Chicago teachers to go on strike after talks with Rahm Emanuel fail

[auditor0007]

The irony of it all! A leading Democrat having Union problems. In another article, the Union called Emanuel a "bully" and wanted Obama to talk to Rahm. A 16% raise?!!!

It's not a 16% raise. If your employer offers to increase your pay by 10% over the next 10 years so that in ten years you are only making 10% more than you are now, would you consider that a raise? Should we all scream how it is ridiculous that you are getting a 10% raise? It's a stupid argument isn't it? But you throw it out there anyway which makes you either a major troll or just completely unwilling to take the time to do the research so you can understand what the 16% covers.

 

[Jackson]

Chicago teachers to go on strike after talks with Rahm Emanuel fail


1. Chicago teachers strike with an impasse against Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago.

2. The school district was facing a $700 million deficit.

3. The latest offer has been a 16% raise and an evaluation tied to student standardized test scores, but teachers aren’t having any part of it. They say that would cost 6,000 teacher jobs.

Read more: Chicago teachers to go on strike after talks with district fail | Fox News

Who these days is seeing a 16% raise? Teachers have to be accountable for their performance, but the devil is in the details. Scores should only count from spring to spring scores, (No pre and post scores) and only students without attendance problems should be included in the evaluation. It should be on growth of performance and not meeting the standards of the grade. (one month growth for each month in school would be considered average)

First of all to answer your question about who receives a 16% pay raise, you really should do some research before coming up with a one liner. When you ask a question like that, and make it sound like all of a sudden teachers want a 16% pay raise, most everyone would think the teacher's are out of their minds. But this of course is not the case. Last year because of a major shortfall, teachers raises were rescinded meaning they did not get not receive their pay increase. This 16% pay increase is to take place over the next four years and includes making up for the raise that was rescinded last year. In other words, it's a pay raise that covers five years, and since it is the total of accumulated pay raises, each year is not that much.

SALARIES: The Chicago School Board rescinded a scheduled 4 percent pay raise for teachers last year because of its budget problems. It offered teachers a pay increase of 2 percent a year over four years, which is what it assumed in the 2013 budget, then raised the first year to 3 percent on Sunday, amounting to what CPS said was a 16 percent raise of the 4-year contract.
The union wants the rescinded raise restored plus annual increases higher than those offered by the city.

Factbox: Chicago teachers dispute is over school reform, money - Yahoo! News

If you understand what is said here, it isn't even a 16% pay increase but rather fuzzy math. Now what the city can afford may prove to be a problem for the teachers and the union. My point here is that those who are anti-union constantly do this, trying to make a statement about how unions ask for the moon and this is why they are so bad. As we can see here, the actual pay raise being offered in the contract is under 3% per year which must also cover inflation, so basically the teachers are just trying to keep the pay they now have. It's not an increase as much as it is a cost of living adjustment, yet you throw out the 16% number in a way that makes everyone think these teachers must be out of their minds, when in fact they just want a cost of living increase.

The question remains, is Chicago in the position to offer this kind of raise and maintain pensions with the debt they now hold?

 

[martybegan]

The irony of it all! A leading Democrat having Union problems. In another article, the Union called Emanuel a "bully" and wanted Obama to talk to Rahm. A 16% raise?!!!

It's not a 16% raise. If your employer offers to increase your pay by 10% over the next 10 years so that in ten years you are only making 10% more than you are now, would you consider that a raise? Should we all scream how it is ridiculous that you are getting a 10% raise? It's a stupid argument isn't it? But you throw it out there anyway which makes you either a major troll or just completely unwilling to take the time to do the research so you can understand what the 16% covers.

The real problem is it is a raise in costs, with no corresponding increase in output. So all it does is add to inflation.

I usually get a small to medium raise at the end of each year, depending on my performance. In return my company gets a more experienced engineer each year. Ive gotten two promotional raises in 14 years, and for that the company gets more work out of me in a managerial sense.

Raises like this just add to costs, with no return on productivity or results. They are basically cost of living adjustments, which are needed due to inflation, which causes the need for cost of living adjustments. Do you see the cycle here?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What it has boiled down to is that Emanuel has promised them an outstanding payraise for reviews based on their performance. Either you cut it or you don't. Let's get rid of poor performing teachers. Is that too much to ask for?

what is "performance" to liberals anyway......?

following Party line is what "performance" is really all about....you can bet the non-libs will get the boot first...besides the more obvious layabouts....

what it has really boiled down to is Rahm cannot afford the raises without cutting somewhere and so he is going to increase the classroom size by letting some teachers go on the excuse of not meeting up to "standards".....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Chicago teachers to go on strike after talks with Rahm Emanuel fail


1. Chicago teachers strike with an impasse against Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago.

2. The school district was facing a $700 million deficit.

3. The latest offer has been a 16% raise and an evaluation tied to student standardized test scores, but teachers aren’t having any part of it. They say that would cost 6,000 teacher jobs.

