Teachers strikes

[Steve]

I don't know about where you guys are, but around here, teachers go on strike from time to time, even though it's illegal for them to do so.

The first time I had ever heard of such a thing was back in the 80s when I was in high school. I can't remember the details now, but if I remember correctly, we ended up being in school until late July that year.

What I'm interested in are your thoughts on this phenomenon. My kids should have started school last monday. Our teachers went on strike. The school board filed an injunction that was granted by the state judge, so we should get the kids back to school next Wednesday.

But, as a result the teachers are being forced to return to work without a contract.

I'll just say that I'm really conflicted by this. First, the teachers have legitimate grievances. Our school board is the highest paid in the State while our teachers are among the lowest. Class sizes are increasing and the administration is notorious for spending money on programs that look good on paper, get lots of kudos for the district, but don't really do anything for the kids.

On the other hand, a teachers strike doesn't really penalize teachers. The people who pay for it are the parents of young children who have to scramble to figure out childcare on such short notice. And depending upon how long the strike goes, it can really screw with graduating seniors who are applying to colleges, apprenticeships or simply just want to get on with their lives.

I know we have some teachers on the boards. I'd like to hear your thoughts, and anyone else's, too.

 

[geezer]

I don't know about where you guys are, but around here, teachers go on strike from time to time, even though it's illegal for them to do so.

I suspect that the legality of going on strike depends on where you live. Where I work, the teacher's union is so weak, that if every union member went on strike, administration would probably not even notice. They might think there was a flu outbreak, yawn and call in a few more subs. Or save the money and just have the remaining teachers pull double duty.

As it is, my salary has been cut, my workload has increased, and all our classes are ever more crowded. I keep my job out of necessity and do the best I can, but I send my own kids to charter schools that are run quite differently.

 

[Carol]

Tough call. Never dealt with a teacher's strike when I was in school...most of my schooling was in a school district that was union free.

 

[Steve]

Education is a big dillemma right now, and I can see both sides of the issue.

One side of the argument asserts that teachers have it made. Sure, they work long hours during the year, but they get christmas holidays, spring break, mid-Winter break, every federal holiday and the Summer off. They get benefits and, as was my criteria for a career when I graduated from high school, they work indoors without a hair net. (I wasn't a very good student).

Teachers often enjoy relative stability, particularly where tenure comes into play.

On the other hand, so the argument goes, teachers are often not paid enough for what they do. The best and brightest work in higher level education or, if they're talented enough go to work for corporations where their educations can make them good money. As the old saying goes, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." This is the culture we're promoting by not valuing our teachers, holding them to higher standards while at the same time rewarding the best and brightest who choose teaching over other potential careers.

Specific to the strike here locally, the teachers are being pretty well abused by our local school board. The administration keeps a budget reserve that is recommended to be something like 5% of the operating budget (I may not have the percentage exactly right, but it's around $10mil). Our reserve is currently at $21mil.

The teacher's assertion is that the reserve is used as a hammer. Under the current contract the administration can freeze COLAs, hiring and even RIF teachers when the district is in a budget crisis. And to create a budget crisis, the district need only increase the size of the reserve, which is already over twice what the State Govt recommends.

Add to this a history of programs like the One to One program where the school district issues laptops to every student (I'd be happy to explain why this is an expensive goat screw), bussing debacles and a shortfall in the number of schools in our area and I can empathize with the teachers.

As I said before, though, I am glad that the judge granted the injunction to force the teachers back to work. I don't believe that they should be allowed to strike.

I'm really surprised that no one else has had to deal with these issues.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Here another problem too....the old teachers who cannot change...and CANNOT be remove because of UNIONS....even if proven are NOT up to standards......Poor performance..


NOT up to standards/Poor performance- teachers...cannot be remove...if they where working in the private world for would have been FIRED years ago for poor performances...

Hawaii education systems....UNION Is strong here...

Aloha, ..the right to strike...should be for everyone

 

[Carol]

My apologies Steve for the abrupt post, I got interrupted before I could expand upon it.

I can see the sides to the issue too. There are a few things that bother me about the educational system as it currently stands.

Education and literacy are subjects near and dear to my heart. I have absolutely no problem (as a childless taxpayer) with my taxes going to support my city's schools, because I see a direct benefit of the schools being there. But I do have a problem with the communities that hold so called "public meetings" to discuss public school issues, yet structure them so they are open only to people with children actively registered in the system.

I also have a problem is the exact same situation you describe - legitimate concerns voiced by the striking teachers - devolving in to a power struggle where the students pay the price. I am not categorically anti-union, but situations like this make me wonder (hypothetically) the point to all this extra structure (unionizing, CBAs, etc) if the children are ultimately going to pay the price of a disagreement? I don't think there is an easy answer there.

My sister has been struggling a lot with educational choices. They have enrolled my new niece and nephews in a charter school about 30 minutes away, but the charter school only serves children through grade 8, which means the oldest child will only get one year of education there. My older niece and nephew went to the local high school after being home schooled through grade 8, and neither one of them thought too highly of the system (location: a poor county in the rural south). Poor parental involvement, constant class disruption from kids seeking attention, social issues galore (high numbers of pregnancies, absenteeism, drug use, gang activities, etc.)

The question weighing heavily on their mind is what to do with my oldest adopted nephew? My sister and her husband have a farm, it is not like they can pack up and move to an area with better schools. They also don't have a lot of money. The nearest private schools are 50 miles away, even if the child won full tuition on a scholarship, it would be nearly impossible for them to put the required 200 miles a day on their vehicles for an extended period of time.

Lots of questions with no apparant answers, lots of problems with no apparent solutions.

 

[Big Don]

The school districts should take a lesson from Reagan.
Strike in violation of the law? OK. You're all fired!
Do that a few times, and it will discourage others from going down that road.

 

[Carol]

The school districts should take a lesson from Reagan.
Strike in violation of the law? OK. You're all fired!
Do that a few times, and it will discourage others from going down that road.

That could stand to hurt the children more than it helps. I think in Steve's case, ordering them promptly back to work without a contract while the bargainers negotiate the details is a better benefit for the community.

 

[geezer]

That could stand to hurt the children more than it helps. I think in Steve's case, ordering them promptly back to work without a contract while the bargainers negotiate the details is a better benefit for the community.

Yeah, and if they go back to work as ordered, then there is no legal reason to fire them. The air traffic controllers unoin, PATCO (?) refused to go back to work. But either way, its apples and oranges. Air traffic controllers are federal employees. Teachers are local employees, and the conditions of their contracts vary greatly. And as to all that resentful talk about "tenure"... well guys, this is my fifteenth year on the job and we still don't have it here in Arizona. After three years of probation, we are entitled to "due process" before being fired though. Before that, you can be sacked without being given any reason. "Due process" doesn't seem like a free ride to me.

Finally, regarding a teacher's strike, or anybody else's. It should be strong, fast, focused, non-telegraphic and have body force behind it. Just my two cents.