The real M. Wexler has no comment about the teacher's strike and hopes both sides will reach a reasonable solution.

M. Wexler

I'm quite curious about the identity of the M Wexler who made this post. This M Wexler did NOT post the response to this article (or make any post to this site prior to this comment)- and is not interested in stating her political opinions in any public forum.
Yet Another M Wexler

Walter - I've previously stated that the tactics used being employed by the NSEA meet the definition for terrorism - you may want to review my previous posting. I do have skin in the game - I've lived in Highland Park for about 35 years, I attended D112 and D113 Schools, and I intend for my kids will go to those schools as well.

I have the greatest of respect for teachers and what they do, especially when they act in a professional manner. I have absolutely zero respect for those individuals (teachers or not) who act unprofessionally and who would seek to use children as weapons against us.

As I've posted previously, I've said that if the NSEA wants to continue negotiating - that's fine, we can certainly do that at the table. But when one side says "We're going on strike until we get what we want" - that's not negotiating, and just as entities the world over refuse to negotiate under duress, neither should we, and that's not "fiery rhetoric" - it's a proven point, because once you negotiate with terrorists, the rest are emboldened to act in the same manner. Witness the teacher strikes taking place around the State.

David - I have to disagree and say it is fiery rhetoric. These negotiations have been going on for some time now. The reason the teachers have to strike is that there simply is no incentive for the board to do anything if the threat of strike is removed. It would in this case creates incentives for the board to do nothing (as pay is frozen at last years rates until a new contract is signed). How about the board allow all step increases and all lane changes and include a cost of living pay raise until a contract is negotiated and let the teachers work under those terms until the final contract is signed. I am sure the teachers would stop the strike under this negotiating arrangement.

And as I've prevously stated, thank God YOU are not at the negotiating table. We need people to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Thankfully you are just a lone voice ranting in the wind. Hopefully we've elected smart people with cool heads who will negotiate in good faith and end this process quickly.

"These negotiations have been going on for some time now. The reason the teachers have to strike is that there simply is no incentive for the board to do anything if the threat of strike is removed."

And ultimately if the employees don't like what the employer is offering, they're free to seek other employment. If turnover is too high, then employers may have incentive to pay more (if their revenues can support that), but it's up to the employer.

As for freezing pay at last year's rates until a new contract is signed - I wouldn't even do that. Once a contract has expired, there's no reason to honor the prior terms. I'd set a new salary and benefits schedule, and start paying that. Again, anyone who wants to is free to seek other employment. But in this case, the Board has continued to pay at the current levels while negotiating.

I wouldn't allow any step increases or lane changes because again, it doesn't measure or reward performance, rather it rewards mediocrity and tends to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator.

A cost of living adjustment (COLA) is based upon the premise that somehow the taxpayers are required to make teachers whole because of circumstances beyond the District's control - and nothing could be further from the truth. We've already seen what COLAs have done to pension payouts...

Walter: I advocate fiscal responsibility - a solution to the problem of fiscal irresponsibility that has dragged the worldwide economy into the doldrums. We need new ways of thinking, and need to challenge old methods in an effort to improve everything we do.

Everyone wants good faith, arms-length negotiations - but why should we put up with entities who threaten us if they don't get their way?

I also advocate fiscal responsibility, but not at the expense of one group. If the administrators are willing to make the same sacrifices as the teachers, including raises and fringe benefits, tuition and reimbursement, I'm sure that would pave the way for a wonderful contract. Why aren't you tough on the district as a whole? Administrators are at-will employees. They could make the changes right damn now. A show of good faith. Why aren't you talking about that?

"Everyone wants good faith, arms-length negotiations - but why should we put up with entities who threaten us if they don't get their way?"

Pot... meet kettle....

"I also advocate fiscal responsibility, but not at the expense of one group."

I'm glad we agree - in this current argument, the Teachers are one group and the District (taxpayers) are another.

I have previously taken the Administrators and their salaries/benefits to task - I even posted a copy of the statement I made to the D112 Board about the salary/benefits a few years ago.

As I've said many times in the threads surrounding these discussions - the administrators are up next. But right now, we need to focus on the argument at hand - the teachers.

Scott - we're not threatening to withhold educational services from our children if we don't get our way - the teachers are. The Board hasn't locked them out.

Rather, the Board has made an offer and the teachers can take it or leave it - it's up to them. If they take it they get paid.

If they don't want it, they're free to seek other employment.

Oh please they're not "up next" Once this negotiation is over everyone goes and hides behind their rocks and continues on with their bloated salaries, perks, and pensions. The board can make whatever changes they want to the administrator's benefits RIGHT DAMN NOW. For you to sweep that under the rug just means that you are simply pro board and anti teacher and not credible in this discussion.