Read more: Chicago teachers to go on strike after talks with district fail | Fox News

Who these days is seeing a 16% raise? Teachers have to be accountable for their performance, but the devil is in the details. Scores should only count from spring to spring scores, (No pre and post scores) and only students without attendance problems should be included in the evaluation. It should be on growth of performance and not meeting the standards of the grade. (one month growth for each month in school would be considered average)

First of all to answer your question about who receives a 16% pay raise, you really should do some research before coming up with a one liner. When you ask a question like that, and make it sound like all of a sudden teachers want a 16% pay raise, most everyone would think the teacher's are out of their minds. But this of course is not the case. Last year because of a major shortfall, teachers raises were rescinded meaning they did not get not receive their pay increase. This 16% pay increase is to take place over the next four years and includes making up for the raise that was rescinded last year. In other words, it's a pay raise that covers five years, and since it is the total of accumulated pay raises, each year is not that much.

SALARIES: The Chicago School Board rescinded a scheduled 4 percent pay raise for teachers last year because of its budget problems. It offered teachers a pay increase of 2 percent a year over four years, which is what it assumed in the 2013 budget, then raised the first year to 3 percent on Sunday, amounting to what CPS said was a 16 percent raise of the 4-year contract.
The union wants the rescinded raise restored plus annual increases higher than those offered by the city.

Factbox: Chicago teachers dispute is over school reform, money - Yahoo! News

If you understand what is said here, it isn't even a 16% pay increase but rather fuzzy math. Now what the city can afford may prove to be a problem for the teachers and the union. My point here is that those who are anti-union constantly do this, trying to make a statement about how unions ask for the moon and this is why they are so bad. As we can see here, the actual pay raise being offered in the contract is under 3% per year which must also cover inflation, so basically the teachers are just trying to keep the pay they now have. It's not an increase as much as it is a cost of living adjustment, yet you throw out the 16% number in a way that makes everyone think these teachers must be out of their minds, when in fact they just want a cost of living increase.

It's a raise, but it's not really a raise? Yeah?

That's the best you got?

 

[Jackson]

What it has boiled down to is that Emanuel has promised them an outstanding payraise for reviews based on their performance. Either you cut it or you don't. Let's get rid of poor performing teachers. Is that too much to ask for?

what is "performance" to liberals anyway......?

following Party line is what "performance" is really all about....you can bet the non-libs will get the boot first...besides the more obvious layabouts....

what it has really boiled down to is Rahm cannot afford the raises without cutting somewhere and so he is going to increase the classroom size by letting some teachers go on the excuse of not meeting up to "standards".....

That probably won't be necessary. More and more charter schools are coming into fruition. The number of children in the public schools is dwindling. The "standards" will be written down and not up to interpretation.

 

[g5000]

The irony of it all! A leading Democrat having Union problems. In another article, the Union called Emanuel a "bully" and wanted Obama to talk to Rahm. A 16% raise?!!!

It's not a 16% raise. If your employer offers to increase your pay by 10% over the next 10 years so that in ten years you are only making 10% more than you are now, would you consider that a raise? Should we all scream how it is ridiculous that you are getting a 10% raise? It's a stupid argument isn't it? But you throw it out there anyway which makes you either a major troll or just completely unwilling to take the time to do the research so you can understand what the 16% covers.

So now you are trying to make 16% in four years sound like 10% in ten years?

Not only that, the teachers want MORE than 16% in four years.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The irony of it all! A leading Democrat having Union problems. In another article, the Union called Emanuel a "bully" and wanted Obama to talk to Rahm. A 16% raise?!!!

It's not a 16% raise. If your employer offers to increase your pay by 10% over the next 10 years so that in ten years you are only making 10% more than you are now, would you consider that a raise? Should we all scream how it is ridiculous that you are getting a 10% raise? It's a stupid argument isn't it? But you throw it out there anyway which makes you either a major troll or just completely unwilling to take the time to do the research so you can understand what the 16% covers.

So now you are trying to make 16% in four years sound like 10% in ten years?

