StrangeSox

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:30 PM) I'd look for another job. And again, welcome to life on earth. So, you wouldn't accept a s*** deal. Welcome to life on earth, bub.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:29 PM) http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml Which CPS teacher is making less than the poverty line? Because if these teachers were making under the poverty line, you may have a point. But since they arent... What "responsibility to the system" does a public employee have that precludes them from demanding better wages and working conditions?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 04:28 PM) Well, I'm salaried so it's expected to get my job done, no matter the hours, so that part doesn't matter. Job protection? Relies on the company's well doing and fluctuates with the economy, but I also have put myself in a position where my company needs my skills moreso than my teammates. No increase in pay? Well once again depends on my job performance, I can easily not get any raise annually if I don't do a good enough job. Of course, if I am consistently underperforming that much I would be fired. So pretty much I deal with those things already in my job at some level, as I imagine everyone does in the private sector. I didn't ask if other people had to deal with these issues; they obviously do. I asked if you had the ability to fight against them, would you?

When did public sector employees start taking vows of poverty?

How many people posting in this thread would simply accept longer hours, reduced job protection and no increase in pay if you had the option to fight against it?

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) That is exactly how I understood it. They are at school longer hours but it is not spent with students. Instead of having to take this work home they do it in school while the students are at a new curricula session. Instead of working through lunch and leaving 45 minutes early, they are now forced to take the lunch. The educational accomplishment guaranteed pay increase are another item all together. If I get my MBA my current employer is not obligated to increase my pay because of it. The benefits package is a whole other issue unto itself. Instructional hours for children are longer as well as having an additional 10 days. I'm not sure if those additional instructional hours are covered by current teachers or not.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) Don't you see? Everyone who is not a teacher clocks out at exactly 40:00 hours per week! And they all take super crazy long lunches paid for by their employer! And they never, ever even think of work when outside the office! And there are always strippers and cocaine freely available. The average full-time employee works 20 hours more PER YEAR than the average elementary school teacher! And LESS than the average high school teacher! According to BLS data! Don't you see???

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) Yeah, but those higher-level college courses are covered by schools as "continuing education". That depends on the school district and the contract.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) How much of this longer workday is spent instructing students? 52 minutes for elementary, 46 for high school and 10 additional days according to this announcement. I believe the exact details on additional teacher hours changed over the summer, though.

I can only google so fast!

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) The ones I've seen have all said that the city agreed to hire from the pool of teachers who were fired in 2010/2011/2012. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/dea...public-schools/ If the city went back on that plan and the current teachers are getting a 90 minute lengthening of the day, I'd expect we'd be hearing way more about that from the CTU end. CTU's "bargaining update" from August 22nd indicates otherwise http://www.ctunet.com/blog/excerpt/Contrac...e_8_22_2012.pdf

Salaries are baselined like this: The %age increase, if I understand it correctly, would adjust every number in the matrix by X%. The CTU is arguing for the 4% they were denied as well as over future COL's.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:40 PM) Or get another year experience for that automatic increase. It's a matrix, not a one-dimensional line. You'll max out if you never get anything above a bachelor's degree.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:41 PM) The numbers I've seen along the way, were that they wanted 19% originally, and came down to 16%. Now I am seeing those much lower numbers bandied about. The CPS is the source of the 16% figure and no one can seem to figure out how they really get there. They're offering 3% and three years of 2%, which works out to 9.3% over four years. It doesn't include the 4% COL that was in their contract that they've been denied.

Negotiators are well-aware of the pension when they're hammering out wages and other benefits.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:36 PM) This is only true in Carnegie Level 1 universities which most schools are not. This is a good point that I thought of about 10 seconds after posting. Some schools pride themselves on being teaching universities and not research-oriented.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) They're not working 20%+ more hours because the plan involves hiring 477 extra teachers to work those added hours. High school teachers are going to be working an extra 14 minutes. Elementary and middle school teachers will be working the same hours as before. So it's a 16% raise for working basically the same schedule. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07...-teachers-union A 16% raise over four years if you can figure out where the CPS is getting that number. So about 3.5% per year and not getting their cancelled 4% COL.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) Well, college teachers get close to a month off... CPS isn't college and professors are often researchers first, teachers second. It's not really the same thing.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:23 PM) I don't think teachers work any extra hours than most any other professional profession. What I mean by professional is white collar. Lawyers work just as much. Nurses, just as much. IT people often work even more (I'm an exception to this rule because I'm awesome and do network security which almost nobody does)...point being, there are a LOT of professions that work long hours/after hours with no additional benefits of doing so...oh...and most don't have pensions and health/dental for life, either. Lawyers generally have the additional benefit of making $$$

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:20 PM) Well, let's be real, that "overtime" gets teachers to a normal level of working - those who actually do it. You cannot say with any breath of seriousness that 3 straight months off, plus 2-4 weeks in December, plus Spring Break while also getting weekends off during the school year is not having more time off compared to other professions. It's just blatantly inaccurate. Teachers do not get "three straight months," or twelve weeks, off in the summer. What school district that isn't on some modified year-round schedule gets more than 2 weeks in December?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:12 PM) Sorry for being unclear, I meant the stat about regular workers doing less than 2k hours. The stats I linked from the US govt showed every industry averaged over 40 hours per week. This is what I was referring to, According to data from the comparable year in a Labor Department survey, an average full-time employee works 1,932 hours a year spread out over 48 weeks (excluding two weeks vacation and federal holidays). I can only find that same 2011 data set, not the 2008 set (that's the OECD data year). I think average hours are still up since the recession, though.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) No it hurts everyone, because unlike a private sector job, schools are for the benefit of society. So when you have highly educated teachers who want the same job for less money, society is hurt when the union says no. Society is hurt when the school district is bankrupt and the union wont let it hire cheaper replacements. Once again, everyone wants a teacher job. But the union creates a system where only the select few ever get it and then creates rules to ensure that those select few never lose it. And maybe Id be a little more convinced in the system if we were going gangbusters and dominating in education. But we arent, so outside of teachers bank accounts, who is winning? Because this is who is not: children, tax payers, society. It doesn't hurt people already inside the guild. This isn't much different than ABA or AMA controlling bar and licensing rates to protect those who are already in. I'm trying to make as neutral a statement as possible here, not saying it's the right policy.

^^a good post edit: damn you soxbadger, that was meant for NSS's post.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:12 PM) Sorry for being unclear, I meant the stat about regular workers doing less than 2k hours. The stats I linked from the US govt showed every industry averaged over 40 hours per week. This is what I was referring to, According to data from the comparable year in a Labor Department survey, an average full-time employee works 1,932 hours a year spread out over 48 weeks (excluding two weeks vacation and federal holidays). It really pisses me off when news articles don't include links to sources. So lazy. I'll go digging...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 11, 2012 -> 12:06 PM) You may not be aware, but getting a masters degree screws you trying to get a CPS job. One of my good friends is very talented, she went to Smith for undergrad and got 2 masters at Depaul (education and history) before she even tried to get a teaching job. Her dream was to be a High School teacher. She student taught at CPS and the school loved her. But they couldnt hire her. Why? According to the contract they had to pay her X due to all of her degrees. She just wanted a job, she told them she would be willing to take the lowest starting salary. They said that it was not allowed because of the union. She is now teaching at a private school in the suburbs, making less money than a brand new CPS teacher with no extra degrees. It makes no sense. My wife specifically did not choose a master's program when she went back to get her teaching certificate. Allowing people to accept lower pay undercuts the wages that unions have negotiated for. It's guild-like protectionism and hurts some while it helps others.