Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: CMB changes mind, will now release tax returns
Next Post: TABOR advances, gaming held up, Medicaid reform could ruffle some powerful feathers
Posted in:
* The Senate’s special committee on education reform met in Springfield yesterday, but Mayor Daley also weighed in on the topic. Hizzoner doesn’t think public school teachers should be allowed to strike…
[Daley] said he hopes state lawmakers pass a bill making it more difficult for them to walk off the job.
Daley made his comments at the ribbon cutting for the new Azuela Elementary School on West Marquette. The mayor acknowledged that the bill is controversial and that many people disagree with him. But he called a strike “unfair” to students. He went on to say that no one was going to treat teachers unfairly.
“You can’t give taxpayers money away all the time,” Daley said. “It’s not my money. It’s your money, it’s the taxpayers. It’s the taxpayers of the city of Chicago. And so we negotiate fairly and honestly what we can afford and what we can do.”
But most controversial, the measure would severely curb teachers’ power to strike. Now, teachers can strike after negotiations fail. But the proposal would mandate that the two sides go before a mediation panel and give the local school board the final say on whether to accept the mediators’ proposal or to impose its own settlement. Unions could strike only if the school board failed to make a final decision.
“The threat of a strike is so significant, it casts a very long shadow over the negotiating process,” said Robin Steans, executive director of Advance Illinois, an education-advocacy group that helped craft the proposal. “If you want the other reforms to stick, you have to deal with the strike issue in state law.”
* And the teachers unions have also proposed their own reform plan…
The unions want school administrators and local school boards to be more responsible for what happens in a school district. Additionally, they are seeking professional training for school board members, a second certification for principals based on performance evaluations, and a list of programs that districts must maintain, said Ken Swanson, president of the Illinois Education Association. […]
Several union representatives said not all parts of the state’s first draft of reform are ill conceived. Like the proposal in the House, the unions would have performance ratings established in the Performance Evaluation and Review Act of 2010 count heavily when districts fill new and vacant positions.
“What we are proposing is all predicated on a successful implementation of the P.E.R.A. evaluation system so that we have a credible, solid base of reliable evaluations to work from. That is in our view absolutely critical,” Swanson said.
All schools in the state are slated to have the new evaluation system in place by 2016.
Additionally, like the House version of the plan, the unions want to see tenure based on good evaluation scores. The unions, however, want the length of time for earning tenure shortened from four years to three years, barring no poor evaluations.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 4:33 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: CMB changes mind, will now release tax returns
Next Post: TABOR advances, gaming held up, Medicaid reform could ruffle some powerful feathers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Anybody still think Daley and Madigan are liberals?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:40 am
The union negotiates in good-faith with the employer. If that fails, then the union and employer must go to mediation. Then the employer gets to decide whether to accept the mediation settlement or impose its own terms. And only if the employer fails to either accept the mediation proposal or “impose its own settlement” can the union strike.
That is what we call “a non-starter.”
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:59 am
It seems the mediation thing would be in everyone’s best interests.
Also the idea of shortening the tenure time I think shows how tone-deaf the unions are to what people want.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:01 am
While I wouldn’t mind making a mediator’s decision binding (in effect making it binding arbitration), the idea that one party (the board) can impose its own “settlement” is pretty shocking.
Comment by ChicagoR Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:23 am
Having been raised in a family of school teachers who believed that educating children was a calling, the very words “teachers’ strike” and “teachers walked off the job” were blasphemy in our household. If, as do many voters, (including a fair number of people who consider themselves Liberal)one believes unions should not be representing educators and other white collar government paid professions, then Daley is on the right track here. The teachers union going after a three year tenure is not.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:29 am
I’d greatly favor of a no-strike rule if I hadn’t seen how skewed against the employer and taxpayer the arbitration system is in Illinois from public safety experience.
Ask the City of Naperville that settled a police contract that required layoffs over fear they’d lose in arbitration and have to layoff even more people and rack up even more in legal bills.
