CTU is Going on Strike

[bigruss]

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.

They are already though.

[southsider2k5]

They are already though.

 

In the top quintile of all wage earners in the US, on just the salary average.

[Soxbadger]

In the top quintile of all wage earners in the US, on just the salary average.

 

Not good enough, I want to make more than everyone ever, because that is what being a teacher is about.

 

File Under:

 

Mo Money Mo Problems.

[StrangeSox]

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?

[iamshack]

So, you wouldn't accept a s*** deal. Welcome to life on earth, bub.

No, I'd keep working until I found another job. The ones I've had wouldn't allow me to just stop showing up.

[StrangeSox]

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."

[bigruss]

I believe that it's illegal to fire striking workers, so the alternative is not "no job."

Fine, alternative is not getting paid.

[iamshack]

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.

Not if the means of achieving that wage is to stop showing up.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[Soxbadger]

No workers should ever strike?

 

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.

 

Raises in a terrible economy, not exactly something that is so serious that I think you should potentially screw up a kids life.

 

But then again, I take my responsibilities seriously.

[iamshack]

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.

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

Raises in a terrible economy, not exactly something that is so serious that I think you should potentially screw up a kids life.

 

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.

 

But then again, I take my responsibilities seriously.

 

Sure, and these teachers electing to strike don't.

[iamshack]

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.

Well you keep raising that particular issue, so we keep addressing it.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

Raises in a terrible economy, not exactly something that is so serious that I think you should potentially screw up a kids life.

 

But then again, I take my responsibilities seriously.

 

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.

[iamshack]

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.

Where have you been that there haven't been cuts to everyone's budgets? That everyone isn't dealing with resource and staffing issues?

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

Starting out asking for a 30% will tend to focus attention on that aspect.

[StrangeSox]

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)

[iamshack]

I've brought up the other issues surrounding this strike multiple times but everyone goes right back to the "raises?! In THIS economy?!" aspect.

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?

[southsider2k5]

(not true in many rural communities where the Walmart is the only store for 50 miles in any direction)

 

Which is what, less than 1% of the nations population?

[StrangeSox]

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.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

Why dont you tell me what this strike is about because I have it so wrong.

 

The ones who didnt show up clearly dont take it seriously. Some of these kids are going to be adversely impacted, its just not fair to them. And as a person, I put the needs of innocent children over the needs of adults who are getting paid considerable money to show up and help these kids.

 

If being a teacher in CPS is so bad, why dont they go to another school district?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

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)?

[StrangeSox]

Which is what, less than 1% of the nations population?

 

(possibly, it was a parenthetical tangent!)