When I was in retailing many years ago (with Hill's Department Stores), we had a job that needed to be done. Empty boxes of incoming stuff and stock the shelves. We were an absolutely-self-serve discount department store, so the most convenient time to do this was the middle of the day. We employed a small army of WOMEN under the following employment paradigm: You work from 10:00am to 2:00pm, with one 15-minute break, at slightly over minimum wage. No benefits, no vacation, no raises, no nothing. We were absolutely clear with applicants that this was the deal.
Who would take such a job? Happy housewives wanting a little extra money, moms who wanted to work a schedule that allowed them to continue being full-time moms, "retired" women. We had no trouble finding and keeping women to take these positions, and turnover was negligible. They required minimal supervision, and got the job done.
At around the same time, a friend of mine was an elected State Representative in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. His salary was about $6,000/yr, with minimal benefits. It wasn't a full-time job, but the commitment was pretty-much full time, due to constituent needs.
Who would take such a job? Mostly lawyers, but also business owners who had flexible schedules, farmers, people with other sources of income (a working spouse?), people who had retired from their careers. The occasional crook.
In both of these cases, you have a "job" that DOES NOT PAY A LIVING WAGE. People considering that "job" have to assess, in advance, whether it satisfies their personal needs, and if it doesn't, they need to look elsewhere. There is nothing unreasonable about this, on the part of the employer. The employer, in structuring the job in this way, recognizes that MOST PEOPLE will not be willing to take the job under these constraints, so they are passing on possibly the "best people for the job," but it's a tradeoff.
Not surprisingly, the legislators in Pennsylvania gradually over many years declared that Representative was a FULL-TIME job, and they have paid themselves accordingly, including splendid benefits, and a pension to die for, if you will excuse the totally inappropriate metaphor.
And now we come to TEACHERS.
In many states, the State has decided, wisely or not, to compensate their teachers at a wage that is significantly less than what an exemplary college graduate might make at a full-time job in the private sector (or even in Government). Why would they do such a thing? Well, there's June, July, and August, and the fact that it's arguably not a "full-time job" in the other months of the year (after the first couple years).
But it doesn't really matter WHY they pay their teachers what they do. Maybe they have made a decision, based on the best information they have available, that they can staff their schools adequately at this wage. Maybe they know that at that wage, they will not get the most economically ambitious grads, they will not get many STEM graduates, and High Schools Chemistry in, say, West Virginia, will be taught by History majors who have taken a couple of college Chem classes, rather than a grad with a degree in Organic Chemistry.
But there is no deception here. Applicants for teaching positions in those states know exactly what they will be making, and there is no promise of riches down the road. They have to decide whether that wage and those benefits will meet their needs, and if it doesn't, they need to look elsewhere. The State knows that many would-be teachers will go into another field or leave the state. But they have made that decision, and so be it. (One might point out that the teachers in states where teachers are WELL paid are rarely Phi Beta Kappa material either).
So massive strikes against such State Education Systems are bullshit. As with collective bargaining, they are a Leftist-led assault on the hapless taxpayers, in the name of "fairness."
Since when is it unfair to keep one's promises, as the respective States have done? If you don't like it, if you can't live on those wages, then go somewhere else. Most people in the Real World do this periodically throughout their working lives, with little trauma or gnashing of teeth. The state schools will have NO TROUBLE replacing each and every teacher who departs.
Who would take such a job? Happy housewives wanting a little extra money, moms who wanted to work a schedule that allowed them to continue being full-time moms, "retired" women. We had no trouble finding and keeping women to take these positions, and turnover was negligible. They required minimal supervision, and got the job done.
At around the same time, a friend of mine was an elected State Representative in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. His salary was about $6,000/yr, with minimal benefits. It wasn't a full-time job, but the commitment was pretty-much full time, due to constituent needs.
Who would take such a job? Mostly lawyers, but also business owners who had flexible schedules, farmers, people with other sources of income (a working spouse?), people who had retired from their careers. The occasional crook.
In both of these cases, you have a "job" that DOES NOT PAY A LIVING WAGE. People considering that "job" have to assess, in advance, whether it satisfies their personal needs, and if it doesn't, they need to look elsewhere. There is nothing unreasonable about this, on the part of the employer. The employer, in structuring the job in this way, recognizes that MOST PEOPLE will not be willing to take the job under these constraints, so they are passing on possibly the "best people for the job," but it's a tradeoff.
Not surprisingly, the legislators in Pennsylvania gradually over many years declared that Representative was a FULL-TIME job, and they have paid themselves accordingly, including splendid benefits, and a pension to die for, if you will excuse the totally inappropriate metaphor.
And now we come to TEACHERS.
In many states, the State has decided, wisely or not, to compensate their teachers at a wage that is significantly less than what an exemplary college graduate might make at a full-time job in the private sector (or even in Government). Why would they do such a thing? Well, there's June, July, and August, and the fact that it's arguably not a "full-time job" in the other months of the year (after the first couple years).
But it doesn't really matter WHY they pay their teachers what they do. Maybe they have made a decision, based on the best information they have available, that they can staff their schools adequately at this wage. Maybe they know that at that wage, they will not get the most economically ambitious grads, they will not get many STEM graduates, and High Schools Chemistry in, say, West Virginia, will be taught by History majors who have taken a couple of college Chem classes, rather than a grad with a degree in Organic Chemistry.
But there is no deception here. Applicants for teaching positions in those states know exactly what they will be making, and there is no promise of riches down the road. They have to decide whether that wage and those benefits will meet their needs, and if it doesn't, they need to look elsewhere. The State knows that many would-be teachers will go into another field or leave the state. But they have made that decision, and so be it. (One might point out that the teachers in states where teachers are WELL paid are rarely Phi Beta Kappa material either).
So massive strikes against such State Education Systems are bullshit. As with collective bargaining, they are a Leftist-led assault on the hapless taxpayers, in the name of "fairness."
Since when is it unfair to keep one's promises, as the respective States have done? If you don't like it, if you can't live on those wages, then go somewhere else. Most people in the Real World do this periodically throughout their working lives, with little trauma or gnashing of teeth. The state schools will have NO TROUBLE replacing each and every teacher who departs.