Comment by Shemp Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:38 am
Why would it benefit anyone to keep ineffective teachers in the classroom for four years before granting tenure? If the evaluations are bad, show them the door. If they’re good, provide them due process. Re: Strikes. The only reason the possibility exists is to level the playing field. Other than the few rights provided by a collective bargaining agreement related to salary and working conditions, school management has all the control. Unfortunately, because most administrators have been out of the trenches for years, they no longer have a grasp on what’s happening in the classroom.
Comment by Advocate Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:50 am
As far as strikes… the real problem with public unions (and the teachers union here) is that the employer (the government) can’t act like a private sector management. In other words, the government can’t (would never ever) lock out a public union since it would mean almost certain reelection loss. So the government doesn’t really have it’s biggest and most influential bargaining tool because unlike, right now the NFL or NBA, there will probably never be a lockout.
Comment by 'Dale to HPark Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:06 am
who ever said daley and madigan were liberals? it’s been evident that both were conservative democrats since i’ve been here. that was made even more clear when a city former dept head told me that the business of chicago is business, and always has been. apparently, history bears that out.
going after teachers (in the guise of vilifying the teachers’ unions) shows just how unimportant education is in the state. so stop pretending that this is anything more than union-busting. education simply isn’t valued here, so residents resent paying teachers their true value.
if people really did want real value in their tax dollars, we wouldn’t be paying the exorbitant sums we dish out for administrators and superintendents in our school systems. little, piddly districts pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for school superintendents. no administrator should make more than 35% over the highest paid teachers, and no superintendent should make more than 100% over that pay. such pay standards need to be imposed on administrators and superintendents from above since very, very few school boards in this state seem to take an active interest in the management of the public schools over which they were elected to oversee. but, again, illinois really doesn’t value education, so nobody cares (and our tax dollars get wasted)…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:16 am
–Unfortunately, because most administrators have been out of the trenches for years, they no longer have a grasp on what’s happening in the classroom.–
What’s changed? Do the kids speak Esperanto? Does 2 plus 2 equal 6?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:19 am
I have never believed in the concept of public sector workers being able to strike. A no strike, no tenure provision would be fine by me.
I’d also agree that the administrative salaries are out of control as ‘bored now’ points out. I would be even less generous with the proposed caps or ratios suggested. We have single school districts that have both a principal and superintendent. What a waste of money. There needs to be a movement to spend the maximum available dollars IN the classroom, not on the bureaucracy.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:26 am
–education simply isn’t valued here, so residents resent paying teachers their true value.–
Yeah, that’s what every real estate agent says. Good schools mean nothing to folks in Illinois. Especially those folks who pay their real estate taxes, then send their kids to private school.
Are you kidding me?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:27 am
Too bad Daley just got this idea when he was leaving office.“You can’t give taxpayers money away all the time,” Daley said. “It’s not my money. It’s your money, it’s the taxpayers. It’s the taxpayers of the city of Chicago.” His face should be in the dictionary under the word hypocrite.
Comment by Jim Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:34 am
–“It’s not my money. It’s your money, it’s the taxpayers. It’s the taxpayers of the city of Chicago.”–
Daley added, “Except the TIF money. That’s all mine and I don’t have to account for it to anyone.”
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:36 am
“What’s changed? Do the kids speak Esperanto? Does 2 plus 2 equal 6?”
Spoken as someone whose only knowledge about education is having walked through a schoolhouse door.
Comment by Advocate Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:56 am
In my position as a state employee we are not allowed to strike. We seem to be doing ok without that ability. Teachers should not be allowed to strike.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:02 am
I find the timimg of this “advice” from Daley to Madigan quite interesting…here’s the deal: union pay and practices are not the cause of the fiscal woes in this State. The blame squarely lies at the feet of the duly elected representatives of the state of IL for turning their backs on their fiduciary responsibilities for the last several years including his royal highness Michael Madigan.
I say the teachers should be allowed to strike…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:23 am
Tenure is designed to protect teachers. From what? From parents and board members upset by too much homework, low grades, subject material, ineligibility, student discipline, and a variety of other topics.
