• 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 Strike 2012

There is nothing wrong with teachers. Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle, History is filled with the evidence. Martial Arts Instructors are teachers. Those that Join the Military are taught Armed Combat.

Training is teaching. Others or one's self.

The only thing that makes teachers look bad. Are bad teachers or those that are there to take the easy way out. or those looking to game the system.
 
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?

Young people have that chance every day and many are taking advantage of it.
 
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

Astonishing. And we don't hear about any of that in the news. That or the fact that these are the highest paid teachers in the country who get some of the worst results.

I mean to say, obviously these teachers love their own kids even if they don't give a damn about anyone else's. There they are telling the rest of us what we should do about the public school problem.
 
Young people have that chance every day and many are taking advantage of it.

Not in Chicago. It is extremely hard to land a teaching job in Chicago.

If teachers in Chicago are not overpaid, then what are you scared of? There is no reason to fire a worker, when he can't find a substitute who provide more value.
 
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"? Your two "sources" are actually the same source since the second duplicates part of the first.

Do you realize that BOTH SIDES agree to the procedures on how to fire teachers?
Do you realize that the process is there to protect the rights of both sides?
Do you realize that numbers of teachers are indeed fired every year all over this country?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
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.

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
 
"When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."
- Albert Shanker. President of the American Federation of Teachers
 
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.

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. :)
 
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.

You know, you just don't get it. Public sector unions have been given wage packages and benefits and these non fire rules in exchange for their vote.

And here you lay the blame at an administrator. What BS. If you can't climb Mount Everest you can't fire a teacher. Yep it's all the administrator's fault because he/she could not climb Mount Everest to be able to fire a teacher.

"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"
 
Last edited:
How does making a wiseguy personal attack on me negate reality?

More reality for you.

CA Union Kills Bill to Fire Worst Teachers

Reprinted from CNN

Los Angeles (CNN) -- Allegations of lewd acts committed by a teacher on students in a Los Angeles-area elementary school sent shockwaves across the community last year.

But the outrage didn't end there. Amid a year-long police investigation involving dozens of photos showing the alleged acts, the school district -- faced with strict state rules -- could not fire the teacher.

Instead, it paid him $40,000 to quit his job.


CA Union Kills Bill to Fire Worst Teachers | Choice Media | education reform homepage
 
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?

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.
 
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. :)

That is simply BS and not even useful BS at that.

It is not impossible to fire teachers and they are fired every year all over the nation.

Contracts are entered into by two consenting parties. If one has people working for them that cannot or will not carry out the procedures necessary to fire teachers then the onus is on them.
 
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.

Why should it compare to the private sector when it is not the private sector.

Gold and benefits!?!?!?!? Thats pretty funny. :lamo:mrgreen::lamo
 
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.
 
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 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 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.

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.....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.

That's obviously not what I said though.

There is a world of difference between being affected by legislation, etc. and doing business directly with the government.

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.

I oppose 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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.....

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.
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.

Rent seeking by far is a greater danger than teachers pay.
 
Back
Top Bottom