"The board can make whatever changes they want to the administrator's benefits RIGHT DAMN NOW. For you to sweep that under the rug just means that you are simply pro board and anti teacher and not credible in this discussion."

Actually Walter - they can't. The Administrators have contracts that govern their salaries and benefits, and the District would likely be sued for breach of contract if those contracts weren't honored. This doesn't mean that I believe those administrators should have contracts, or receive the salaries/benefits they receive.

I've never swept anything under the rug - I've appeared before the D112 Board and made public statements concerning salaries/benefits - as well as those of the Administrators. I sat a few feet away from the Superintendent during this public statement, told him we paid him too much and could no longer afford him. I served on the D112 Citizens Finance Advisory Committee and our group made recommendations to D112 that ended up saving them hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I am not anti-teacher by any stretch of the imagination - do I believe the Board is correct in this proposal? Yep. I've told them that too. But that doesn't make me anti-teacher, it makes me a supporter of fiscal responsibility.

If the administrators want to sue the district they are welcome to find another place to work. There are many great administrators out there looking for work. The district needs to treat all employees the same. If they want concessions from the teachers the administrators need to make the same cuts. Period.

Walter, I understand what you're trying to say - but those contracts will have to run their course or we'd likely have several unpalatable scenarios from which to choose.

As for treating all employees the same can you elaborate a bit? Do you mean everyone should get the same salary level, or everyone should get the same benefits? What about part-time employees?

Pay freezes and pay schedules may indeed impact some more than others. However, just because someone is paid more doesn't mean they that don't have some expenses to cover that someone who is paid less doesn't have (e.g.: mortgage, kids in college...) and as such their disposable income is close to the person paid less. But there's no reason why everyone has to be paid the same, or why we should concern ourselves with so-called parity of wages and benefits.

I have no doubt that some teachers who are paid less work as much as others who are paid more, but who have been on the job longer. This is common throughout the world and isn't unique to D112.

I believe that the step system is unfair to high-performing teachers, taxpayers, and children from the standpoint that we're guaranteeing raises for everyone - regardless of their proven contribution. High-performers have no incentive to perform at that level if everyone's getting the same raise no matter what, taxpayers pay for some mediocrity, and kids get some teachers who are good and some who are lousy - but raised the same. What I propose is that we only consider those for raises if and only if their performance is such that it warrants such consideration; further, I propose that we make the metrics fair and achievable.

Also, just as has been and is common practice in the Private Sector - not everyone gets a raise, not everyone gets the same raise, and there's a limited amount of money available for raises.

David - Us 30 somethings want to start families and buy homes too. I've actually had discussions with my wife about whether we can afford for her to teach at NSSD112. With the cost of housing in the area surrounding highland park vs the rest of the Chicago land area as well as the low pay she receives as a teacher in the district... we have had to consider that it might be cheaper for us to have her leave the school district and teach elsewhere. It has become harder and harder to justify the hard commute she has to make to the area for the relatively low pay and low future prospects. Just as ford said he wanted his workers to be able to afford to buy one of his cars don't you want your teachers to be able to afford to live in the area?

Scott, some people may be better able to afford to live in a particular area than others. If someone can't afford it but would like to live in a certain area, that's the problem of the individual and their family - it's not, nor should it be the concern of the taxpayers or that individual's employer unless it adversely affects the availability of employees, and then in such a case the employer may have to undertake actions to ensure the availability of employees (but that has to be balanced with revenues and future anticipated expenses).

I suspect that Ford wanted his workers to be able to afford his cars because:

1) It was a larger marketplace of customers than the relatively small market of only selling to the wealthy and,

2) Because they were then giving him money, which effectively meant he was paying them less (because they were giving him some of that money back for the vehicle). That's clearly not the case in this situation.

Any major employer recognizes that employee compensation is not as simple as "revenues - expenses". Even companies entering in to bankruptcy have to spend money to hire top talent to manage the unwinding of their business. Bankruptcy attorneys don't take discounts because you mismanaged your finances. The quality of your workforce is important. I think you have to be careful that you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Often a big problem at major corporations during times of hardship is retaining talent. The talented employees often have greater mobility than the lower qualified employees. In your attempt to control costs you will end up keeping the teachers that other schools wont hire and lose the teachers that are capable of getting jobs elsewhere.

As you continue down your path towards managing the school district ( i see you are trying to get on the board of district 113). I would highly suggest you spend some time in the schools teaching a class for a day (sort of like undercover boss). Make sure you get all perspectives. I hope you will recognize that a talented teaching force takes time and effort to develop. It takes years to develop an effective teaching roster (just as it takes years to develop an NFL ref). You can try replacing your teachers (or your NFL refs) with whoever you can find, but you simply wont get the same quality that you are used to.

