teachers possibly striking

[In a hurry]

My brother and sister in other professions both pay for their own CEU's. Why would i be any different. My sister makes 1/3 less with the same level of education. My borther makes 1/3 more. That is the nature of idfferent careers.

We are getting a 2% raise this year. My husband who works for the state had his salary forzen. Variations are normal.

Eeyore's Butterfly, people in many fields do internships. That is a portion of the learning process. You sure to sound "woe is me."

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

we ALL want to be treated fairly. many of us give "above and beyond" in our chosen jobs/profession. and most of us feel VALUE in our professions. and STILL lost, first our pay (in the form of pay cuts), secondly, our benefits, and lastly , our jobs.

OP - what field are you in that "most of us... still lost, first our pay.... and lastly our jobs"?

I do not know anyone who has taken a pay cut, nor do I know anyone who has lost their jobs - companies are still hiring - though maybe at a slower rate.

My mother was a teacher and then a principal in the Chicago Public Schools - I remember walking a picket line with her over 20 years ago. It is not an easy decision to authorize a strike - but one has to do what is best for them.

Just for dealing with the parents (have you seen the postings on DIS from some parents) teachers deserve a raise!

 

[bicker]

Employees of the government make a choice when they go into their line of work, and when they take a specific job. They are subject to laws that the rest of us aren't subject to. If you don't like the rules, then don't take the job -- don't go into that line of work. If you do take the job, then live with it, and comply with the law.

Beyond that, I view a union striking as no different than all the suppliers in an industry getting together and colluding to increase the price of something. It is immoral and should be illegal. I have no problem with unions helping their members. I think they should not be allowed conspire to deprive an employer of workers, which is exactly what a strike is.

 

[firstmickey]

Our school district went on strike for 5 long weeks last year and involved the whole community and the media in the most painful ordeal. It turned so ugly here, I couldn't believe it.

Name calling (on both sides), people treating teachers they loved like crap and throwing things at them on the picket lines, parents unable to work, School board members receiving hate mail, kids punished for a "walkout" at school one day and screamed at by teachers. It was truly ugly and stressful for everyone who lived here.

The kids went back to school and it was so tense. They had no holidays, days off, etc between Christmas and Memorial Day. They went to school until June 27th and have had no summer. (The teachers btw...would get subs so they still had their vacations).

They did finally settle their contract and they settled for .5% more than the original contract offer and they had to contribute to their health care only $10/month instead of the $20/month offered by the Board. That was the big knockdown disrupt everyone's lives fight that they fought for.


I'm very thankful they settled and we don't have to do this again this year. Hopefully our community will begin to mend a little now.

 

[barkley]

Employees of the government make a choice when they go into their line of work, and when they take a specific job. They are subject to laws that the rest of us aren't subject to. If you don't like the rules, then don't take the job -- don't go into that line of work. If you do take the job, then live with it, and comply with the law.

Beyond that, I view a union striking as no different than all the suppliers in an industry getting together and colluding to increase the price of something. It is immoral and should be illegal. I have no problem with unions helping their members. I think they should not be allowed conspire to deprive an employer of workers, which is exactly what a strike is.

what do you do when you accept the provisions of the laws you are subjected to as a government employee and then your employer creates an environment where you work in direct violation of them? some government agencies are well aware that oversight and penalites for violations of these laws are very delayed in being applied-and are often more 'cost effective' than following the laws in the first place.

many of the laws in place for government service oriented employees (teachers, social services, health and welfare) are in place spec. to ensure a level of service and protect those that are served.

both dh and i worked in government service based agencies that had issues with laws not being adhered to due to cost savings (understaffing, unqualified staffing, caseloads above maximum legal standards). staff made their concerns known constantly, warning that those they served were real people not just the numbers constantly pointed to in a data base. in one agency a one day strike (legal for service workers in that state) brought the issue to both the public and the state's attention such that the employer had to address concerns and adhere. in the other it took a child's death to drive home that those served were human beings with laws in place that were there to protect them.

thankfully i've never had as a parent or student to have to endure a teacher's strike. i did as a student grow up during a period of teacher shortages/budget constraints such that the state i lived in ignored established class sizes (elementary with 35 plus students per teacher) and hired totaly unqualified staff (a highschool diploma and as little as one semster's worth of college credits-in any subject, with no training in teaching either from a college or on the part of the districts). as a result many students were horribly disserviced and received substandard educations (and in at least one case i know personaly a student learned that the classes he needed and had completed for his college admission in no way met the criteria established between his public highschool and the state's university-he ended up having to take a year of courses at a local community college to re-take the classes 'at the appropriate level of professional instruction' ).

i don't know any services professional that relishes the idea of going out on strike, but i know that some have -not for the financial issues that are publicized in the media, but as a means to protect and ensure the health/welfare/safety and level of service provided to those they serve.

