Conquer Club

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09 ... dents?lite

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 62294.html

no thread about this yet? maybe it isn't big news in the rest of the country? i dunno...

anyway, i'm genuinely curious to see how many of you are willing to defend the unions on this issue.

the unions seem to be obviously in the wrong this time (maybe not so obvious to everyone, since i've heard some people declare their support for the unions)

from a personal perspective, i had a much more difficult time choosing a side during scott walker's union-busting campaign.

and i wonder whether obama will take a stance on this... he's avoided it thus far. i doubt he will, but i hope he does just so i can see the sparks fly

Demanding a 19% one-year pay increase on the #1 average teacher pay in the nation is insane. Turning down a 16% over 4 years pay raise is absurd.

On the one hand, I'm surprised at the timing (what with the election and all). On the other hand, the timing is great (what with the election and all).

The timing is key, as the Chicago teachers all dressed in red are getting the sense that Obama is going to lose the election, so they are executing the Acorn version of a flash mob, grab as much shit as you can before it's too late!

btw, the average salary for a Chicago teacher is 76,000 (don't forget the public sector benefit baskets and Summers off!), and there are roughly 350,000+ children who are not in school right now because of this shakedown. Oh, but teacher's unions, they are ALL about the children!

My favorite quote so far I heard on the radio..."The teachers are suffering etc.... It's all about the kids etc..... there isn't enough money to go around......we are in school today to service children on the free breakfast and lunch programs, as well as watching movies. We have a brand new state of the art auditorium...it's pretty cool."

I surprisingly hadn't heard about this one (I heard about the Wisconsing thing endlessly).

Here are my thoughts:

1. Based on the articles, Rahm Emmanuel refused to bend on two key issues at the heart of the standoff: allowing principals the right to choose teachers and teacher evaluations that are based in large part on student test scores. I don't understand why Rahm Emmanuel is refusing to bend on anything...isn't it between the school board and the teacher's union? I could understand the school board refusing to bend...or is he on the school board?

2. I also don't understand why it's a bad thing for principals to be able to choose teachers. I don't see it as a particularly significant issue, but I don't really understand why it IS an issue. Seniority is a concept that should apply to teachers to a degree, but it shouldn't be an all-consuming application by any means. The union should give in on this, and certainly if it means they can do away with #3.

3. I also don't understand why he's refusing to bend on the concept of evaluations being based in large part on student test scores. This is a horrible metric to use. This is a much more serious issue in my view than #2 and is something that school districts really need to look at more closely.

4. "the Disney Magnet School"? Makes me think of this thread: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=139201

5. "The union has called the plan to care for children during the strike a "train wreck." It warned that caregivers for the children do not have proper training, and there are fears of an increase in gang-related violence in some high-crime areas." The union should just keep their yap shut as far as this goes. Scaremongering like this just makes them look very bad.

6. "The talks broke down not over pay, but over proposed reforms, Reuters reported, citing sources on both sides. The union opposed a proposal to make student test scores a key factor in teacher evaluations, the report said." I'm with the union completely on this one. It's a stupid proposal, frankly.

7. "Chicago teachers make an average of between $69,470 and $76,000 per year, second-highest to New York City." Is Chicago a high-cost area? I honestly have no idea, but I've always thought of it as higher than normal, but certainly not as high as, for instance, New York City.

8. "While Emanuel has not attended the talks, he and Lewis have clashed. She has accused him of being a bully and using profanity in private meetings." I'm not sure why, but this doesn't really surprise me.

9. "He charged that Obama favors unions over students." Has Obama come out on the issue? Even if he has, this is really just a dumb statement to make. Does he really believe that?

10. Night Strike, they're the second-highest, not the #1 highest on average. Not that that is a significant difference, but frankly I don't trust that wasn't an intentional typo on your part. I also didn't see a reference to the 19% or 16% figures you mention...did I overlook it?

11. As far as the timing, I doubt the union is concerned about the Presidential election. Rather, timing-wise, it's perfect because school is in session, thus heightening the pressure it puts on the school board to get something done quickly.