"As you continue down your path towards managing the school district ( i see you are trying to get on the board of district 113). I would highly suggest you spend some time in the schools teaching a class for a day (sort of like undercover boss). Make sure you get all perspectives. I hope you will recognize that a talented teaching force takes time and effort to develop. It takes years to develop an effective teaching roster (just as it takes years to develop an NFL ref). You can try replacing your teachers (or your NFL refs) with whoever you can find, but you simply wont get the same quality that you are used to."

Scott, I'm married to a teacher, and I have spent much time in classrooms - part of my background has been in teaching teachers how to be teachers and superintendents how to be superintendents, but certainly I'm always willing to spend time in the schools and classrooms to gain a more in-depth perspective. That's just part of the reason why I volunteered and served on one of the D113 Community Study Groups that's been working on a new Master Plan for D113.

I truly do recognize the challenges that corporations and schools have with developing and retaining talent - it's a careful balance, and I've never advocated simply hiring anyone we could find. However, when you have an employee who threatens you - it behooves the employer and employee to go their separate ways.

I certainly hope you are right.

I know you are RIGHT!!! Go Teachers, STAY STRONG!!!!

Jerry, you know what they say about assumptions. I've spoken with people on both sides of the fence, and truth be told, in years past there were more on the side of the Teachers. However, with the current worldwide economy remaining in the doldrums, I've seen more people come to the side of the fence that advocates what the Board is proposing.

Did I have some bad experiences with a teacher? Sure, I'd suspect that everyone has had some bad experience with a teacher at some point or another. Did I have some great experiences too? Sure. Did the bad ones make me so sour that I'm opposed to all teachers now? No, absolutely not - nothing could be further from the truth. As a life-long learner myself, I greatly value education and want to see high-performing teachers get the opportunity to be rewarded more than lower performers (just as is required under State law) - what's wrong with that?

The fact that the tactics being employed by the NSEA meet the definition for terrorism doesn't make me a lunatic by any stretch of the imagination - it simply means that the NSEA is employing tactics to use our children as weapons in their stated "battle" against us, in order to achieve their goals. And as I referenced in the previous postings, review the Union tactics recently employed in Wisconsin.

Jerry - please be specific, what did I say that you consider to be a rant, wrong, thoughtless, or insensitive rhetoric?

Regarding with whom I've spoken and seen - I've never claimed it to be a scientific representation, nor do I consider your statement "Go Highland Park Teachers. The community has your back!" to be one that's scientifically represented either. Of course, if you'd like to claim that and happen to have some statistics and an evaluative methodology that you'd be willing to share, I'd enjoy seeing it.

I didn't "cook up" a "battle thing" as you term it. The NSEA did - I merely quoted directly from the NSEA's response that I referenced and linked to in this article. The Board may consider it a battle, I don't know. However, by declaring that unless they get their way the NSEA is going to strike, it's readily apparent that the NSEA considers it a battle.

I'm quite open-minded as many will attest and I'm certainly not a lunatic, but what I want is simple: A quality education that balances the needs of the taxpayer. To do that we must be fiscally responsible. Given all the needs that are on the plate of D112 - infrastructure, redistricting, administrative salary/benefits, curriculum issues, deficient impact funding - it's fiscally irresponsible to hand out raises that exceed what our revenues will support, and which then requires us to utilize reserves to partially fund those raises.

In this case, if the employees want to negotiate on an equal footing - they simply need to negotiate with the employer-I haven't seen the employer (District) state that they were going to lock them out. Rather, the employees are the ones making the threats about walking out.

Yes, if they don't like what the employer offers, they're free to find another job - just like in the Private Sector. Why should the public sector be any different?

What disinformation are you talking about?

You are correct -I have no problem asking employees to take a pay cut-especially when many people in the Private Sector have gotten just that. Again, why should the Public Sector be any different?

Pay and benefits don't have to be comparable to other nearby employers unless it's causing us a problem and we're unable to find the employees we want. Again, this is how it is in the Private Sector because they recognize that it only leads to a fiscal arms race where salaries spiral ever-upward. Why should the Public Sector be any different?

Profession aside, if anyone can't earn enough to live in this community-that's indeed the individual's problem. Why should it be mine or any other taxpayer's? Where do we draw the line at what should be funded?

Organizing isn't the problem-the tactics being employed are, and they meet the definition of terrorism. If they want to withhold their services, fine. But as in the Private Sector, they should do so at the peril of their continued employment.