If a teacher is a bad teacher, there must be documentation and the teacher is given an opportunity to remediate. If there is little or no improvement, they can be fired. Teachers can appeal to a hearing officer from outside the district if they do not think the documentation is accurate.
Why aren’t more teachers fired for poor performance? 1) They resign; no one wants a dismissal for poor performance on their record, so they quit. 2) Administrators (and boards) are not doing their job reviewing the teachers and documenting performance.
The proposed legislation doesn’t fix poor administration, but it does expose good teachers to dismissal without an impartial review.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:28 am
“In my position as a state employee we are not allowed to strike. We seem to be doing ok without that ability. Teachers should not be allowed to strike.”
So, let’s bring others down to your level rather than providing them with better leverage when bargaining? Oh, and by the way, school districts have locked out employees in the past. Why do those in the middle and lower class eat their own? The “haves” of this nation truly know how to divide and conquer. There are very few teacher strikes — and less hostility than before the education collective bargaining law. As for other professions, organized nurses and doctors have also walked the line. If you want a fair compromise, then go for binding arbitration. That’s not acceptable because when the facts are examined and justice is considered, school boards often lose.
Comment by Advocate Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:28 am
–Spoken as someone whose only knowledge about education is having walked through a schoolhouse door. –
Gee, I don’t know. I went to school. My kids go to school. My wife’s a teacher. Please fill the ignorant masses in on this breathtaking knowledge you keep hinting at but never quite reveal.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:37 am
I think the three unions should get a little credit for their alternative bill. Sure they’re trying to get tenure in a third year (as opposed to a fourth). But the idea of giving away seniority and allowing districts to make decisions based on evaluations is a fairly large concession. This has been central to their argument for some time.
I also think they have a pretty good idea about administrators and school boards. Why are they never held accountable? Sure school boards are elected, but how many voters pay attention to them? Many stay in office for years with no real idea what they’re doing. And you never hear about “Principal Accountability.” Interesting idea…
But striking needs to go. Unions can negotiate contracts. If it goes as far as remediation, they can use it as a last resource, but it’s time we get past this and keep ‘em in the classroom.
Comment by Burnham Wannabe Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:43 am
As a former school board member who went through two strikes I am totally in favor of the no strike legislation. In one of the strikes we went though the union made it known that our district was going to be an example. They came in expecting to strike to set the tone for the northern area of Illinois. They wanted to intimidate all the other boards in the area so they could get good contracts from all of them. We met once with a mediator, were in the middle of discussions, and then the union rep stated we had come to an impasse and the stirke vote was taken and they went on strike. After months of being out and the community being torn in half the teachers settled for exactly what our offer was when we went to the mediator. None of this of course went to the press since an agreement had been reached early in negotiations that specifics of the negotiations would not be revealed to the public. Neither the union rep nor the teachers on the negotiations team were giving the real story to the rank and file. Many were very upset when it was all over that they had gone out for exactly what they settled for.
In the second strike the teachers walked because the board requested they pay something on their spousal health insurance, which they were getting for free. In this strike no sports or other other school related activities could go on while the teachers were out. Many seniors were not able to showcase their talents in fall sports or music competitions, the school has a very highly rated music program and state awards for groups and individuals were lost because of non participation. Bottomline is the students suffered greatly and were unable to achieve once in a lifetime awards because of the strike.
In both cases the contracts ended in the Spring and the rule of the teacher unions is that teachers do not negotiate over the summer because that is their time off. I contended that their pay is for the year and eventhough they are off they are still getting paid and if they are truly interested in solving the issues they should be at the table.
The no strike legislation is good.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:46 am
Teachers have to have the ability to use the strike as a means of getting a fair contract from Boards in this state…look at how corrupt, out of touch, and a puppet of the politicians is the appointed school board in Chicago. An appointed school board is going to be fair to the teachers???? It is time for us to really start thinking about who we elect and throwing some of these out of office….