Phatscotty wrote:The timing is key, as the Chicago teachers all dressed in red are getting the sense that Obama is going to lose the election, so they are executing the Acorn version of a flash mob, grab as much shit as you can before it's too late!

It's people like you that drive me to want to side with the union, simply so that I'm not associated with utter jackasses.

Phatscotty wrote:btw, the average salary for a Chicago teacher is 76,000 (don't forget the public sector benefit baskets and Summers off!), and there are roughly 350,000+ children who are not in school right now because of this shakedown. Oh, but teacher's unions, they are ALL about the children!

You do realize that none of this is particularly relevant, right? Their strike doesn't at all mean they're not concerned about the kids.

Phatscotty wrote:My favorite quote so far I heard on the radio..."The teachers are suffering etc.... It's all about the kids etc..... there isn't enough money to go around......we are in school today to service children on the free breakfast and lunch programs, as well as watching movies. We have a brand new state of the art auditorium...it's pretty cool."

And?

It sounds to me like a lot of teachers are worried about getting fired based on poor student performance.

This strike certainly is not helping the students

Phatscotty wrote:It sounds to me like a lot of teachers are worried about getting fired based on poor student performance.

It sounds to me like a lot of teachers are worried about getting fired for stupid reasons.

The Union isn't there for the students. The Union is there for the teachers and of course the strike occurs now. When else would you expect it Phats? The most surprising thing here (to me) is the "average salaries" being $69 to $76k. Makes me wonder what the actual pay scale is for all the teachers in the area.

None of you really get it, do you?

It's about the children.

heh heh.

oVo wrote:The Union isn't there for the students. The Union is there for the teachers and of course the strike occurs now. When else would you expect it Phats? The most surprising thing here (to me) is the "average salaries" being $69 to $76k. Makes me wonder what the actual pay scale is for all the teachers in the area.

I understand unions. I have been a member of mine since 1993. I expect Unions to not go too far, and unions going too far and over-reaching like this is becoming way too common. And if the unions continue to get in the way of the children's education, then the unions are gonna have to go.

Phatscotty wrote:

oVo wrote:The Union isn't there for the students. The Union is there for the teachers and of course the strike occurs now. When else would you expect it Phats? The most surprising thing here (to me) is the "average salaries" being $69 to $76k. Makes me wonder what the actual pay scale is for all the teachers in the area.

I understand unions. I have been a member of mine since 1993. I expect Unions to not go too far, and unions going too far and over-reaching like this is becoming way too common. And if the unions continue to get in the way of the children's education, then the unions are gonna have to go.

I gotta be honest, with all of the anti-union rhetoric you spew in here, I can't imagine that you legitimately belong to a union (or is it two now?).

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

oVo wrote:The Union isn't there for the students. The Union is there for the teachers and of course the strike occurs now. When else would you expect it Phats? The most surprising thing here (to me) is the "average salaries" being $69 to $76k. Makes me wonder what the actual pay scale is for all the teachers in the area.

I understand unions. I have been a member of mine since 1993. I expect Unions to not go too far, and unions going too far and over-reaching like this is becoming way too common. And if the unions continue to get in the way of the children's education, then the unions are gonna have to go.

I gotta be honest, with all of the anti-union rhetoric you spew in here, I can't imagine that you legitimately belong to a union (or is it two now?).

Just because I am in a union does not mean I remain silent when unions go berzerk. I understand why you cannot imagine that, because it's called honesty. Similarly, just because I strongly support Ron Paul does not automatically make me a Libertarian.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

oVo wrote:The Union isn't there for the students. The Union is there for the teachers and of course the strike occurs now. When else would you expect it Phats? The most surprising thing here (to me) is the "average salaries" being $69 to $76k. Makes me wonder what the actual pay scale is for all the teachers in the area.

I understand unions. I have been a member of mine since 1993. I expect Unions to not go too far, and unions going too far and over-reaching like this is becoming way too common. And if the unions continue to get in the way of the children's education, then the unions are gonna have to go.

I gotta be honest, with all of the anti-union rhetoric you spew in here, I can't imagine that you legitimately belong to a union (or is it two now?).

Just because I am in a union does not mean I remain silent when unions go berzerk.