NSEA Misinformation:

http://www.nssd112.org/files/_hFHct_/ea59321304a03fa53745a49013852ec4/Seven_NSEA_Myths.pdf

Right, anything that the Board says must be true. I thought that you were into independent analysis.

By the way, District 112 pays less than other nearby district do for substitutes. Now they have trouble getting subs.

Mark, I never claimed that what the Board stated was the gospel - I was trying to clarify what I meant above when I said:

"NSEA: "The school board continues to try to win the negotiations battle with misinformation and innuendo".

So what? So does the NSEA. That the NSEA consider it a battle, with our children used as pawns is reprehensible."

The clarification being that the NSEA and the Board are likely applying certain amounts of spin to whatever they promulgate, so we look at everything with a degree of skepticism. But that the NSEA stated it was a battle, and I felt that using our children as pawns to be reprehensible behavior.

I'm not saying that teachers don't have rights - certainly they do. But this tactic of saying "If our demands aren't met - we're going on strike" is not going to win over the parents.

It's analogous to a shakedown where the NSEA is saying "Hey, your kids will be at home. You'll either have to figure out what to do with them for the duration (and pay for it), or watch them yourself (and either take off work or reschedule your daily routine). Do you want to do that, or would you just rather give us what we want? Why don't you call the Board and just tell them to give us what we want? - that's what it sounds like, and that's why people get so irked.

As for substitutes - if they have trouble obtaining them at what they're offering and it's documented and verifiable that it's due to money - then we have an issue where we may need to pay more.

But even in that case, we still have a bit of analysis to do:

What's our top end limit to offer and if we still can't find substitutes at that limit, can we use some internal resource (such as an administrator) for a very short term need?

Will offering more money actually solve the problem, or are other factors at work?

We need to know the root causes of the shortage and do the analysis before we simply throw money at it. If we do the root cause analysis and money is the way to solve it, then we need to have that discussion as to what it will cost, how often it's occurred on average (and why), and if there's any ways to reduce the root causes of the absenteeism requiring the substitutes - maybe there is, maybe not (it's going to depend on what those root causes are).

" But this tactic of saying "If our demands aren't met - we're going on strike" is not going to win over the parents."

You act as though this came out of nowhere. As though the teachers woke up a month ago and said "lets go on strike" and the board was caught off guard. Revenues for the school are VERY predictable and easily projected as are the costs. The board knew this was coming years ago. The board decided a year ago to set their budget such that the only way to balance it this year they would have to make demands on the teachers that would have been unprecedented. They could have negotiated a contract with the teachers LAST YEAR. The teachers have been working without a contract for months while trying to negotiate this contract. how long should they try to negotiate this contract before you think they have the right to threaten to withdraw their services? a few months? a year? 10 years?

You state all teachers who go on strike should be fired. I think you are putting your economic ideology ahead of the mission of the school. There is a reason NO school has gone that route. Its bad for the school and the education of the children.

Unfortunately, a strike must occur as people like you who might be on the board simply won't come back down to the world of sanity until the mayor is on the phone yelling at them and the community is in arms screaming at the board to resolve the problem.

"You act as though this came out of nowhere. As though the teachers woke up a month ago and said "lets go on strike" and the board was caught off guard. "

I'm sorry if I gave that impression - I realize that it didn't come out of the blue.

Expenses for a school may be bit easier to predict - due to commodity contracts with some locked in pricing, but as those contracts expire - there is undoubtedly an amount of uncertainty that comes into play based on market forces. Sometimes unexpected costs throw those predictions off and one needs to dip into reserves to handle a situation (sometimes insurance covers it, sometimes it's not worth going to a claim).

Revenues are a guess based upon the tax base reported by the Assessor. Even then, the District doesn't get all the money they expect due to appeals, TIF districts, etc. They assess the maximum, then wait and see what they end up with based on the tax cap.

They've been working and getting paid - and in this economy, that's a good thing. If they don't want to work without a contract, they could choose to withhold their services whenever they want, just as we can choose to fire them when they do so.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that economics are inextricably linked to the mission of the school.

A strike isn't good for anyone except perhaps the group going on Strike as they use it to assert control over the other party at the negotiating table via force in an effort to achieve their goals. It's certainly not good for the children - many of whom just don't' understand what's going on (or perhaps not with all the nuances involved).

Regardless of how long the negotiations have been going on, the teachers weren't locked out, they were getting paid. The NSEA chose to go on strike - their members who choose to stand with the Union's decision should do so at the peril of their employment.

It's not pretty, but that's what happens when an employee walks off the job.

