The Chicago Public School Teachers Demand 30% Raise

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

They have voted to strike if negotiations break down this summer. They have voted to authorize the strike before negotiations, which is a good thing. There is an independent fact-finder that will help both sides come to agreement.

Teachers did not receive the 4% raise they were promised last year (it was revoked) and now they have a 20% increase in their classroom work.

This is why unions were formed - to keep employers from abusing employees by denying raises that were promised, and demanding 1/5 more work for the same pay. They will negotiate, and meet in the middle. Hopefully the city won't "revoke" the raises they agree to. Like they just did last year. That can make employees angry enough to, you know, strike.

Shortest school day, shortest school year of any major city. Demanding raises and approving to strike before negotiating is typical union nonsense. Modern day thuggery once again.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Shortest school day, shortest school year of any major city. Demanding raises and approving to strike before negotiating is typical union nonsense. Modern day thuggery once again.

As opposed to negotiating a raise with the union, signing a contract promising that raise, then reneging? You know, what the non-union side actually did?

Seems that makes them lying contract breakers, no?

BTW, "thuggery" means violence. You really need to stop deliberately misusing the term in a transparent attempt to falsely demonize kindergarten teachers.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

As opposed to negotiating a raise with the union, signing a contract promising that raise, then reneging? You know, what the non-union side actually did?

Seems that makes them lying contract breakers, no?

BTW, "thuggery" means violence. You really need to stop deliberately misusing the term in a transparent attempt to falsely demonize kindergarten teachers.

Is it not an act of violence to deny a child their right to an education because of your union greed. I would say so.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Is it not an act of violence to deny a child their right to an education because of your union greed. I would say so.

No. It is not an act of violence. And what is greedy - as it's certainly not violent - about forcing the person who signs a contract with you to uphold their end of the legal agreement? That's call "capitalistic free market".

You approve of being able to break contracts you sign with people?