 

[bicker]

what do you do when you accept the provisions of the laws you are subjected to as a government employee and then your employer creates an environment where you work in direct violation of them?

You don't violate the law yourself. You do your job, to the best of your ability, as much as you can stand, and if it gets to be too bad, decided whether/when you need to get out before you dishonor yourself by becoming part of the problem. Regardless of the provisions, the realities that you outlined are just that: realities. If you work in government, you better reconcile yourself to how government works before you commit yourself to working in such a system. At the very least, don't rationalize any bad behavior on your part by complaining about the way things are when you voluntarily entered the system in the first place.

many of the laws in place for government service oriented employees (teachers, social services, health and welfare) are in place spec. to ensure a level of service and protect those that are served.

Correct. Your implication is that that is without regard to the impact on the employees. True. That's part of what people seeking to work in government must accept.

in one agency a one day strike (legal for service workers in that state) brought the issue to both the public and the state's attention such that the employer had to address concerns and adhere.

And AFAIC was an immoral action that brought about a positive result. That doesn't make the action any less immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

I think the main point I'm making here is that rationalization doesn't impress me.

 

[creativeamanda]

I guess being in a right to work state or maybe just being a conservative, I am very antiunion to begin with. I like the idea of teaching the contract. That way a certified teacher is still in the classroom, but the impact from just teaching the contract would be huge! No weekend visits from me to do observations for testing. No paperwork home. I walk in at 7:45 and leave everything at 3:25. That would get attention, because paperwork would not get done that needs to be. I've been through years while teaching of negative pay raises (where the increase of health insurance far outweighs the pay raise from the state/local govt) and I expect one this year.

But striking when there are children sitting in the classroom waiting for a highly qualified children is irresponsible. Regardless of the fact that someone will take their place, is irresponsible and should be illegal. As I stated, it is in the state I work in. DOn't know about where I live, but probably.

And btw, sure, I pay a LOT out of my pocket for continuing education, but was smart enough to link it to a degree which gave me a pay raise and paid for my oop expenses and then some. If other teachers aren't intelligent enough to figure out that they need to do that to keep their certificates valid, they probably aren't growing as teachers to begin with.

 

[JoyG]

what do you do when you accept the provisions of the laws you are subjected to as a government employee and then your employer creates an environment where you work in direct violation of them? some government agencies are well aware that oversight and penalites for violations of these laws are very delayed in being applied-and are often more 'cost effective' than following the laws in the first place.

That's what's going on in our district right now. The board of ed intentionally violated our contract knowing that the cost of legal fees to defend the lawsuits would save more money than following the contract as is. They're drawing it out as long as they can.

 

[barkley]

You don't violate the law yourself. You do your job, to the best of your ability, as much as you can stand, and if it gets to be too bad, decided whether/when you need to get out before you dishonor yourself by becoming part of the problem. Regardless of the provisions, the realities that you outlined are just that: realities. If you work in government, you better reconcile yourself to how government works before you commit yourself to working in such a system. At the very least, don't rationalize any bad behavior on your part by complaining about the way things are when you voluntarily entered the system in the first place.

Correct. Your implication is that that is without regard to the impact on the employees. True. That's part of what people seeking to work in government must accept.

And AFAIC was an immoral action that brought about a positive result. That doesn't make the action any less immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

I think the main point I'm making here is that rationalization doesn't impress me.

i suspect that if the other agency had taken a similar one day action that could have resulted in preventing the death of the child that occured you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would have argued those means did not justify the end.

btw-in these situations you do violate the law yourself-and while your employer may never be subjected to any legal ramifications, as a lic. professional you can be prosecuted criminaly and civaly. when i entered 'the system' one of the conditions my government employer placed on me was that as a professional i would committ myself and agree to never knowingly violate any professional or jurisdictional laws governing me, and to take whatever legal action was necessary to ensure that such laws were adhered to by myself, my co workers and my employer-in our case that legal action included the right to strike (and if that is 'immoral' i would prefer to be deemed that than negligent in child protection).

