PDA

View Full Version : Chicago bled dry by striking Teachers' Unions



Little-Acorn
09-10-2012, 12:33 PM
Chicago's teachers already make more money than teachers in any other major city. But they're unhappy about it... so they're going on strike.

Recently the city of Chicago made an offer to its Teachers' Unions to increase their pay 16%.

It was rejected... because the package wasn't enough. So they're going on strike.

Chicago teachers pay only 3% of the cost of their medical benefits package. The City pays the rest. But the Teachers' Union says they won't pay any more... so they're going on strike.

Where's Scott Walker when you need him?

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316395/chicago-bled-dry-striking-teachers-unions-john-fund#

Chicago Bled Dry by Striking Teachers’ Unions

by John Fund
September 10, 2012 9:16 A.M.

The smartest parents in Chicago right now are those whose kids attend charter schools, private schools, or parochial schools. Those institutions don’t employ Chicago’s unionized public-school teachers, who went out on strike this morning for the first time in 25 years.

The coverage of the strike has obscured some basic facts. The money has continued to pour into Chicago’s failing public schools in recent years. Chicago teachers have the highest average salary of any city at $76,000 a year before benefits. The average family in the city only earns $47,000 a year. Yet the teachers rejected a 16 percent salary increase over four years at a time when most families are not getting any raises or are looking for work.

The city is being bled dry by the exorbitant benefits packages negotiated by previous elected officials. Teachers pay only 3 percent of their health-care costs and out of every new dollar set aside for public education in Illinois in the last five years, a full 71 cents has gone to teacher retirement costs.

But beyond the dollars, the fact is that Chicago schools need a fundamental shakeup — which of course the union is resisting. It is calling for changes in the teacher-evaluation system it just negotiated by making student performance less important.

Small wonder. Just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading and only 56 percent of students who enter their freshman year of high school wind up graduating.

The showdown in Chicago will be a test of just how much clout the public-employee unions wield at a time when the budget pressures they’ve created threaten to break the budgets of America’s major cities.

aboutime
09-10-2012, 01:52 PM
Anyone remember what Ronald Reagan did to the AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS?

Seems to me, despite Obama's noticeable SILENCE on this matter because his BUDDY Rahm is supposedly in charge. This would be the optimum time for Chicago, and any other city being held captive, or being Blackmailed...for SOMEONE with some HONEST POWER to step in and tell them...or any other city planning on doing what Chicago teachers are doing, if they do not go back to work, and stop striking. He should just follow Reagan's lead, save Chicago, and the Nation all of the troubles that are bubbling up, and DO IT.

Sadly. We all know. That's not gonna happen. But it sure would END Obama's and the Democrats constant referrals to Reagan.

Let the Hypocrisy win.

Little-Acorn
09-10-2012, 01:55 PM
Anyone remember what Ronald Reagan did to the AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS?


The air traffic controllers had a no-strike clause in their contracts, and they violated it. That's why Reagan was able to fire them.

The air traffic controllers were considered a vital service - if they don't work, planes can crash and people die. So they had this promise not to strike in their contracts. Like good Democrats everywhere, their union bosses assumed they could violate the rules, and their own promises, with impunity.

I'm sure the Chicago teachers' contracts don't have such a clause.

tailfins
09-10-2012, 02:05 PM
The air traffic controllers had a no-strike clause in their contracts, and they violated it. That's why Reagan was able to fire them.

The air traffic controllers were considered a vital service - if they don't work, planes can crash and people die. So they had this promise not to strike in their contracts. Like good Democrats everywhere, their union bosses assumed they could violate the rules, and their own promises, with impunity.

I'm sure the Chicago teachers' contracts don't have such a clause.

That's because they are not providing a vital service (or perhaps not even a useful service).

aboutime
09-10-2012, 02:08 PM
The air traffic controllers had a no-strike clause in their contracts, and they violated it. That's why Reagan was able to fire them.

The air traffic controllers were considered a vital service - if they don't work, planes can crash and people die. So they had this promise not to strike in their contracts. Like good Democrats everywhere, their union bosses assumed they could violate the rules, and their own promises, with impunity.

I'm sure the Chicago teachers' contracts don't have such a clause.


I know, and agree Little Acorn. But since we know the Teachers Unions, and most other Unions also Do Not have a No Strike Clause in their contracts. They feel perfectly free to hold cities Hostage, With Blackmail, and Extortion to get what they want.

Does anyone know of ANY OTHER Union membership, anywhere in this country that would turn down a SIXTEEN percent increase, and rather strike?

red states rule
09-18-2012, 03:22 AM
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sbr091612dAPC20120915014513.jpg