StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2012 -> 07:34 AM) So maybe they should quit being crabs in a bucket trying to take more from the 80% of people below them who are paying their salaries? Their summary plan talks about closing corporate loopholes to boost revenues. The crab mentality refers more to workplace conditions and rights than salary; specifically, it came up in the context of "I could be fired in ten seconds without notice and no severance or ability to contest!" I think that's a terrible system and that instead of trying to make sure everyone has to work under those same conditions, it'd be better if there were stronger employment protections. Not necessarily tenure-for-everyone systems, either.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 08:58 PM) Well its hard for non-teachers to really get behind this. You just have to sweat it a bit until you get tenured. Most people don't have the benefit of a contract. Just take your system and imagine that your principal can fire you next week because he feels you are ineffective. Then pretend there is no contract or an appeals process. Let's stop being crabs in a bucket and fight for better employment protections for everyone instead of no protections for anyone.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 08:37 PM) It is still a hell of a lot harder to fire a teacher than it is to fire a normal person in the private sector. Illinois is an at will work state. Do you know how they fire you in the private sector. You get called into a meeting usually with HR, you are given some papers to sign and then you are gone. As long as its not for sexual orientation, age, or gender discrimination you are pretty much good to go. You can fire people for just about anything. And they don't have any appeals process. And that is horrible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 08:17 PM) IT was in here somewhere. Must have been someone else. I said my wife specifically did not go for her masters

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 08:14 PM) For a first year student out of college, that is pretty good money on average. I don't disagree, but it's not the high life.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 07:49 PM) Lol, what the hell does this even mean? If they waste their money on luxuries that's a justification for them needing more? And BTW, 45-50k is the same median salary as an attorney in Chicago who comes out of grad/professional level schooling with twice the amount of debt, zero pension, healthcare and all that jazz. So f*** these teachers. Can them all tomorrow and start new. The results couldn't possibly be an worse than CPS now. No, that wasn't what i was saying.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 07:23 PM) The starting salary for a teacher in Chicago is the median salary for a household in the United States. Right out of college, that is pretty good money. $74k a year is about the 80th percentile of income for a household in the US. It's pretty good money but it's not really that much. If they're really living in nice lp apartments and buying s bunch of crap at the mall all the time, they're living paycheck to paycheck. Let's not pretend that $45k-$50k or what ever the exact amount is is some high livin'

Really, if people are interested in what the concerns of both sides are,i can't recommend last nights and tonights Chicago Tonight enough.

Your friends sound like they are living far beyond their means. $74k a year for teachers with over a decade of experience is a decent living, but not a luxurious one. If they don't have that experience, they are likely making considerably less than $74k.

More great discussion on Chicago Tonight. They are focusing on the main issues of contention, evaluations and hiring.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:59 PM) Why dont you tell me what this strike is about because I have it so wrong. I've posted several summaries in this thread. Striking workers don't take their jobs seriously? That's in interesting perspective. Many of the issues they're striking over directly benefit the innocent children. Maybe they're not a bunch of heartless bastards after all? Maybe they do care about the children and are fighting for better working conditions. Framing either side as "not caring about the children" is just lazy rhetoric.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:59 PM) Which is what, less than 1% of the nations population? (possibly, it was a parenthetical tangent!)

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:58 PM) The entire thing boils down to the economic conditions. The raises cost money. Smaller classes mean more teachers, which costs money. More resources obviously cost more money. Which of these issues are not directly relevant to the economy? Where did I say it wasn't relevant to the economy (funding)?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:57 PM) Where have you been that there haven't been cuts to everyone's budgets? That everyone isn't dealing with resource and staffing issues? Sure they are, but it's more difficult to frame it as greedy asshole teachers saying to hell with the kids if they're fighting over classroom resources and to keep class size down.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:57 PM) The school system is also running a massive debt, and is 100% dependent on the taxpayers for their pay and funding. The private sector is not set up that way. If you don't like what Wal-mart execs are making, you don't have to shop there. As a taxpayer in Chicago, you have no choice in the matter. (not true in many rural communities where the Walmart is the only store for 50 miles in any direction)

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:55 PM) Well you keep raising that particular issue, so we keep addressing it. I've brought up the other issues surrounding this strike multiple times but everyone goes right back to the "raises?! In THIS economy?!" aspect.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:51 PM) So then it ceases to be anything noble anymore. They've now collectively banded together in order to achieve their "good wage," and said the hell with the children they are supposed to be serving. The wage issue is pretty much settled, but people like to focus on that one aspect to slam the greedy teachers who are anxious to f*** over a child for a buck. They don't want to talk about the classroom conditions they're striking over, or the resource and staffing issues.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:51 PM) Nope When Carnegie wanted to cut workers wages 50% even though he was making record profits, that makes sense. When factory workers struck because they had to work 20 hours, or work in unsafe conditions, or child labor, or anything that is truly terrible, that makes sense. When you have a job, that is part of the public trust, you should only strike as a last resort and it better be over something that is very serious. It's their first strike in a 1/4 century and it was held with a 90% vote by CTU members after months of fruitless negotiations. For some reason, people keep thinking this is a strike about raises. It's about many different issues and the COL adjustments are one of the ones with little or no contention at this point. Sure, and these teachers electing to strike don't.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) No, I'd keep working until I found another job. The ones I've had wouldn't allow me to just stop showing up. That's your only option because you have no collective negotiating power. Had you been organized with other workers, striking would have been an option.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:41 PM) Considering the alternative is no job, then no, I would not. I believe that it's illegal to fire striking workers, so the alternative is not "no job."

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:43 PM) Where did I say they couldnt demand those things? I said I would show up to my job. Because I take my job seriously. Because I show up even when I dont have to, because even when I had swine flu I went to my court appearance because that is my job. And if I am a teacher and I signed up to make kids lives better, then you better damn believe after I had a summer off, I would be there the first week to make sure that none of these kids got screwed because of money. And then after I took care of my students, I would go out and talk with parents and have protests on weekends, and show the world why I was deserving of more money. That is how you win public support. You dont think people are sympathetic to those who get screwed? Or those who get a bad deal? Of course they are. People arent sympathetic to those who take their ball and go home, effectively ending the game because they dont like a call. When you are an adult, when you are responsible, when you are allegedly worth so much and care so much about the damn students, you play on. Even if you got screwed. No workers should ever strike?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:41 PM) So which is it. A noble deed that they do for the children or are they in it for a buck? You keep switching their motivations. I have? Those two are not in conflict, though. You can be in it for the children and still want to earn a good wage.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:39 PM) What does a national election have to do with Rahm Emanuel and Chicago? This is a good question. You brought it up, didn't you?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:32 PM) Of all places in the world, this is the least applicable time in the history of the world to bring that up. Every single member of the governance of Chicago is a Democrat. City Council, Mayor, County, School Board, Governor and President are all Democrats. Like I said, Democrats haven't done s*** for labor in a while.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) Poverty? OMFG!!! They make as much, if not more, than the parents of the kids they teach. When you add in benefits they make LOTS MORE! Just stop with the sob story attempt. OMFG!!! It was a response to soxbadger implying that public employees have some sort of duty to not want higher wages and better working conditions, not a literal description.