 

[barkley]

That's what's going on in our district right now. The board of ed intentionally violated our contract knowing that the cost of legal fees to defend the lawsuits would save more money than following the contract as is. They're drawing it out as long as they can.

i was talking to a friend the other day and the agency she retired from is doing the same thing with their current contract. it's going to come back to haunt them big time though. the strong and competant staff is either resigning and going elsewhere or opting for early retirement leaving only temps and unskilled 'waivered' employees. the agency administration does'nt realize how much those newbies were reliant on the old timers to pick up the slack let alone prevent costly errors. my gf was in quality assurance and said the amount of dollar errors that are increasing with the exodus of staff is monumental-much less than would ever be expended in simply adhering to their current contract.

 

[Tink888]

As for taking pay cuts, maybe that is happening in your area but it isn't here. I have NEVER worked in a corporate job, nor do I know of anyone that works in a corporate job that didn't have to opportunity for a raise every year. The only ones that didn't get a raise were the ones that were not doing their job. A 5% raise is basically cost of living increase, not a raise--BIG difference.

Just wanted to point out that this IS happening all over the country. Both DH & I are in the corporate sector in fields directly and indirectly related to the housing market. DH did not receive a raise this year because overall company profits were lousy even though his warehouse has the best numbers in all of his region. At my company a wage freeze was instituted for 2008 and we've been told that it will remain in effect for 2009. In addition to that incentive bonuses which we used to be guaranteed are now gone and we're paying more for benefits in addtion to health care that used to be free (when you do the math it basically equals a pay cut and a big one at that).

Both companies are non-union. We do not have the option to strike. We do have the option to quit and work someplace else. It is our choice to work where we do and in the fields that we do. Just as it is a teacher's choice to become a teacher.

Not complaining, just pointing out that the only option for most in the corporate sector is to find another job and also that raises are directly related to a companies profits and not always job performance.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

I am with you Bella! And I know from reading that I am in a minority.

We were close to striking a few years ago and it scared the bejeezus out of me! But if that is what the union thought it needed to do to get the job done, then I was there. Our union and administration had a very healthy respect for each other. It created a check and balance system that usually worked and we had an excellent school district with mostly excellent teachers as a result.

Unions have a place in my state and they usually do their job well. Not always, but usually. Just like anything else, the whole system can be abused and there are plenty of examples either way.

I know where we live now-and I don't teach now-that the district can, two weeks before school gets out, with no warning or chance to dispute, relocate a teacher to a completely different job. Just because they 'need' to. You are teaching 3rd grade, but SURPRISE next year you will be teaching Jr. High music. (real example) That is just wrong and a situation where a strong union would have stopped it from happening.

Herd,

You hit the nail on the head. Much of what my district is fighting about is unfair observations, and teacher relocation. As far as grade 3 teacher teaching music it would not happen in my state we are way hung up on certification and teacher test scores as well as state test scores. The result is it has driven many good people out of teaching. We have heard that they are thinking of getting rid of the qualifiying scores on teacher testing so then just about anyone who gets a degree can teach. So where did all the money go the past 10 years that we all paid to take the test? What does the state do with all the money it charges us to be recertified? Money is a contributing factor but in all honesty if you want to talk money for a strike then balance credits and debits and see with which side the teachers align. More debits than credits that's for sure.

I talked my son out of being a teacher because the public begrugdes you a living wage! I guess it goes back to the days when a teacher was paid very little and lived a week at a time an a student's home( just shoot me on that one).

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

That's what's going on in our district right now. The board of ed intentionally violated our contract knowing that the cost of legal fees to defend the lawsuits would save more money than following the contract as is. They're drawing it out as long as they can.

Once again....what other profession tries to punish its employees in the name of children? What other profession requires a master's degree and yet its members are looked down upon or treated with so little respect.

Trust me in all that has been put forth be it school budgets, NCLB, etc the kids are the LAST considered by eveyone but the teacher. It is always a game of how am I going to get you not what did you do well. It kills me because many is the time when I have said just shut the door and let me teach. I never went into this wanting to be rich but jeesh, let me do my job without trying to put a stumbling block at every turn and that includes earning a decent wage for hours spent working.

