions are opposed to, why they say they are against it, what their counter proposals are and why the "educational innovation" they oppose is better for students than their counter proposals.

Not buying it. Teacher's union's are no different than any other self-interested organization. Their members pay dues, and their entire reason for existence is to maximize benefits to their members. So pardon me if I roll my eyes whenever they insist on some policy because "think of the children," which just so happens to benefit the teacher's union as well.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in what you "buy" or what makes you "roll your eyes." That's your business. I'm interested in a demonstration that your arguments are correct. Please demonstrate the accuracy of your arguments. So far, you have merely repeated your beliefs without substantiation. I'm trying to understand what demonstrable evidence has lead you to the conclusions that you've come to.

Their interests match up SOME of the time. And when they don't, you can bet that the teacher's unions will do what it thinks is in its OWN best interest at the expense of the students 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
Please demonstrate that "the teacher's unions will do what it thinks is in its OWN best interest at the expense of the students 100% of the time." Because you have invoked percentages, statistics will be necessary.

Presumably if it's a good educational policy, then the voters can be convinced to elect people who support such policies to the Board of Education without such strong-arming tactics.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world that would be true, yes. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people refuse to demonstrate the veracity of their arguments and "roll their eyes" when others ask them for evidence.

Why WOULD the teacher's union care about the needs of the students? That isn't why they exist. I wouldn't expect teacher's unions to care any more about the needs of the students than, say, a coffee corporation or a plumber's guild does. They exist for the benefit of their owners...not for the benefit of students.
Click to expand...
This is not a demonstration of how you know that "it's just a coincidence" and that the teacher's union doesn't genuinely want those things for students. Please demonstrate that. Asking "why would they" is NOT a demonstration. It is a deflective question.
 
Helix said:
having grown up in a household headed by two teachers, i can say that you are demonstrating that you know next to nothing about what teachers really do.
Click to expand...
Having grown up with a teacher for a mother and principal for a father, I concur.
 
MaggieD said:
Come on, Detroit is a dying city in its final death throes. Oh, and here's how the teacher's union is helping, by the way:



Union says stop teaching students in Detroit « America, You Asked For It!
Click to expand...

Maggie - your source clearly indicates that these ARE NOT the normal duties of the teacher nor are they the normal union recommended activities for teachers.

You are badly confusing a temporary and suggested list of ways to find breaking the union with what the union and teachers have been doing for fifty or more years.
 
justabubba said:
ok, now describe for us what those performance goals might be for the individual teacher
Click to expand...

Bah, I don't know. I am not a teacher nor have I ever worked in education, I killed people and broke things for a living. Surely someone somewhere could come up with some measure of performance.

I think all contracts should have performance measures in them. If you want full pay, you do full work. I don't think that is unreasonable. And it should be included that if you fail to meet performance standards for an set number of cycles, then, bye, your fired and no severance for you. The only time I would have problems with that is if your "performance" was someone else's opinion instead of a measurable standard.
 
MaggieD said:
What an understatement. You can't even be honest. NYC's Rubber Rooms were finally disbanded in 2010, after years of sending teachers accused of wrongdoing to these daycare centers for the duration of time it took to arduously work through the firing process, where they received full pay, ran businesses out of them, slept, did crossword puzzles, and stayed on the public school system's payroll.

At the time of disbanding, there were 550 teachers sucking up $30 million a year from "the children" they love so much. From 2008 to 2010, the school system was only able to dismiss three teachers for incompetence and 45 for misconduct including corporal punishment, sexual harrassment or crimes.

And, of course, that resolution did nothing to resolve this issue:
Click to expand...
Please do not accuse of me dishonesty. That is no foundation on which to build a fruitful discussion. As I said, I believe that tenure could be more efficient in some areas. Just because I do not see it as problematic as you do does not mean that I am being "dishonest." On the contrary, it means that we disagree.

Well, let's start with vouchers. I actually think that says it all.
Click to expand...
The word "vouchers" is not an argument nor a demonstration of the veracity of an argument. Please show why teacher's unions say they are against vouchers, what their counter proposals are and why vouchers are better for students than their counter proposals.

If they wanted to help students, they would clearly demonstrate that by bargaining at the table for them.
Click to expand...
I've already provided links where the head of the Chicago Teacher's Union showed that they are bargaining on behalf of student interests in addition to their own interests. In addition to that, CTU leaders have given several interviews where they've explained that as well. Why is this insufficient for you?

They would present an evaluation system.
Click to expand...
They have presented a plan for evaluation system.

Here is the plan: http://www.ctunet.com/quest-center/research/text/cps-framework/CPS_Final_Offer.pdf

Here is more information on the plan and their work with CPS to develop one: Chicago Teachers Union | Teacher Evaluation

They would insist on policing themselves.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? This is vague.

I don't blame teachers. I blame the teachers' unions.
Click to expand...
If you blame the Chicago Teacher's Union, then you are blaming the 90% of unionized Chicago teachers since the majority of them voted to authorize a strike in June based on what CTU is proposing.

They are greedy pigs interested only in making sure they promote divisiveness between teachers and the school system to protect their own jobs.
Click to expand...
Please demonstrate that CTU "are greedy pigs interested only in making sure they promote divisiveness between teachers and the school system to protect their own jobs." And please demonstrate how you are not, then, calling a significant amount of teachers "greedy pigs" since the majority of teachers voted to authorize a strike.

And, most of all, they would recognize and respect that CPS is out of money.
Click to expand...
Actually, CPS should have respected the fact that it was out of money by not increasing the length of the school day, particularly since there is no demonstrable benefit to the students for doing so. I mean, how much sense does that make?
 