Comment by anon Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 11:50 am
“Gee, I don’t know. I went to school. My kids go to school. My wife’s a teacher.”
First of all, best wishes to your wife and her career choice. However, as previously stated, your only personal pedagogical knowledge is having walked through a schoolhouse door. Non-educators, particularly legislators, make decisions that impact curriculum. No Child Left Behind is a classic example. Progressives by their very nature seek change — reform. All that is asked is to allow educators to be part of the decision making process.
Re: Not negotiating over the summer. While the analogy regarding being paid an annual salary isn’t relevant, I’ve never heard of a union not negotiating in the summer. I agree with the Board member that such behavior is not only unacceptable, but borders on bad faith bargaining. Bargaining may be delayed because of state monetary uncertainties, but language issues should at least be resolved.
Comment by Advocate Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:04 pm
Unlike in the private sector, teachers also know that when they strike, they have nothing to lose. State law requires that the missed days be made up. And in the meantime, parents, who have lost their free day care, will be screaming at the board to pay the teachers what they want. My district almost went to a strike two years ago, at the height of the financial crisis, and the teachers, already the highest paid in the area, were demanding 6% increases per year for 3 years!
The poster above who said that management has all the power in negotiations has no idea what he/she’s talking about. The contract negotiations are handled by central office persons in the unions, and the $$$ goals are established without regard to the finances of the district. If you don’t meet what the “neighbors” are paying, you are going to get a strike. Period. School Boards know this, so they capitulate. The lack of a lot of strikes is NOT a sign that the system is working - it’s a symptom of how broken it is.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:09 pm
Even though the Senate has indicated that school reform will not happen until later in the Spring Session, my sense is that this thing is fast tracked and will happen in the next week.
Comment by Eagle Eye Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:11 pm
After twenty-five years of working with public school employees in southern Illinois, I submit no one cares more about student success than they do.
This is demonstrated everyday inside and outside the classroom. That is why IL teachers opposed a four year probationary period for new teachers.
We said administrators should conscientiously and fairly evaluate and make a hiring decision on new teachers in two years. Good new teachers should be kept and questionable new teachers should be dismissed – not in four years but in two years.
Who would want an underachieving employee for four years!
We support and participate in mentoring programs for new teachers. We support annual evaluations for all non tenured teachers and evaluations every two years for tenured teachers. We support remediation plans for those found deficient in a particular area. We participate in continuing education for certification renewal and increased educational achievement for professional development.
We do not support student social promotion and continue to protect and reserve our exclusive right as classroom educators to assign grades to our students. We supervise after school and weekend activities and are often the trusted adult that a troubled student confides in. In good times, we make incremental improvements in salaries and working conditions. In bad times, we work with school districts to mitigate the effects of insufficient state funding. We work with parents to request fair funding for schools, adequate facilities, and reasonable class size.
Public school employees do not deserve to become a target of those who seek to distract attention from their own failures.
Comment by Griz Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:17 pm
“The contract negotiations are handled by central office persons in the unions, and the $$$ goals are established without regard to the finances of the district. If you don’t meet what the “neighbors” are paying, you are going to get a strike. Period.”
That’s just not true. Perhaps in some areas, but don’t put every negotiation into that setting. Many districts understand they don’t have certain resources, and can’t get paid as much as their wealthier neighbors. It’s the way our system works, and teachers understand that.
Comment by Burnham Wannabe Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:18 pm
If teachers do not have the right to strike then they need arbitration to turn to in order to get a fair contract.
Some people on here will say the board was abused by the union. Others will say the union was abused by the board.
What we need is a system for both sides to come to an agreement and in which students will never have to worry about a strike.
I also agree we do not value education in this country. Finland is #1 in math and science and why? They value education. NBC nightly news did a report on this topic. Finland also knows 1 teacher in a room of 30 cannot do it alone. So many students with so many different needs requires a system that gives resources to these students. With 3 teachers in a room you can have help to pull out students to deal with their emotional need at the time while class can go on. A student can be dealt with who is falling behind. There are so many benefits to having more staff in a room. But we would need to value education.