Sure, I can see that. But it doesn't change my point, because you never post anything that is supportive of unions.

Phatscotty wrote:I understand why you cannot imagine that, because it's called honesty.

Says the guy who refuses to back up his own statements with any sort of evidence.

Phatscotty wrote:Similarly, just because I love Ron Paul does not make me a Libertarian.

Of course it doesn't. Yet you pretend to be a libertarian, even going so far as to make the claim yourself.

Great, but none of this has anything to do with Teachers unions or strikes, and everything to do with you getting into my personal business.

I have to conclude you do not want to talk about the subject of your own thread.....wtf

Phatscotty wrote:Great, but none of this has anything to do with Teachers unions or strikes, and everything to do with you getting into my personal business.

You're the one that brought it up, Phatscotty.

Phatscotty wrote:I have to conclude you do not want to talk about the subject of your own thread.....wtf

My own thread? This isn't my thread, Phatscotty. WTF and LOL, indeed.

id fire every teacher that went on strike,f*ck the unions,just proves teachers are like unions....greedy

karel wrote:id fire every teacher that went on strike,f*ck the unions,just proves teachers are like unions....greedy

I do now know as much of the details as I do about the Wisconsin strike, so I can't say the same....yet. But I thought all the Wisconsin teachers should have been fired. When you are involved and this goes down in your backyard, you hear about the real effects of the union strikes. Such as parents missing a couple days out of their work-weeks and some people even told about having to choose between picking up their kid from school that day or finding a new job, extra day care costs, totally screwing up the whole families schedule. I mean, if there are 400,000 kids out of school, that probably effects around 2 million people. On the bright side, I bet you there is hardly any traffic and everyone else is making it to work a little bit early.

I disagree that they should all be fired; however, I condemn their monopoly on the supply of teachers in that area. From what I have heard, no new teacher can be hired during their strike, which to me is absurd.

Phatscotty wrote:

karel wrote:id fire every teacher that went on strike,f*ck the unions,just proves teachers are like unions....greedy

I do now know as much of the details as I do about the Wisconsin strike, so I can't say the same....yet. But I thought all the Wisconsin teachers should have been fired. When you are involved and this goes down in your backyard, you hear about the real effects of the union strikes. Such as parents missing a couple days out of their work-weeks and some people even told about having to choose between picking up their kid from school that day or finding a new job, extra day care costs, totally screwing up the whole families schedule. I mean, if there are 400,000 kids out of school, that probably effects around 2 million people. On the bright side, I bet you there is hardly any traffic and everyone else is making it to work a little bit early.

What's your alternative? You seem to find fault with the effects of their strike. Should they be forced to work for the wages they received prior to their strike? That seems strange.

I think of unions like the competitive balance for corporations in the free market system. I haven't worked out that theory in any way, but I like it for now. In sum, I have no problem with any union striking. I will, however, scoff at the ridiculous salaries these teachers make. Scoff!

When private sector workers go on strike and stop producing a product, I can go shop somewhere else (or just hold on to my own money). When a public sector union goes on strike, why do I have to keep paying the same amount in taxes? If the teachers in my district go on strike, I want to withhold a portion of my tax money based on how long the strike lasts (because a lot of school funding comes from property taxes). Until I'm allowed to withhold payment for lack of service, public sector employees should not be allowed to strike (although they shouldn't be unionized in the first place).

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

karel wrote:id fire every teacher that went on strike,f*ck the unions,just proves teachers are like unions....greedy

I do now know as much of the details as I do about the Wisconsin strike, so I can't say the same....yet. But I thought all the Wisconsin teachers should have been fired. When you are involved and this goes down in your backyard, you hear about the real effects of the union strikes. Such as parents missing a couple days out of their work-weeks and some people even told about having to choose between picking up their kid from school that day or finding a new job, extra day care costs, totally screwing up the whole families schedule. I mean, if there are 400,000 kids out of school, that probably effects around 2 million people. On the bright side, I bet you there is hardly any traffic and everyone else is making it to work a little bit early.

What's your alternative? You seem to find fault with the effects of their strike. Should they be forced to work for the wages they received prior to their strike? That seems strange.

