Okay, a few clarifications from a former teacher and principal:
1. The average salary for teachers is $76K, that's true. As someone else noted above, that's a mathematical average and not what most teachers make. Many teachers, especially elementary school teachers, buy their own supplies. Can you imagine a job where you actually had to buy your own copy paper and stapler? Would you stand for that? (No, not every school is like that--only the poor ones, and there are many poor schools in Chicago.)
2. Teachers only working 9-months is a myth. They regularly put in 50-60 hour weeks from August through mid-June, more during certain times of the year (such as near the end of the quarter). As someone stated above, Summer is a time when teachers are expected and sometimes demanded to take college courses to keep their certification--and hence, their job. Does that sound like a leisurely 9-month year?
3. Chicago teachers and the city had agreed to a 4% raise. Then the city reneged on that promise, citing a huge budget deficit. The next week, the city gave raises to the top five education executives, one receiving a $20K raise. How would you feel if your promised raise was taken away and given to your bosses?
4. Chicago teachers were never offered a 16% raise. An independent arbiter examined the issue about the city wanting to add 90 minutes of instruction to the school day. The arbiter said that, to properly compensate teachers for the extra 90 minutes of instruction plus whatever minutes of prep and grading, the city should offer a 14.5% raise. The city rejected the plan, as did the teachers. (I am not sure why, so if someone has a link explaining why rather than an opinion, please post it here.)
5. The city wants to add 90 minutes of instruction per day. That can be anywhere from 90 minutes to 180 minutes of work for the teachers. They asked to be paid for those 90 minutes and the city said no. Would you agree to work for 1.5 - 3 hours more each day without getting anything in return?
6. The teachers said no to the 90 minutes with no pay. Then the city offered a 2% raise to an entire school's teachers, plus additional money for the school, if they would break with the union and go to a longer school day. Would that make you feel like the city was trying to force its demands on the teachers? And besides, wasn't there a budget crisis?
7. The city used a test given to prospective teachers to weed out those who wouldn't support a longer school day, even if the candidates were ideal. Wouldn't that undermine your trust for the city's leaders?
If you believe teachers are lazy, ineffectual, and have all the time they want, then you obviously don't know a teacher. (Or, you know one really bad teacher.) This strike is regrettable but, from what I've seen, it appears the city cannot be trusted and is asking too much of the teachers. I hate seeing kids out of school but the union's been warning about this strike for over a year now.