Enjoying Your Holiday? Thank a Union Member!
Replies
-
This is kind of an annoying topic for me because my husband is a part-time instructor at a community college. He has the same course load, does more governance than most full-timers, and has equal qualifications, but gets paid at 3/5 the rate of a full time instructor--the administration does get annoyed when you refer to it as a 3/5 compromise, by the way, but it is what it is. And thank goodness for his union or he'd be getting paid even less and have crappier benefits.
Not all teaching situations or teacher unions are the same, by any stretch.
Oh, and he has a terminal master's in his field and doesn't get paid near 75k. So yes, clearly unions are an evil blight that must be done away with.
Why is he considered a part-time instructor if he works full time?
Every job I've ever had, I was considered part time. Sometimes I did really only work part-time--but most of the time, I worked way more than that, even more than people considered full-time. And that was just at retail and food service jobs.0 -
This is kind of an annoying topic for me because my husband is a part-time instructor at a community college. He has the same course load, does more governance than most full-timers, and has equal qualifications, but gets paid at 3/5 the rate of a full time instructor--the administration does get annoyed when you refer to it as a 3/5 compromise, by the way, but it is what it is. And thank goodness for his union or he'd be getting paid even less and have crappier benefits.
Not all teaching situations or teacher unions are the same, by any stretch.
Oh, and he has a terminal master's in his field and doesn't get paid near 75k. So yes, clearly unions are an evil blight that must be done away with.
Why is he considered a part-time instructor if he works full time?
Because course load doesn't determine full-time status. I think we can safely blame the college administration for that one.
You could blame the college administration. Seems like this would be a reason you would have a union representing you. To protect you from this type of abuse.
He does have union representation. He even serves as a part-timer rep for the union. If he didn't (have representation) it would be much worse. Sadly, contrary to apparent popular opinion, his union work has yet to make us fabulously wealthy, though.
I bet the Union boss is fabulously wealthy.
The fact that you use the term "union boss" at all speaks volumes.0 -
The fact remains that unions have had, over the years, the political influence that encouraged politicians to put into legislation many of the things we now take for granted, and that I can't imagine would have been won without organized labour. I know many people say, "Yeah, but we don't need them now!" Unfortunately, politicians have many influences, and right now corporations that always have their eye on the bottom line have an awful lot of influence in political circles and in the media. The middle class is shrinking, and I don't think, for lack of a better term, the 1% is too worried about that.
Yes, unions occasionally have to protect workers who know how to work the system. That's the price for protecting everyone else.Yes, the presidents of many unions are very well paid. Should they volunteer? Many of them have memberships in the hundreds of thousands.
As for the teachers? I was one. I worked very long, stressful hours trying to be everything to everyone (a tricky thing with adolescents and their parents). I once figured out that if I added up my work hours and divided by 40, I would have three weeks off per year. I feel so badly for the young teachers starting out who are being labelled as lazy and overpaid. I loved my job, but I don't know why anyone would want to do it now, and I fear that the current climate is only going to get kids the teachers who want the perceived perks and don't care about the job.
Cheers.0 -
The fact remains that unions have had, over the years, the political influence that encouraged politicians to put into legislation many of the things we now take for granted, and that I can't imagine would have been won without organized labour. I know many people say, "Yeah, but we don't need them now!" Unfortunately, politicians have many influences, and right now corporations that always have their eye on the bottom line have an awful lot of influence in political circles and in the media. The middle class is shrinking, and I don't think, for lack of a better term, the 1% is too worried about that.
Yes, unions occasionally have to protect workers who know how to work the system. That's the price for protecting everyone else.Yes, the presidents of many unions are very well paid. Should they volunteer? Many of them have memberships in the hundreds of thousands.
As for the teachers? I was one. I worked very long, stressful hours trying to be everything to everyone (a tricky thing with adolescents and their parents). I once figured out that if I added up my work hours and divided by 40, I would have three weeks off per year. I feel so badly for the young teachers starting out who are being labelled as lazy and overpaid. I loved my job, but I don't know why anyone would want to do it now, and I fear that the current climate is only going to get kids the teachers who want the perceived perks and don't care about the job.
Cheers.
:drinker: So true.
Without an organized coalition, a seat at the corporate table so's to speak, I don't see how in the world workers of all trades and occupations think they are going to get a fair shake now. Working harder, smarter, faster, better? Corporations have already proven that World Number One Productivity means zilch to them.0 -
This is a short, but IMO, important article on teachers, in light of the Chicago Public School teachers' strike. I recommend the article in its entirely:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/can-great-teaching-overcome-the-effects-of-poverty.html?_r=2
To me this is the essential quote (emphasis mine):For the past few weeks, I’ve been spending time at Harper High, a neighborhood school in Englewood that started classes in mid-August. Over the past year, the school lost eight current and former students to violence; 19 others were wounded by gunfire. The school itself, though, is a safe haven. It’s as dedicated a group of administrators and faculty members as I’ve seen anywhere. They’ve transformed the school into a place where kids want to be. And yet each day I spend there I witness one heartbreaking scene after another. A girl who yells at one of the school’s social workers, “This is no way to live,” and then breaks down in tears. Because of problems at home, she’s had to move in with a friend’s family and there’s not enough food to go around. A young man, having witnessed a murder in his neighborhood over the summer, has retreated into a shell. Just within the last month, another girl has gotten into two altercations; the school is naturally asking, what’s going on at home?
The stories are all too familiar, and yet somehow we’ve come to believe that with really good teachers and longer school days and rigorous testing we can transform children’s lives. We’ve imagined teachers as lazy, excuse-making quasi-professionals — or, alternately, as lifesavers. But the truth, of course, is more complicated. Quality schools and quality teaching clearly can make a difference in children’s lives, sometimes a huge difference, but we too often attempt to impute to teachers impossible powers.
Anything can always be improved, but, when it comes to the causes for any problems in our public school systems, quality of teachers is way, way, way, way, way, way down the list. And demonizing them, and starting off pushing for a confrontation is not a helpful tactic.
Looks like Rahm has some "learning" to do himself.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-teachers-strike-emanuel-0916-20120915,0,3383662.story0 -
Thanks for posting these links. I found them to be interesting reading. There are similar issues north of the border. Here in Ontario, teachers are beginning to withdraw from extra curricular activities (no teacher is paid for these here). As I said before, if people are vilified in the press, accused of being lazy and overpaid, having too many holidays, working too few hours, etc., etc. then eventually those are the people you're going to get.0 -
Thanks for posting these links. I found them to be interesting reading. There are similar issues north of the border. Here in Ontario, teachers are beginning to withdraw from extra curricular activities (no teacher is paid for these here). As I said before, if people are vilified in the press, accused of being lazy and overpaid, having too many holidays, working too few hours, etc., etc. then eventually those are the people you're going to get.
Good point. Especially if they're in reality underpaid and overworked.
Workers simply will not be productive when they feel unappreciated and used. Nor should they be. In fact, the world would be a much happier place if enough blue collar workers in particular got fed up enough to do something about the snobby attitudes and terrible pay. Like let the world find out how long it can manage without anyone to clean the public toilets.
I give it a week before the US declared a janitorial strike the height of bio and economic terrorism.0 -
My question is, especially with the Chicago teachers, is if they are all about "educating the children" and in the field because they have a big happy heart and care about children, why are the Chicago teachers, some of the higest paid in the U.S. causing chaos for their students? Especially for those who live in rough/ghetto areas who now have no where to go for breakfast or lunch. Parents fear leaving them at home but some parents have no other options. Those teachers have royally screwed the kids that they 'work so hard for". Those teachers have cost needy kids 2 weeks of schooling and possibly the only meals they will get in a day. All over a 4% raise when their average salary, as previously mentioned, is in the $70k range...0
-
My question is, especially with the Chicago teachers, is if they are all about "educating the children" and in the field because they have a big happy heart and care about children, why are the Chicago teachers, some of the higest paid in the U.S. causing chaos for their students? Especially for those who live in rough/ghetto areas who now have no where to go for breakfast or lunch. Parents fear leaving them at home but some parents have no other options. Those teachers have royally screwed the kids that they 'work so hard for". Those teachers have cost needy kids 2 weeks of schooling and possibly the only meals they will get in a day. All over a 4% raise when their average salary, as previously mentioned, is in the $70k range...
Actually it's really about the evaluation method that's at the core of debate, but why let facts get in the way? I think refusing to adhere to a standard that won't actually improve standards for education does help kids. It's a hard situation all around, to be sure.0 -
My question is, especially with the Chicago teachers, is if they are all about "educating the children" and in the field because they have a big happy heart and care about children, why are the Chicago teachers, some of the higest paid in the U.S. causing chaos for their students? Especially for those who live in rough/ghetto areas who now have no where to go for breakfast or lunch. Parents fear leaving them at home but some parents have no other options. Those teachers have royally screwed the kids that they 'work so hard for". Those teachers have cost needy kids 2 weeks of schooling and possibly the only meals they will get in a day. All over a 4% raise when their average salary, as previously mentioned, is in the $70k range...
Actually it's really about the evaluation method that's at the core of debate, but why let facts get in the way? I think refusing to adhere to a standard that won't actually improve standards for education does help kids. It's a hard situation all around, to be sure.
Surely they could find another way to work out the evaluations than stranding thousands of students during the school year? I mean this isn't something they could revisit at a better time or when next contract comes up? From what I have read, the contracts were actually very reasonable. I don't see the merit in chosing your evaluation over the kids in that district that rely on school more than most. "80 percent of 350,000 public students rely on school meals for their basic nutrition" but teachers evaluations/raises are the priority. Being around the Chicago area, I wonder how many students will be lost to gangs through this. They aren't at school and that's going to give thugs a perfect excuse, in a perfect environment, to recruit younger kids.0 -
My question is, especially with the Chicago teachers, is if they are all about "educating the children" and in the field because they have a big happy heart and care about children, why are the Chicago teachers, some of the higest paid in the U.S. causing chaos for their students? Especially for those who live in rough/ghetto areas who now have no where to go for breakfast or lunch. Parents fear leaving them at home but some parents have no other options. Those teachers have royally screwed the kids that they 'work so hard for". Those teachers have cost needy kids 2 weeks of schooling and possibly the only meals they will get in a day. All over a 4% raise when their average salary, as previously mentioned, is in the $70k range...
Actually it's really about the evaluation method that's at the core of debate, but why let facts get in the way? I think refusing to adhere to a standard that won't actually improve standards for education does help kids. It's a hard situation all around, to be sure.
Surely they could find another way to work out the evaluations than stranding thousands of students during the school year? I mean this isn't something they could revisit at a better time or when next contract comes up? From what I have read, the contracts were actually very reasonable. I don't see the merit in chosing your evaluation over the kids in that district that rely on school more than most. "80 percent of 350,000 public students rely on school meals for their basic nutrition" but teachers evaluations/raises are the priority. Being around the Chicago area, I wonder how many students will be lost to gangs through this. They aren't at school and that's going to give thugs a perfect excuse, in a perfect environment, to recruit younger kids.
You're allowed to have your opinion, of course, but I think an evaluation method that's predicted to remove 6 thousand teachers from the workforce is significant. What do you think is going to happen to class sizes? I promise you, those positions won't be hired for anytime soon. On top of that, the system of evaluation doesn't actually fairly evaluate performance. So we're screwing over potentially good teachers and making classes larger, which screws over students and teachers, for what reason again?
IMO, the strike is justified.0 -
The problem with evaluating teachers on test results is that students are being thought of as "product", like in a factory: school being the factory, teachers the workers and students the product. This is the result of a business model being used in an institution where it just doesn't work.
Here's an example: In my second last year of teaching, I was given a split grade 7 and 8 class, with a total of 32 students. 12 of the 17 grade seven students were identified special education students and on IEP's, one was not identified as such, but I'm pretty sure she was on the autism spectrum. 3 of the 15 grade 8 students were identified as slow learners, and while they were withdrawn for math and language, they were in the classroom for everything else. No amount of inspired teaching would have made this group of students ace standardized tests. Should my pay have been based on their results? This, by the way was in what most people would consider to be a pretty affluent neighbourhood.
Schools are not businesses. Kids are not products.0 -
The problem with evaluating teachers on test results is that students are being thought of as "product", like in a factory: school being the factory, teachers the workers and students the product. This is the result of a business model being used in an institution where it just doesn't work.
Here's an example: In my second last year of teaching, I was given a split grade 7 and 8 class, with a total of 32 students. 12 of the 17 grade seven students were identified special education students and on IEP's, one was not identified as such, but I'm pretty sure she was on the autism spectrum. 3 of the 15 grade 8 students were identified as slow learners, and while they were withdrawn for math and language, they were in the classroom for everything else. No amount of inspired teaching would have made this group of students ace standardized tests. Should my pay have been based on their results? This, by the way was in what most people would consider to be a pretty affluent neighbourhood.
Schools are not businesses. Kids are not products.
This is quite possibly the best way of putting it, IMO. Couldn't agree more with that assessment!
I hate that kids are, in fact, looked at as nothing more than products. A lot of my friends that I grew up with, who now have school-age (or soon-to-be school-age) children of their own...most are looking into the option of home-schooling, so that their children will actually get a REAL education, and not have to put up with standardized tests.0 -
I hate that kids are, in fact, looked at as nothing more than products. A lot of my friends that I grew up with, who now have school-age (or soon-to-be school-age) children of their own...most are looking into the option of home-schooling, so that their children will actually get a REAL education, and not have to put up with standardized tests.
As a former teacher, and one at heart, who believes in public schools, this breaks my heart. Not that I disagree with the decision, but the system has become so screwed up that the whole concept of public education is at risk, and where will that leave society? Must be late! I think I'm being melodramatic. Or, maybe not.0 -
My question is, especially with the Chicago teachers, is if they are all about "educating the children" and in the field because they have a big happy heart and care about children, why are the Chicago teachers, some of the higest paid in the U.S. causing chaos for their students? Especially for those who live in rough/ghetto areas who now have no where to go for breakfast or lunch. Parents fear leaving them at home but some parents have no other options. Those teachers have royally screwed the kids that they 'work so hard for". Those teachers have cost needy kids 2 weeks of schooling and possibly the only meals they will get in a day. All over a 4% raise when their average salary, as previously mentioned, is in the $70k range...
Turn the question around: why would the mayor and CPS board "royally screw the kids" and put them at risk by going out of their way to bully the teachers and make them the scapegoats for everything that is wrong with the public school system? Why would they start off from day 1 adopting a confrontational attitude and working to destroy any trust or working relationship? You act like the teachers just got up from the donut table one day and decided it would be fun to call a strike.
It takes two parties to bring about a strike. If one side is trying to ram a bunch of really bad and stupid ideas down everyone's throat, then it is not only the right, but the responsiblity of the other party--in this case, the teachers--to stand together to defend the students and the schools. Emmanuel and the CPS board are NOT looking out for the best interests of the students or for public education. It's a power grab, pure and simple, to reduce the influence of teachers so they can move unfettered to institute proven unproductive and useless ideas such as evaluations based on test scores and reckless expansion of charter schools.0
This discussion has been closed.