Before the Unions rally their charges to come hunt me down with pitchforks I’d like to remind them that this is a hypothetical question that too many parents aren’t asking themselves in Chicago as they look for a place to put their kids. The nation’s third largest school district is on strike for the first time in a quarter century and that means 350,000 students aren’t getting the mediocre education tax dollars are funding. 29,000 teachers and staff are on the picket line in an attempt to get the school district to cave to demands for concessions and while the stalemate continues the kids suffer.
An average city school teacher in Chicago makes around $71,000 dollars a year and the union wants more. Along with negotiations both sides were duking it out over something the union sees as a threat to job security but what others might see as the district taking responsibility. The union sees job performance evaluations and “accountability” as a threat to their teachers’ job security and they’re kind of right because if a teacher fails performance evaluations then they might not have a job anymore and frankly they shouldn’t.
Kids are currently not in school learning so that a teacher making $71,000 for less than 9 months of work can demand more money and less oversight on how they do their job. Keep in mind that the teacher can take up another job during those summer months thus increasing their income higher than most Americans. The worst part of all of this is that before the teachers went on strike they were informing their classes of why they’re going on strike thus influencing the kid and their parents to see the unions side of things and sending home packets of homework that they’ll be forced to do without any assistance except from their hard working parents whose math class from 30 years ago is long outdated.
I also found it highly suspicious that the union chose to go on strike for the first time in 25 years just after the city announces it wants more non-union charter schools.
I understand why factory workers need to be able to strike. I mean I understand why they needed to strike in 1920 but I can’t figure out why a teachers union would need to strike in the 21st century and going a step further than that I don’t understand why they are allowed to do so. If we really put our children’s education at the top of the priorities list then Chicago should fire every single teacher on strike and hire some people who want to educate kids rather than hide behind a union when they get busted for not doing their job. I get that America is deeply rooted in the unions so my sentiments won’t go over well but the problem is that incidents like these further prove that unions are no longer necessary today because they are willing to sacrifice your kids’ education for more benefits that a teacher simply is not entitled to.
“I am disappointed by the decision of the Chicago Teachers Union to turn its back on not only a city negotiating in good faith but also the hundreds of thousands of children relying on the city’s public schools to provide them a safe place to receive a strong education.” – Mitt Romney
Oddly that is probably the only statement from Mitt Romney where I will say “I agree with him”.
Should teachers unions be allowed to strike? No they shouldn’t and any parent who says “I want the best for my child” shouldn’t support the union either. Not only are the unions striking but they want to prevent the Chicago school district from being able to assess a teachers job performance which means that if they’re not teaching properly the district is going to have an awfully hard time removing them. If one union is doing it others could soon follow. Are you OK with your child receiving a piss-poor education just so a teacher can have the right not to get fired for not doing their job? Are you OK with your kids not being in school so that a teacher earning more money than most Americans who work nearly 365 days a year can demand more money? Are you OK with your kids being briefed about the union in class and then handed a homework packet while the teachers hit the picket lines?
Why aren’t they on strike during their 3 months off?
The unions don’t care about your kids and neither do the teachers. If they did they would not be striking just a few days into the school year when it is essential to focus kids and get them learning again. Why didn’t they choose to strike while they had all that time off or wait until next summer? They’d rather bully the district into giving into their demands rather than actually negotiate a fair deal with the city. If we continue allow teachers to strike and demand unfair benefits then teachers are going to have no reason to properly teach because after all the union thinks that accountability and performance is a threat to job security.
It’s hard for me to side with a union when what they’re doing is damaging to education. It’s even harder for me to side with a teacher who wants to earn more money for less work. In my opinion if you don’t want to do your job with the current pay and benefits then you either work harder for a promotion or you quit. Striking is quitting to me and if it wasn’t illegal I’d fire the whole lot of those Chicago “teachers”. Unions had their place in American labor but that was a long time ago and the continued presence of unions is not only a threat to our children’s education but a threat to the American economy.