Comments on: Why New York isn’t on track to repeat Chicago’s teacher strike

By: APapercut

APapercut — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:43:00 +0000

I am not making “this about money”. I was merely pointing out a possible flaw in the argument of the article. However since you bring it up, I would have to say that the unions are not making this about money either; in fact, it is the state and city governments that are making this about money. Although state leaders were rebuked for consistently underfunding the pension and benefit funds of municipal and state workers, in some cases over ten years, they did nothing about it. Now they would lay the blame at the feet of the worker, instead accepting to whom the fault truly belongs. While this explanation does not negate the fact that pension and benefit funds are in need of repair, it would be a salve to the workers if the people in charge accepted responsibility, quelled the public outcry against the “greedy workers” because we are being demonized by the government and media, and negotiated in good faith. Maybe then the workers might feel more inclined to accept some of the other demands.
I do not know what you mean when you implied that I must be from a great school. I work in a NYC public school that according to reports is not a great school. Many people would say it is a tough school in which to be a teacher. More often than not when I explain what I do to a new acquaintance, their response is a look of astonished concern and an “Oh!”
Having said that, I like working in my school. I am a veteran teacher. I do not think we “make a good amount of money”; I think we should make more. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/teacher-pay-around-the-world

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:45:00 +0000

well i’m glad nobody said it, then.

By: anon.

anon. — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:37:00 +0000

An “E4E member” is an extremely broad term that consists of clicking a couple of buttons. To say that have penetrated the UFT seems grossly inaccurate

By: Austinsux1

Austinsux1 — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:11:00 +0000

The UFT won’t strike because Michael Mulgrew wouldn’t want to be made a character that starts a nuclear war, like Woody Allen did to Albert Shanker in the movie Sleeper.

By: Norm

Norm — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:15:00 +0000

There are not only fines on the teachers but tremendous fines on the union, including loss of dues checkoff which can cripple a union unless it wins such a resounding victory it can bargain some of the fines away. Because there was often a wink-wink relationship between the union and the Bd of Ed – the UFT was part of the power structure — they never wanted to cripple the union — they really needed them and who knows — you get some people like the CORE people in Chicago in power. So better to deal with the devil you know. If there is ever a group in NYC that threatens Unity watch the powers that be function behind the scenes to buck them up.

By: BK

BK — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:09:00 +0000

Please please please do not make this about money. Are you a veteran teacher? You must be in a great school. Most of us know we get a good amount of money already. It is about our right and blame. It is about fake reform. That is what its about.

By: Mr. Flerporillo

Mr. Flerporillo — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:03:00 +0000

Just to be clear, the term “illegal” just means that something is prohibited by law. If you violate a law, you’ve done something illegal. Double-parking, failing to use a signal before turning, operating a hot dog cart too many feet from the curb — these are all illegal acts. That doesn’t mean you’re going to get thrown in jail for doing it, but it’s illegal.

The Taylor law provides: “No public employee or employee organization shall engage in a strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall cause, instigate, encourage, or condone a strike.” That means that it is illegal for a public employee to strike.

By: Mr. Flerporillo

Mr. Flerporillo — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:40:00 +0000

Philissa — what’s the basis for saying that “striking isn’t technically illegal” under the Taylor law? I don’t follow this. Do you mean to say striking isn’t a “crime” under the Taylor law?

By: APapercut

APapercut — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:19:00 +0000

You can thank our current Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, for many of those problems you point out going back ten years.

By: Apapercut

Apapercut — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:11:00 +0000

Something to note: “There’s no point in striking a lame-duck mayor, or a brand-new one.” With a year to go in his last term, Bloomberg is reportedly stalling negotiations and draining the budget for the next mayor who can then claim “there is no money for raises”. This hardly seems to imply a “lame-duck” mayor or lack of a reason to strike against a new mayor. Furthermore, the Taylor Law does not make striking illegal as some may think, the law only penalizes the striking worker two days for every day of striking. That may be a deterrent if negotiations are within a year of the contract deadline, but when you consider that teachers are faced with the possibility of not receiving four years of retroactive pay, a strike may not seem so unattractive an idea.

By: old teach

old teach — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:01:00 +0000

Several points this report fails to mention is that the Chicago Tecahers Union and the reforms that are at the heart of the strike have taken place years before they have occured in other cities. The Chicago BOE has been closing schools and firing teachers and some of these acts go back 10 years or longer. Also, the Chicago Mayor Emanuel unilaterally stopped incremental pay raises that were already in place contractually. These are major differences between the cities. The CTU strike will have major repercussions for national education policy, and the democratic party.

By: Norm

Norm — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:29:00 +0000

What is the true mission? Teachers are not missionaries — they work like everyone else. If your boss wants to be able to fire you based on some bogus numbers even after you put in a career worth of work you have the right to fight back. And then there is overloaded class sizes that Obama and Emanuel would never allow their own kids to face. So it is also about the kids too. It is not about money though that is a factor. Yes, why don’t you extend your work day and not get paid for it.

By: Guest

Guest — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 03:37:00 +0000

did you forget its about the kids… how great for them…. when did you lose your true mission…

By: MHaber8643

MHaber8643 — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 03:00:00 +0000

More power to C.T.U., the soul of education in this country at this moment. I wonder why, every time I go to my DOE e mail- which, according to Management, is now mandatory- I have to get bombarded with E4E crapola….if they are to be featured, then MORE should be able to be featured as well. Who made that allowance for E4E, and can it be challenged as biased?

By: IBlameBloomberg

IBlameBloomberg — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:19:00 +0000

How absolutely spectacular would it be if every teacher in the country walked out for one day in solidarity with the Chicago teachers.

By: BK

BK — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:49:00 +0000

Chicago’s union is standing up. They are not striking over money. They have come out and said they are not far apart on money. This is about security. This is about the set up and the blame. I am a conservative that sees it as a teacher. This reform does not work with inner city kids. All it does is blame the teacher. When will you rise up??

By: HS Biology Teacher

HS Biology Teacher — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:01:00 +0000

This article, along with the first part, contains an excellent analysis of the situation in Chicago and its implications.

By: Norm

Norm — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 22:11:00 +0000

Want to be E4E people didn’t wear red?