I think of unions like the competitive balance for corporations in the free market system. I haven't worked out that theory in any way, but I like it for now. In sum, I have no problem with any union striking. I will, however, scoff at the ridiculous salaries these teachers make. Scoff!

Well, the reason why they have such high salaries is because they engage in rent-seeking. What prevents competition from undercutting their profits? It seems that the union has a state-mandated monopoly on teaching in that area (and probably for only public schools). In this sense, that union is crony capitalist, which is anathema to free markets.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I condemn their monopoly on the supply of teachers in that area. From what I have heard, no new teacher can be hired during their strike, which to me is absurd.

That is absurd.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

karel wrote:id fire every teacher that went on strike,f*ck the unions,just proves teachers are like unions....greedy

I do now know as much of the details as I do about the Wisconsin strike, so I can't say the same....yet. But I thought all the Wisconsin teachers should have been fired. When you are involved and this goes down in your backyard, you hear about the real effects of the union strikes. Such as parents missing a couple days out of their work-weeks and some people even told about having to choose between picking up their kid from school that day or finding a new job, extra day care costs, totally screwing up the whole families schedule. I mean, if there are 400,000 kids out of school, that probably effects around 2 million people. On the bright side, I bet you there is hardly any traffic and everyone else is making it to work a little bit early.

What's your alternative? You seem to find fault with the effects of their strike. Should they be forced to work for the wages they received prior to their strike? That seems strange.

I think of unions like the competitive balance for corporations in the free market system. I haven't worked out that theory in any way, but I like it for now. In sum, I have no problem with any union striking. I will, however, scoff at the ridiculous salaries these teachers make. Scoff!

Well, the reason why they have such high salaries is because they engage in rent-seeking. What prevents competition from undercutting their profits? It seems that the union has a state-mandated monopoly on teaching in that area (and probably for only public schools). In this sense, that union is crony capitalist, which is anathema to free markets.

I actually wrote a whole analogy to my own job. I deleted it before posting because I anticipated what you were going to type. MWAHAHAHAHAHA.

My analogy was thus: If everyone at my firm went on strike, the partners would be left holding the bag and clients would suffer (with, for example, getting tax returns filed timely).

Your response to my analogy is partially above and partially thus: Clients could go to other firms. Children can't go to other public schools.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

karel wrote:id fire every teacher that went on strike,f*ck the unions,just proves teachers are like unions....greedy

I do now know as much of the details as I do about the Wisconsin strike, so I can't say the same....yet. But I thought all the Wisconsin teachers should have been fired. When you are involved and this goes down in your backyard, you hear about the real effects of the union strikes. Such as parents missing a couple days out of their work-weeks and some people even told about having to choose between picking up their kid from school that day or finding a new job, extra day care costs, totally screwing up the whole families schedule. I mean, if there are 400,000 kids out of school, that probably effects around 2 million people. On the bright side, I bet you there is hardly any traffic and everyone else is making it to work a little bit early.

What's your alternative? You seem to find fault with the effects of their strike. Should they be forced to work for the wages they received prior to their strike? That seems strange.

I think of unions like the competitive balance for corporations in the free market system. I haven't worked out that theory in any way, but I like it for now. In sum, I have no problem with any union striking. I will, however, scoff at the ridiculous salaries these teachers make. Scoff!

Well, the reason why they have such high salaries is because they engage in rent-seeking. What prevents competition from undercutting their profits? It seems that the union has a state-mandated monopoly on teaching in that area (and probably for only public schools). In this sense, that union is crony capitalist, which is anathema to free markets.

I actually wrote a whole analogy to my own job. I deleted it before posting because I anticipated what you were going to type. MWAHAHAHAHAHA.

My analogy was thus: If everyone at my firm went on strike, the partners would be left holding the bag and clients would suffer (with, for example, getting tax returns filed timely).

Your response to my analogy is partially above and partially thus: Clients could go to other firms. Children can't go to other public schools.

Not to excuse the union in this, because I don't (I find the idea that they can't hire other teachers during a strike to be ridiculous), but remember...they're not the only ones signing those contracts. The school district must have agreed to this at some point. To blame only the unions isn't really rational.