Not only that, the teachers want MORE than 16% in four years.

.

That's what happens when they try to answer before getting the talking points

 

[auditor0007]

The irony of it all! A leading Democrat having Union problems. In another article, the Union called Emanuel a "bully" and wanted Obama to talk to Rahm. A 16% raise?!!!

It's not a 16% raise. If your employer offers to increase your pay by 10% over the next 10 years so that in ten years you are only making 10% more than you are now, would you consider that a raise? Should we all scream how it is ridiculous that you are getting a 10% raise? It's a stupid argument isn't it? But you throw it out there anyway which makes you either a major troll or just completely unwilling to take the time to do the research so you can understand what the 16% covers.

The real problem is it is a raise in costs, with no corresponding increase in output. So all it does is add to inflation.

I usually get a small to medium raise at the end of each year, depending on my performance. In return my company gets a more experienced engineer each year. Ive gotten two promotional raises in 14 years, and for that the company gets more work out of me in a managerial sense.

Raises like this just add to costs, with no return on productivity or results. They are basically cost of living adjustments, which are needed due to inflation, which causes the need for cost of living adjustments. Do you see the cycle here?

So we should put a pay freeze on everyone's wages then. Got it.

 

[auditor0007]

Chicago teachers to go on strike after talks with Rahm Emanuel fail


1. Chicago teachers strike with an impasse against Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago.

2. The school district was facing a $700 million deficit.

3. The latest offer has been a 16% raise and an evaluation tied to student standardized test scores, but teachers aren’t having any part of it. They say that would cost 6,000 teacher jobs.

Read more: Chicago teachers to go on strike after talks with district fail | Fox News

Who these days is seeing a 16% raise? Teachers have to be accountable for their performance, but the devil is in the details. Scores should only count from spring to spring scores, (No pre and post scores) and only students without attendance problems should be included in the evaluation. It should be on growth of performance and not meeting the standards of the grade. (one month growth for each month in school would be considered average)

First of all to answer your question about who receives a 16% pay raise, you really should do some research before coming up with a one liner. When you ask a question like that, and make it sound like all of a sudden teachers want a 16% pay raise, most everyone would think the teacher's are out of their minds. But this of course is not the case. Last year because of a major shortfall, teachers raises were rescinded meaning they did not get not receive their pay increase. This 16% pay increase is to take place over the next four years and includes making up for the raise that was rescinded last year. In other words, it's a pay raise that covers five years, and since it is the total of accumulated pay raises, each year is not that much.

SALARIES: The Chicago School Board rescinded a scheduled 4 percent pay raise for teachers last year because of its budget problems. It offered teachers a pay increase of 2 percent a year over four years, which is what it assumed in the 2013 budget, then raised the first year to 3 percent on Sunday, amounting to what CPS said was a 16 percent raise of the 4-year contract.
The union wants the rescinded raise restored plus annual increases higher than those offered by the city.

Factbox: Chicago teachers dispute is over school reform, money - Yahoo! News

If you understand what is said here, it isn't even a 16% pay increase but rather fuzzy math. Now what the city can afford may prove to be a problem for the teachers and the union. My point here is that those who are anti-union constantly do this, trying to make a statement about how unions ask for the moon and this is why they are so bad. As we can see here, the actual pay raise being offered in the contract is under 3% per year which must also cover inflation, so basically the teachers are just trying to keep the pay they now have. It's not an increase as much as it is a cost of living adjustment, yet you throw out the 16% number in a way that makes everyone think these teachers must be out of their minds, when in fact they just want a cost of living increase.

It's a raise, but it's not really a raise? Yeah?

That's the best you got?

You've proven in the past not to be very good at math.

 

[martybegan]

It's not a 16% raise. If your employer offers to increase your pay by 10% over the next 10 years so that in ten years you are only making 10% more than you are now, would you consider that a raise? Should we all scream how it is ridiculous that you are getting a 10% raise? It's a stupid argument isn't it? But you throw it out there anyway which makes you either a major troll or just completely unwilling to take the time to do the research so you can understand what the 16% covers.

The real problem is it is a raise in costs, with no corresponding increase in output. So all it does is add to inflation.

I usually get a small to medium raise at the end of each year, depending on my performance. In return my company gets a more experienced engineer each year. Ive gotten two promotional raises in 14 years, and for that the company gets more work out of me in a managerial sense.