Do teachers have tenure? No they do not, they have continued service contracts that can be broken for cause. College has tenure, not the lower grades.
Are there bad administrators? There sure are and some good ones too. But the system rewards bad teachers by placing them in administration.
We have a crazy system in IL in which we elect 7 people to sit on a board to run a school that meets after the school day is done to discuss education with a superintendent that has been out of the classroom for 20 years and not 1 teacher is involved in a discussion.
A great way to end strikes is to place 7 elected board members and 7 teachers on a school board. Therefore they have to sit and talk to each other about all issues with the school. The teachers can give the classroom perspective, the board can give the taxpayer perspective and in the end we will have good policy.
I know I should never be elected to a Hospital Board and tell doctors and nurses how to do their jobs, they know what they need to meet their patients needs. Not me because I never worked in a Hospital or was a doctor or a nurse.
We are to much into their way or my way. We have to find our way. There is a way to meet the child’s education, the teacher’s need to bargain and the board’s need to represent the taxpayer. It can be done but the proposal in Springfield is not the solution. It is a talking point.
Comment by Union Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:53 pm
Anonymous said “teachers also know that when they strike, they have nothing to lose. State law requires that the missed days be made up. And in the meantime, parents, who have lost their free day care, will be screaming at the board to pay the teachers what they want.”
Can we please be reasonable here? If teachers had nothing to lose they would strike every time a contract was up. If parents did nothing but scream at the board to pay teachers what they want, teachers would strike every time. This obviously is not the case.
Have teacher strikes really posed a problem in the past 20 years or so? Are teachers overpaid? This study from the ISBE gives the actual numbers. There’s nothing exorbitant here, anecdotal stories aside. http://www.isbe.state.il.us/research/pdfs/teacher_salary_09-10.pdf
What is legislation like this going to accomplish other than driving these middle-class salaries down. It will make teaching a less desirable profession, thereby lowering the caliber of teachers in the schools. Why is that a good thing?
The State hasn’t come to financial position it’s in because teachers make a reasonable wage. As ‘Advocate’ said above, it’s impressive how the “haves” persuade the “have nots” to turn on each other.
Comment by chi Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:55 pm
wordslinger: i live in a supposedly “stellar” school district, to which i sent my kid. i’m sorry, but the education here sucks. local realtors don’t compare school districts to those in other states, but to those that surround them. so comparatively good is still crappy. when i was in high school in florida, i had two years of physics and calculus. “good” schools in illinois have one (and i’m willing to bet that my second year of calc and physics had more students than the first year of those subjects in most of these schools). we had plenty of teachers with masters and doctorates teaching at my *public* high school. sure, they teach kids here how to tolerate corruption and operate an assembly line, but our kids don’t have a chance in a global, technology-driven economy. and we don’t care…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 1:07 pm
Bored Now, your comment is just a ridiculous generalization, as someone with a stellar Florida education like yourself must surely realize.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 1:15 pm
yeah, we rocket kids were blessed. every one of my teachers had advanced degrees in their subject area when i was a senior. 28% of my graduating class in florida was honor roll, and i doubt i was the only one to win the national merit scholarship (a full ride back then). stellar might be belittling the nature of the education i got at a public school, because the taxpayers of brevard county actually cared about the education its children received.
i’d imagine that using metrics like money spent in the classroom, not the district, or the number of phd’s in a subject area (like math, not education) and the number of advanced classes (in something like math, not corruption) is probably too much to ask for here. but, then, it doesn’t mean i can’t ask. the education one receives in illinois sucks, there’s simply no question about that…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 1:39 pm
–because the taxpayers of brevard county actually cared about the education its children received.–
LOL, you’re killing me, brother.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 1:43 pm
Hey, Advocate,
Perhaps you didn’t read my whole post, even tho you copied it in its’ entirety. My co-workers and I are doing well and we can’t strike. The inference being that we can get our needs met without harming those we serve. I am not “eating my own”, as you put it. I am not bringing anybody down, as you put it. I think the teachers ought to be brought up to my level, frankly. I make a good salary, will enjoy a good pension (I hope) and have good job protection. And the disabled population I serve can dial up my phone number and I answer the phone. What’s not to like about that?