 

[barkley]

Herd,

You hit the nail on the head. Much of what my district is fighting about is unfair observations, and teacher relocation. As far as grade 3 teacher teaching music it would not happen in my state we are way hung up on certification and teacher test scores as well as state test scores. The result is it has driven many good people out of teaching. We have heard that they are thinking of getting rid of the qualifiying scores on teacher testing so then just about anyone who gets a degree can teach. So where did all the money go the past 10 years that we all paid to take the test? What does the state do with all the money it charges us to be recertified? Money is a contributing factor but in all honesty if you want to talk money for a strike then balance credits and debits and see with which side the teachers align. More debits than credits that's for sure.

I talked my son out of being a teacher because the public begrugdes you a living wage! I guess it goes back to the days when a teacher was paid very little and lived a week at a time an a student's home( just shoot me on that one).

it's funny you mention that-dh and i were just talking the other nite about how teachers and preachers have jobs that are so unique in the demands and requirements that extend outside their 'job location', and how their pay rarely reflects it. we then started talking about how we truely believe that the reasoning is because 'back in the day' communities paid little or nothing to both but provided shelter and food. that mind set just still sticks with some people-and they feel that if a person has a calling to educate or preach thier decision to answer that calling should negate any desire on their part for equitable compensation.

 

[chobie]

Just wanted to point out that this IS happening all over the country. Both DH & I are in the corporate sector in fields directly and indirectly related to the housing market. DH did not receive a raise this year because overall company profits were lousy even though his warehouse has the best numbers in all of his region. At my company a wage freeze was instituted for 2008 and we've been told that it will remain in effect for 2009. In addition to that incentive bonuses which we used to be guaranteed are now gone and we're paying more for benefits in addtion to health care that used to be free (when you do the math it basically equals a pay cut and a big one at that).

Both companies are non-union. We do not have the option to strike. We do have the option to quit and work someplace else. It is our choice to work where we do and in the fields that we do. Just as it is a teacher's choice to become a teacher.

Not complaining, just pointing out that the only option for most in the corporate sector is to find another job and also that raises are directly related to a companies profits and not always job performance.

So, why aren't you looking for another job? Do you love your company that much you will put up with a pay cut? How much less do you need to make before you go get one of these jobs that wil pay more than the one you have now? I'm assuming, since you make it seem so easy to just quit and get another job, you should be able to pick up and find another one that pays what you were making before the pay cut with no problem, right?


And you're right it is a person's choice to become a teacher and join a union and have the right to strike. Just because you chose a profession where you have no choice in what happens to your job and no recourse other than to find another one, does not mean other people should have to put up with that type of work situation.

 

[Tink888]

So, why aren't you looking for another job? Do you love your company that much you will put up with a pay cut? How much less do you need to make before you go get one of these jobs that wil pay more than the one you have now? I'm assuming, since you make it seem so easy to just quit and get another job, you should be able to pick up and find another one that pays what you were making before the pay cut with no problem, right?

I don't think I made it seems "easy" at all to go out and find another job. The point I am making is that for non-union workers, that is the only option that exists. If you work for a non-union company, and in most corporations, the union is frowned upon - that is your option - you either accept the way things are or you go somewhere else. There are many, many workers who aren't getting deserved pay increases (cost of living or otherwise) besides teachers and that have no recourse.

AFWIW - I do like my company overall, there are intangible benefits such as my hours and my PTO time which work well for me and my family. I'm not the primary breadwinner in my house so the money is not the only factor in the equation. Also, in my industry things are rough all over and the other options right now are slim. I'm one of the lucky ones who still has a job but it still stinks to have to take concessions.

 

[chobie]

I don't think I made it seems "easy" at all to go out and find another job. The point I am making is that for non-union workers, that is the only option that exists. If you work for a non-union company, and in most corporations, the union is frowned upon - that is your option - you either accept the way things are or you go somewhere else. There are many, many workers who aren't getting deserved pay increases (cost of living or otherwise) besides teachers and that have no recourse.

AFWIW - I do like my company overall, there are intangible benefits such as my hours and my PTO time which work well for me and my family. I'm not the primary breadwinner in my house so the money is not the only factor in the equation. Also, in my industry things are rough all over and the other options right now are slim. I'm one of the lucky ones who still has a job but it still stinks to have to take concessions.

That's fine, but then you should have no problem with union members' choice to strike. You should applaud them for having choses a career where they do have that choice.

 

[Tink888]

That's fine, but then you should have no problem with union members' choice to strike. You should applaud them for having choses a career where they do have that choice.