Raises like this just add to costs, with no return on productivity or results. They are basically cost of living adjustments, which are needed due to inflation, which causes the need for cost of living adjustments. Do you see the cycle here?

So we should put a pay freeze on everyone's wages then. Got it.

Or we just keep going over the cycle of cost increases. If your pay goes up $1,000.00 for the year, but between tax increases and increases in everything else you have to pay $1,100 more, how do you win?

across the board raises without any corresponding return just increases the cost of everything.

 

[Goodoledays]

It's not a 16% raise. If your employer offers to increase your pay by 10% over the next 10 years so that in ten years you are only making 10% more than you are now, would you consider that a raise? Should we all scream how it is ridiculous that you are getting a 10% raise? It's a stupid argument isn't it? But you throw it out there anyway which makes you either a major troll or just completely unwilling to take the time to do the research so you can understand what the 16% covers.

The real problem is it is a raise in costs, with no corresponding increase in output. So all it does is add to inflation.

I usually get a small to medium raise at the end of each year, depending on my performance. In return my company gets a more experienced engineer each year. Ive gotten two promotional raises in 14 years, and for that the company gets more work out of me in a managerial sense.

Raises like this just add to costs, with no return on productivity or results. They are basically cost of living adjustments, which are needed due to inflation, which causes the need for cost of living adjustments. Do you see the cycle here?

So we should put a pay freeze on everyone's wages then. Got it.

Just on the ones that are demanding more at this time. Until our economy gets back in shape it looks like those teachers won't be declaring bankrupcy any time soon.

 

[auditor0007]

The irony of it all! A leading Democrat having Union problems. In another article, the Union called Emanuel a "bully" and wanted Obama to talk to Rahm. A 16% raise?!!!

It's not a 16% raise. If your employer offers to increase your pay by 10% over the next 10 years so that in ten years you are only making 10% more than you are now, would you consider that a raise? Should we all scream how it is ridiculous that you are getting a 10% raise? It's a stupid argument isn't it? But you throw it out there anyway which makes you either a major troll or just completely unwilling to take the time to do the research so you can understand what the 16% covers.

So now you are trying to make 16% in four years sound like 10% in ten years?

Not only that, the teachers want MORE than 16% in four years.

.

No, just pointing out the absurdity of the original argument that made it sound as if teachers wanted a 16% raise for one single year. I realize it's so hard to see with those blinders on. BTW, I also stated that due to Chicago's financial problems the raise itself may not be possible. My argument wasn't for or against the teachers; I was just pointing out how disingenuous the argument was to begin with.

 

[auditor0007]

The real problem is it is a raise in costs, with no corresponding increase in output. So all it does is add to inflation.

I usually get a small to medium raise at the end of each year, depending on my performance. In return my company gets a more experienced engineer each year. Ive gotten two promotional raises in 14 years, and for that the company gets more work out of me in a managerial sense.

Raises like this just add to costs, with no return on productivity or results. They are basically cost of living adjustments, which are needed due to inflation, which causes the need for cost of living adjustments. Do you see the cycle here?

So we should put a pay freeze on everyone's wages then. Got it.

Just on the ones that are demanding more at this time. Until our economy gets back in shape it looks like those teachers won't be declaring bankrupcy any time soon.

We then, I guess we should put price freezes on everything, wouldn't you agree? No more increases in healthcare costs, no more increases in the price of food, no more increases in the price of gasoline and other energy sources. We'll just elect the Republicans so they can put those price freezes into place. As I recall, we had a Republican president try that shit once. It didn't work out too well, as I recall.

 

[martybegan]

It's not a 16% raise. If your employer offers to increase your pay by 10% over the next 10 years so that in ten years you are only making 10% more than you are now, would you consider that a raise? Should we all scream how it is ridiculous that you are getting a 10% raise? It's a stupid argument isn't it? But you throw it out there anyway which makes you either a major troll or just completely unwilling to take the time to do the research so you can understand what the 16% covers.

So now you are trying to make 16% in four years sound like 10% in ten years?

Not only that, the teachers want MORE than 16% in four years.

.

No, just pointing out the absurdity of the original argument that made it sound as if teachers wanted a 16% raise for one single year. I realize it's so hard to see with those blinders on. BTW, I also stated that due to Chicago's financial problems the raise itself may not be possible. My argument wasn't for or against the teachers; I was just pointing out how disingenuous the argument was to begin with.

It may not be 16% in one year, but right now Chicago cannot afford any % over any number of years. Of course, the unions just hope to get the raise, and let the city figure out how to fund it. It will result in more taxes, a need for a state bailout, and sooner of later a federal bailout. And a federal bailout will lead to more federal bailouts of other big cities.