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 1:46 pm
wordslinger: glad your amused.
regardless, we shouldn’t get too far away from my point that a.) public schools *can* (and have) performed at very high levels (even if you disagree, i’ve witnessed it), b.) they perform at high levels when a high degree of the money they receive are spent in the classroom, and c.) criticizing unions demonstrates a lack of interest in achieving these…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:17 pm
–glad your amused–
Now you’re just messing with me — I hope.
BN, nice try. But how about we actually go to your original point that I objected to:
–education simply isn’t valued here, so residents resent paying teachers their true value.–
It’s a ridiculous generalization whether it’s made about Illinois or any other state. People don’t move into the New Trier, Hinsdale Central, OPRF or any number of public school districts for the coffee. They pay out the nose for their schools and their teachers.
Also, re-read your posts; you might want to go back to that superstar Florida high school for some remedial English and Composition.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:28 pm
I’m for no strike but you have to make the process fair and I think the current plan tilts way too much in favor of school boards. I think binding arbitration would be a far better solution as both sides have something to fear in that scenario.
Comment by Fed-Up Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 3:53 pm
DD: Do you have to deal with a locally elected school board? The idea that the teachers could strike keeps both sides on task and in dialog. I serve on a school board and all the members understand that the board must work through issues, explain what we want and why and the teachers must do the same. If the right to strike is removed, where is the incentive to negotiate? There are always board members who would rather dictate than listen, but the right to strike keeps them at the table. Is it too easy to strike? The few strikes I have seen in my area (not in my district) always seem to end at least as badly for the teachers as for the board. I am not familiar with all these teachers itching to go on strike. Since strikes are undesirable, everyone stays at the table. You don’t hear about teachers working without a contract for 6 months or longer because on-going negotiations don’t make very interesting news.
I don’t wear rose colored glasses. I know there are bad actors on both sides and strikes happen for the wrong reasons. However, the recent track record in Illinois indicates that strikes are the exception rather than the rule. Changing the law to address the unusual is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
Strikes are most likely to occur when the teachers feel backed into a corner. If the law changes, and boards choose to exercise their new power (and they will), then we will be likely to see some serious and damaging strikes of the kind we haven’t had for many years.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 4:01 pm
How can giving all power to school boards (whom represent one side of the process) on the right to decide the final outcome of contract negotiations be called collective bargaining? It can’t.
I would agree to other reforms, maybe then people would quit blaming the teachers for our failing schools and look to the administrators and state officials who create the self-destructive rules and mandates we’re forced to carry out.
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 4:52 pm
Pot,
The schools I attended never had a teacher strike in all the years I attended. To this day, none of those school districts suffered a strike. The teachers I spoke to were determined to never go on strike so that the children would not have their education interrupted. Nuff said.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 5:09 pm
DD,
My point exactly. The premise that teachers are eager to strike is erroneous. The current law strikes a balance that works.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 5:30 pm
Pot,
A law that allows any strikes is a non-starter, in my book. I repeat, my co-workers enjoy decent salary and benefits without having the right to strike. There are other ways of dealing with the issue without striking.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 6:02 pm
I’d rather “waste” three weeks of teachers on strike than three years of teachers with a contract that they despise and feel was shoved down their throats.
Should teachers be able to strike or shouldn’t they? What does that have to do with the quality of education in our classrooms?
Unless someone is arguing that suppressing wages and benefits for teachers is going to help improve the quality of education, I don’t see how our kids benefit from restricting teachers’ collective bargaining rights.
Frankly, if we’re interested in attracting the highest quality teachers, I don’t think “Come to Illinois: Underpaid and Not a Damn Thing You Can Do About It” is much of a recruitment pitch.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jan 5, 11 @ 2:17 am