Man, you guys have no idea how this works.
Quitting your job is an entirely different matter from leaving your job at the expense of public interest. People find their jobs stressful, however that rarely justifies not performing a given service. Take nurses for example, another group that is unionized. If the hospital doesn't work out talks with it and they stop giving service to patients resulting in hundreds of people being put on jeopardy, is that the fault of the hospital? If the hospital doesn't have the funds to give them adequate pay and good working conditions, might they consider working at a different hospital or looking into another profession entirely?
And what happens when they do all leave the industry? Hospitals are then screwed because even the people who want to be doctors and nurses wont because they wont have adequate pay or working conditions. 'If you don't like it, then quit and do something else' isn't a valid argument. If it was something without real repercussions, such as shoe salesman or car-wash attendant, then yeah, sure. But Hospitals? As a society we kinda need those jobs, and since it's a job that's a matter of life and death, you want the best. You aren't going to get the best if you pay them peanuts and treat them like apes.
Is being a teacher such a dismal job and earns such a vicious respite that they have to rescind the service entirely to students, students that are already dedicating their time when 40% have or will prospectively drop out in a given year. They are well aware that the mayor is being pressured by both firefighters and police unions and are aware that the governor will have to deal with these groups on precedent of how he deals with them.
I can't comment on the specifics of that since I don't know much about it, but so what? They should just suck it up because another group complained first? If it's that bad that you've got police, firefighters, doctors nurses and teachers underpaid/overworked, then you need to look at what chump's running that.
Is it fair that union members get first hire or there is a system built on how long they live in the system rather than how they perform? The system isn't built around punishing people who don't get A's. You are surely overestimating what level of proficiency is going on in Chicago compared to some well of to do school district. The standards are that kids who consistently under perform or fail with the same teacher will require that teacher to be lectured and then fired if they continue to fail students.
I don't know enough about unions, so I won't comment there, but
The standards are that kids who consistently under perform or fail with the same teacher will require that teacher to be lectured and then fired if they continue to fail students.
This is the circular logic I was complaining that it uses. Teacher has fifty kids in the class. That is in no way a good class size. That's 2 classes worth of kids. And the teacher is supposed to manage that, and educate them all and make sure that the lower kids are kept up while making sure the extension kids are still challenged...it's not possible. You'll have the kids who are behind flare up becase they don't know what to do and the teacher's too busy to help you'll have the kids who excell flare up because they know it all, are bored and the teacher's too busy to give them a challenge, and the kids in the middle then start to sufer because the teacher's having to deal with two groups who aren't being covered by the work. Overall grades then drop, they dont see the reason for staying and drop out.
They are being set up to fail. If you give them too much (the work of
two teachers, no less!) then they won't be able to do it. No matter how you lecture them, it wont do a damn thing. If I told you to lift a car over your head, would me lecturing you on the best way to bend your legs help? Not at all.
And when the teacher's fired you'll just be spreading the workload that much further. Maybe split the class up and put half in one, half in the other. Class sizes of 75? Why not? Oh, that teacher can't handle it? Better lecture them too!
It doesn't matter if you hate your job. It doesn't matter if you hate life. It doesn't matter if you hate yourself. It doesn't matter if you hate the people you have to serve. If you are in a job that provides something that is deemed essential public interest, then there is a moral obligation to fulfill that duty or to accept responsibility of the repercussions as personal responsibility if there is no one else to replace your civic duty.
I can't express my frustration about the stupidity in this statement. You wanted to be a teacher/doctor/whatever so ha! You're now society's slave! It's fiiiine to underpay you and overwork you. It's a public interest it's a moral responsibility to enjoy being a slave! Stop complaining, it's important!
If it's such a god-damn important public interest, why aren't they given adequate support, both in funds for resources, but also for wages? Maybe if they didn't have to have 50 person classes and hired more people, more people would want to do the job? Hell, if they were paid generously, perhaps then you'd have even better people wanting to do the job, rather than get training and then go overseas to teach where there's better pay and conditions?
Teachers are blaming the governor for failing the students, that is disgusting. Tunneling more money into a system that has intrinsic flaws does not necessitate an increase in efficiency or proficiency.
The teachers themselves must accept responsibility for failing the students.
Why should they accept responsibility, when you yourself has said that the system has flaws? Teachers don't make the system, the government (which would include the governor and his staff) do make the system. Do you blame the wheel for falling off your bike, or do you blame the person who put the bike together?
Having a 40% student drop out rate does not justify a 2-3% across the board pay raise. If this were a corporation, they would be fired and replaced by younger college graduates who are looking for employment.
If it was a corporation it'd likely be paying a lot more to entice better assets to join the company. Not to mention if schooling was a general company, they'd probably be under investigation for shady practises for crap like 50 kids to a classroom. Would you expect a surgeon to operate on two people at once? 40% drop-out rate signals that something is wrong with the system, not the teachers. If it was a single teacher that had that, then yeah, they'd be looked at. When it's 40% across the board, it's a problem with the higher ups.
If Chicago cedes to these teachers it will be at the expense of the general public. If Chicago cedes to the firefighters it will be at the expense of the general public. If Chicago cedes to the police force it will be at the expense of the general public. Taxes will be raised and people will have to pay more to appease the unions.
Whereas having people leave the police/teaching/firefighting professions, and having those remain be overstressed, overworked and underpaid and likely not care about their jobs,
that is at the expense of the community. What do you want to happen when you call the fire brigade? The engine to arrive with a team of highly trained professionals with the best equipment to save your house? If they aren't paid enough, they'll find work elsewhere and you'll get people who don't really care.
What do you care about taxes anyway, you're still in high school.
The people in unions will note the standard of living is higher and things require more money. They will go on strike again, requesting more pay at the expense of the general public.
So basically, they should never get pay rises like people who work for private companies? If that was true, they'd still be getting paid a few dollar a year. Prices go up, so should wages. And like most governments, they're always slow at increasing the wages of public servants (bar politicians pay)
What would you rather pay, a few dollars more in taxes, or pay the cost of a private tuition because public schooling no longer exists?
They want job security, they want tenure, they want reemployment guarantees, favortism, and don't want to be evaluated on how well their students are able to pass tests. They want to be paid for giving the kids candy, rainbows, dreams, and a naive 0 accountability work environment where students could fail hard and they continue to chug out failures for years to come with expanded salary of $70k plus.
God, I'd love to slap you right now. You don't have a god damn clue.
We don't want to be evaluated on how children pass tests, we want to be evaluated on what children know and can do. 'Tests' are far from the best at displaying this. I could get into the whole discussion about Howard Gardner, multiple intelligences, different teaching methods and styles, but I know I'd be wasting my breath. (If you actually are interested, let me know and I'll gladly explain) Suffice to say there's a lot of negativity towards standardised tests, because all they can tell is how well teachers have taught children to take a test.
And to repeat myself, if the situation they are in is actively prohibiting teaching, why should they be punished for doing a bd job? Two firemen and a hose vs a forest fire. Would you fire them because they couldn't do a job that required more funding, resources and people?
However, this doesn't excuse the fact that they are going on strike and leaving the students without an education. Now, many students are going to be behind and end up failing.
There's already many students behind and failing. Should they just shut up, keep going and having that 40% drop-out rate increase, or go on strike, raise awareness and get something done to fix the problem?