OK, you're getting hostile and are arguing entirely with emotion now, so this may be my last response to you:

ThePlayDrive said:
I asked for a demonstration, not an unsubstantiated claim. Again, can you please demonstrate that "the low efficiency of tenure is the fault of unions and not of the government or other groups"? Demonstration requires that you show causation with facts not that you just keep repeating your argument.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what kind of "demonstration" you are asking for here. I mean, are you seriously denying that special interest groups lobby the government for policies? I doubt this is what you had in mind in terms of a "demonstration" (I doubt you even KNOW what you had in mind), but I'll spell it out as best I can for you:

1. Teacher's unions endorse certain politicians.
2. Teacher's unions endorse certain policies that benefit the teacher's union (e.g. inefficient tenure).
3. Politicians implement said policies in order to stay in the teacher's union's good graces.

Again, you have repeated your argument which is NOT a demonstration that your argument is correct. Again, please show what "education innovation" teacher's unions are opposed to, why they say they are against it, what their counter proposals are and why the "educational innovation" they oppose is better for students than their counter proposals.
Click to expand...

And as I already explained, innovation is NOT clearly better for students than the status quo. That's why it's innovation. But we will never know as long as the teacher's unions stand in the way and refuse to allow any experimentation whatsoever in our education system if it might pose a threat to the teacher's union. Regarding your other three points:

"what education innovation teacher's unions are opposed to" - I already gave you three. Merit pay, online education, and charter schools.

"why they say they are against it" - The same reason they say they are against ANY innovation: zomg think of the children. In reality, they oppose these things because merit pay will pose a threat to the most mediocre teachers, and online education and charter schools operate outside the boundaries of the union entirely.

"what their counter proposals are" - They don't have any. In all three cases, their counter proposal is the status quo.

I'm not interested in what you "buy" or what makes you "roll your eyes." That's your business. I'm interested in a demonstration that your arguments are correct. Please demonstrate the accuracy of your arguments. So far, you have merely repeated your beliefs without substantiation. I'm trying to understand what demonstrable evidence has lead you to the conclusions that you've come to.
Click to expand...

What demonstrable evidence that leads me to the conclusion that a group organized specifically for the benefit of teachers doesn't have STUDENTS' best interests at heart? Really? That's like asking me what demonstrable evidence there is that large corporations care more about making money for their shareholders than they do about helping the poor. Or like asking me what demonstrable evidence there is that an environmental activist group cares more about the environment than they do about gun control.

I thought it would be pretty self-evident that a group that is paid for by members' dues of teachers - and whose leadership is elected by teachers - would care more about teachers than students or anyone else. No? :roll:

Please demonstrate that "the teacher's unions will do what it thinks is in its OWN best interest at the expense of the students 100% of the time." Because you have invoked percentages, statistics will be necessary.
Click to expand...

See above. Why WOULDN'T they act in their own self-interest? But here, I'll make this simple. You're right, I said 100% of the time they'll act in their own best interest. And I stand by that. So if you can find me one single example of a teacher's union advocating for an educational policy that would benefit the students, at the expense of the teacher's union itself, I will retract that claim and admit that I was wrong. It can be anything, from anywhere in the United States.

In an ideal world that would be true, yes. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people refuse to demonstrate the veracity of their arguments and "roll their eyes" when others ask them for evidence.
Click to expand...

Teachers are not special. If they think they have an educational policy that can benefit society, they should have to convince the voters just like anyone else rather than strongarming elected officials to get their way. And if the voters are too stupid to see it the same way, then that's just too bad. This is not a dictatorship.

This is not a demonstration of how you know that "it's just a coincidence" and that the teacher's union doesn't genuinely want those things for students. Please demonstrate that. Asking "why would they" is NOT a demonstration. It is a deflective question.
Click to expand...

I think you're being deliberately obtuse because you are fully aware that the facts are not on your side. "Why would they" is a perfectly valid question here; the fact that you have no answer is quite telling. Teacher's unions, like any other entity organized for a specific purpose and elected by its members, are going to advocate for that purpose. If they don't, the leadership will quickly find itself replaced by more pliant leadership.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
So it's ok for politicians to do this (with millions of dollars), but it's not ok for teachers to want an increase in salary? Because I do believe we have career GOP (as well as Dem) politicians that do this and get voted back in over and over again.
Click to expand...

Where did I ever say it was okay for the politicians to do it?
 
Running said:
No politician has that type of balls. And realistically, if its done in Chicago. The teachers can be replaced rapidly cause there are a lot of unemployed teachers out in the city and surrounding area. So they would have jobs that these teachers don't want.
Click to expand...

That's the problem, politicians these days have no balls, they don't fight for the people, just special interests. Most politicians are in the pocket of the unions and only seek to do their bidding, even if their bidding is harmful to the people who put them in office.
 
zstep18 said:
It's a high stress job which has a huge impact on society and individuals. And many teachers have jobs during the summers.
Click to expand...

So their actual annual incomes are higher than what was reported.
 
zstep18 said:
So we should blame the teachers? It's strange that while you talk about problems with the educational system (which there are most definitely problems), you seem to think that teachers are overvalued.
Click to expand...

Um... yes! What other business can you run and have a 50% failure rate and still think you deserve raises?
 
Cephus said:
Um... yes! What other business can you run and have a 50% failure rate and still think you deserve raises?
Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe the administration, shrinking budgets, poverty, problems that children may face at home has an affect on failing schools and not just the teacher's union?
 
zstep18 said:
I don't know, maybe the administration, shrinking budgets, poverty, problems that children may face at home has an affect on failing schools and not just the teacher's union?
Click to expand...

Teachers are hired to turn out a product, that product being educated students. It is their job to educate. It is not their job to point fingers. If they are incapable of producing the product for which they have been hired, they need to be let go and someone who can produce better results brought in. At no point whatsoever though should a teacher who is failing to do their job get more money or more benefits. They haven't earned it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom