I heard on the news today that the teachers of Tacoma, Washington are on strike because the classes are to big and the pay is not enough. According to public records the average teacher salary last school year was $63,793.
I am sorry but this seems a little extreme to me. don't get me wrong, I love teachers . for the most part. My mother was a teacher and worked very hard to assure that her students dd the necessary work to progress in school. However, when I see public employees going on strike, I wonder why they think this is okay. It is not the state that is paying them, it is the taxpayers of that state. These people on strike against the families of the children they are supposed to be teaching.
This teachers union said the strike was for the teachers and the students, but how does this help the students? I understand overcrowding and some of the difficulties that teachers face everyday, but a strike is not the answer. Is this going to endear them to most of the families? NO most of these families are the taxpayers who pay them and the private sector is losing jobs like a leaky rain barrel. At what point will the public sector understand that the money is running out? Will it take a strike by the taxpayer to show the unions and public employees that they have had enough?
The new poverty statistics show that 48.5 million people are now below the poverty line and yet the public sector is growing. Even now the President says his new jobs bill is to put more teachers and fire fighters to work. More public workers, who only pay taxes from the taxes they receive as pay.
I don't want to get rid of teachers and other public workers, they are necessary,but there has to be and end to the selfishness of these people who think it is okay to strike for more.
I know many good teachers and many of them are between a rock and a hard place because they want to do a great job with kids, but the unions tie their hands and they are afraid of losing their jobs if they speak up. so they are forced to go along with much of the problem.
Teachers need to go back to work or the parents need to take their kids out of school and home school. then the teachers won't have overcrowded classes and eventually they won't be needed at all.
I've worked government contracts which forbid striking or walk outs, the same restrictions which apply to air traffic controllers. Remember when they tried to strike, Reagan fired everyone who tried, and jailed many of them? Anyway, I was working for ITT's defense division and even though the government contract required they pay prevailing wages, it is the only job I had in which I pursued the unionization of the workplace--I've seen some pretty abusive behavior by employers when your freedom is limited by law. So, I support the right of the teachers to act collectively even if I don't fully agree with how they do it or what they are trying to achieve.
ReplyDeleteI think they should bite the bullet on the pay and benefits, but the item I find valid in their reasoning to strike is the district wanting to gain unlimited transfer and reassignment rights, which the teacher's view I think properly as age discrimination, a means to force out the senior teachers who make the most money by pushing them to less desirable locations and classes. If that negotiating term was changed to something more reasonable, I'd back the board.