So everyone ends up paying for one cities inability to control spending.

 

[Charles_Main]

Chicago teachers to go on strike after talks with Rahm Emanuel fail


1. Chicago teachers strike with an impasse against Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago.

2. The school district was facing a $700 million deficit.

3. The latest offer has been a 16% raise and an evaluation tied to student standardized test scores, but teachers aren’t having any part of it. They say that would cost 6,000 teacher jobs.

Read more: Chicago teachers to go on strike after talks with district fail | Fox News

Who these days is seeing a 16% raise? Teachers have to be accountable for their performance, but the devil is in the details. Scores should only count from spring to spring scores, (No pre and post scores) and only students without attendance problems should be included in the evaluation. It should be on growth of performance and not meeting the standards of the grade. (one month growth for each month in school would be considered average)

Funny didn't Michelle Obama just tell us how Teachers often work with no pay for the good of the Kids? Yet here we have an example where they are striking because a 16% Pay raise was not good enough for them.

Most Americans would love a 16% Pay raise, and do not normally get such large raises.

 

[martybegan]

So we should put a pay freeze on everyone's wages then. Got it.

Just on the ones that are demanding more at this time. Until our economy gets back in shape it looks like those teachers won't be declaring bankrupcy any time soon.

We then, I guess we should put price freezes on everything, wouldn't you agree? No more increases in healthcare costs, no more increases in the price of food, no more increases in the price of gasoline and other energy sources. We'll just elect the Republicans so they can put those price freezes into place. As I recall, we had a Republican president try that shit once. It didn't work out too well, as I recall.

I didnt say a price freeze would work either. I was merely pointing out the cycle. Breaking it is a tough job.

The main issue is in a private company the union realizes it cannot price the company out of the market, or they will lose thier jobs. With a public union there is no such concern, as uncle taxpayer has infinite pockets.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First of all to answer your question about who receives a 16% pay raise, you really should do some research before coming up with a one liner. When you ask a question like that, and make it sound like all of a sudden teachers want a 16% pay raise, most everyone would think the teacher's are out of their minds. But this of course is not the case. Last year because of a major shortfall, teachers raises were rescinded meaning they did not get not receive their pay increase. This 16% pay increase is to take place over the next four years and includes making up for the raise that was rescinded last year. In other words, it's a pay raise that covers five years, and since it is the total of accumulated pay raises, each year is not that much.



Factbox: Chicago teachers dispute is over school reform, money - Yahoo! News

If you understand what is said here, it isn't even a 16% pay increase but rather fuzzy math. Now what the city can afford may prove to be a problem for the teachers and the union. My point here is that those who are anti-union constantly do this, trying to make a statement about how unions ask for the moon and this is why they are so bad. As we can see here, the actual pay raise being offered in the contract is under 3% per year which must also cover inflation, so basically the teachers are just trying to keep the pay they now have. It's not an increase as much as it is a cost of living adjustment, yet you throw out the 16% number in a way that makes everyone think these teachers must be out of their minds, when in fact they just want a cost of living increase.

It's a raise, but it's not really a raise? Yeah?

That's the best you got?

You've proven in the past not to be very good at math.

It's a 16% increase -- but it's not an increase.

Riiiiiight.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

what i already pointed out in an earlier post.....the union wants like a 9% actual raise......3% raise the first year, 2% the second, 2% the third, 2% the fourth.....

these raises are in addition to the regular COLAs (cost of living adjustments) that they normally get......including pensions..

together it all adds up to about 16%....

 

[Goodoledays]

So we should put a pay freeze on everyone's wages then. Got it.

Just on the ones that are demanding more at this time. Until our economy gets back in shape it looks like those teachers won't be declaring bankrupcy any time soon.

We then, I guess we should put price freezes on everything, wouldn't you agree? No more increases in healthcare costs, no more increases in the price of food, no more increases in the price of gasoline and other energy sources. We'll just elect the Republicans so they can put those price freezes into place. As I recall, we had a Republican president try that shit once. It didn't work out too well, as I recall.

No dude. It is the Dems that are in there now that wan't to do more handouting than ever. Ever notice the increase in foodstamps in the past 3 1/2 years? How about Ubama's wanting to cut out looking for work while on unemployment? How about Ubama's wanting dependency on foriegn energy? You better take the blinders off and see whos for wanting to give out the freebies.