Read my prior posts. I do not have a problem with a union member voting to strike. DH has been through strikes many years ago through a different employer.

My problem with teacher strikes, specifically the one in my district is that the teachers exercised their right to strike, yet they gave up no lost wages, there was no risk to their job security and unionized construction workers lost pay (or our district paid their wages) when they would not cross teacher pickets lines (and I agree that one union should not cross another's picket line). The kids were hurt, the taxpayers were hurt, other union workers were hurt due to the strike. The teachers were not hurt and gave up nothing.

When most unions choose to strike, there is a risk involved be it lost pay, or being replaced. Our teachers suffered no risk, no lost wages and other people suffered. I have a problem with that. They sure wouldn't strike during summer break - no bargaining power there - the kids aren't loosing anything. The teachers lost nothing by striking, the kids did.

I can't speak for how other districts in other states operate, only mine. Yes I had a problem with it and yes I'm entitled to that opinion. Again, I have a lot of respect for teachers but I don't think they should be entitled to strike.

 

[golfgal]

Read my prior posts. I do not have a problem with a union member voting to strike. DH has been through strikes many years ago through a different employer.

My problem with teacher strikes, specifically the one in my district is that the teachers exercised their right to strike, yet they gave up no lost wages, there was no risk to their job security and unionized construction workers lost pay (or our district paid their wages) when they would not cross teacher pickets lines (and I agree that one union should not cross another's picket line). The kids were hurt, the taxpayers were hurt, other union workers were hurt due to the strike. The teachers were not hurt and gave up nothing.

When most unions choose to strike, there is a risk involved be it lost pay, or being replaced. Our teachers suffered no risk, no lost wages and other people suffered. I have a problem with that. They sure wouldn't strike during summer break - no bargaining power there - the kids aren't loosing anything. The teachers lost nothing by striking, the kids did.

I can't speak for how other districts in other states operate, only mine. Yes I had a problem with it and yes I'm entitled to that opinion. Again, I have a lot of respect for teachers but I don't think they should be entitled to strike.

Are you sure the teachers got paid while striking? That doesn't sound accurate. Also, with teachers, without a union they have NO barging power for their wages/benefits, etc. Since the school budgets are at the mercy of taxes, their salaries/benefits are an easy target for cuts. Who is going to stand up for them in that situation. That is why they NEED a union. Whether you choose to believe it or not, you do have bargaining power with your job either with wages, time off, what have you. Teachers have none. Everything they do is set by the government and they have no say in how many days they work, times they work, nothing. Heck, the government even tells them HOW they have to teach now. I have seen both sides of it and trust me, the corporate world has NOTHING to complain about when it comes to working conditions, salaries and benefits.

 

[Tink888]

Are you sure the teachers got paid while striking? That doesn't sound accurate. Also, with teachers, without a union they have NO barging power for their wages/benefits, etc. Since the school budgets are at the mercy of taxes, their salaries/benefits are an easy target for cuts. Who is going to stand up for them in that situation. That is why they NEED a union. Whether you choose to believe it or not, you do have bargaining power with your job either with wages, time off, what have you. Teachers have none. Everything they do is set by the government and they have no say in how many days they work, times they work, nothing. Heck, the government even tells them HOW they have to teach now. I have seen both sides of it and trust me, the corporate world has NOTHING to complain about when it comes to working conditions, salaries and benefits.

I have 6 teachers in my immediate family, 4 good friends who are teachers and two kids in the public school system. I am well aware of how hard teachers work and the benefits and pitfalls of the job.

In the teaching profession, just like in the corporate world, there are positives and negatives. I'm not attacking you but if the corporate world is SO much better, is that where you are now?

I agree that teachers need an advocate. I don't see how merit pay can work because the end product of teaching is the student and there are so many factors that go into the individual success of a student. A teacher is one piece of the puzzle. The best teacher in the world has the cards stacked against them if the child has a lousy home life and parents who could give a damn about their education. The union also affords the same pay, benefits, and protection to lousy teachers that it does to the best teachers and I don't think there is a teacher or a parents out there who believes that all teachers are equal. That's not right either.

I am also aware of what teachers are paid in our area - I can't speak for all areas - only ours - and our teachers are paid fairly, they have good benefits.
I have no problem with teachers being unionized and having an advocate. I do not however, believe they should be able to strike. JMO