I should add that the President of the board states that "We remain hopeful that we can continue to address our differences and come to an agreement in a way the preserves our ability to work as partners going forward." The above email is a contradiction to this statement. It is contradictions like this that have fostered the unfortunate atmosphere of distrust between the teachers and the board.

The NSEA has told the District "We're walking out if we don't get our demands met", and the District is saying "OK, if you're walking out, then you're technically not working here as employees, so we have to take certain actions to secure things until the issue is resolved." Why wouldn't they cancel events if no one was predicted to be able to staff them? Why wouldn't they deactivate the ID card of someone who's not working for the District? That they said "take your stuff" before they shut those cards off was just being nice by giving forewarning of the event. Why wouldn't they ask for their property back? Why would they pay wages to anyone not working? Why would they give benefits to anyone not working? Why would they allow the District's email system to be used by those not working? These statements all make complete sense.

They didn't say that they were firing anyone - they said that if anyone wanted to work, they could, so again, it's entirely up to the NSEA and its individual members.

Cancelling the health insurance is both nasty and a waste of money (there is a cost associated with cancelling, sending out cobra notices, and reinstating it when the contract is negotiated). It is meant to stick it to the teachers and accomplishes its goal of upsetting them. Asking them to walk across the line is also insulting in light of the above threat as well as the way the board has chosen to negotiate. Whichever side you fall on.. you can agree this email doesn't actually set the tone for a productive negotiation come monday.

Why would anyone give benefits to someone who isn't working? Insurance is a very costly benefit offered as an incentive for employees to work at a particular location. If someone chooses not to work, or can't work - you cancel their insurance and they go on COBRA where they can pay for it themselves.

Ultimately this whole labor dispute boils down to economics. The Board is trying to cut costs, so why would they want to pay anyone wages/benefits if they've walked off the job? There's consequences to a Strike - these are a couple of them.

David... Its math.. the teachers have 45 days to accept cobra. so... in actuality, unless some medical issue comes up, no one will likely pay the cobra premium. Ultimately the strike will last maybe a week or two. Ultimately... I am not privvy to all the details but the contract the teachers would sign would be for a full years health insurance coverage. So, the school would end up paying for a full year of health insurance coverage one way or another. (just as the teachers will end up teaching a full year of school whether they strike or not). So if they end up paying for a year of health insurance one way or another... any cost terminating it , submitting cobra, and putting the insurance back on is simply administrative waste. No money will be saved and likely the maneuver will cost them more money than if they just left the insurance alone. As an impassioned advocate of fiscal restraint i'm shocked you'd advocate for the board literally taking money, dousing it in gasoline, and lighting it on fire.

Joe, go move to Alabama and be happy.

lwvrt, thanks for the suggestion, I have heard Alabama is a great place to retire low tax’s great bass fishing and Crimson Tide football.

Not only would it take NUMEROUS years to recoup the cost of a masters degree, but the district does not want to compensate teachers who already paid for continued education last year. These teachers had to send course approval forms to the district and get their lane changed approved by February. Teachers have already spent money on these degrees and have budgeted their money based on re-compensation. The district is reneging on their promise to pay these teachers for an education that they have already shelled out money for. The district expects students to become life-long learners. Why do they want to stop teachers from learning?

No one's going to be FORCED by the District to leave because of the proposed contract. If someone CHOOSES to leave, that's their business, and it's not a reason for the District (and by extension the taxpayers) to be compelled to grant fiscally unsustainable salary schedules, automatic raises, or benefits of any type.

As for continuing education and it's costs: Yes, it costs significant amounts of money to obtain advanced degrees - but when considering whether or not to do that, persons in the Private Sector typically have to perform the ROI and tax benefit analyses to determine if they want to pursue an advanced degree or not. There's no guarantee that they'll get a promotion either - it merely gets them additional consideration if and when a promotional opportunity arises. Any teacher who wants to pursue an advanced degree should pay for it themselves - there's no reason why the taxpayers should be compelled to pay for it - either through "lane change" raises, or course reimbursement.

Disclaimer: None of this is tax advice - talk with your tax professional:

Teachers have a couple of avenues for tax benefits - a $250 deduction, OR a Schedule A deduction that exceeds 2% of their AGI. See here:

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc513.html

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/index.html

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc457.html

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Tax-Incentives-for-Higher-Education-

@H:The District should honor those prior approvals, but going forward ought not to pay for continuing education. As for creating and remaining a life-long learner, those are goals that I support - but the life-long learner ought to have to pay for their own education.

Now don't misread this and think that elementary and high school STUDENTS should be required to start writing out checks - that's not what I'm saying. Rather, when they graduate from high school - they need to pay for their education. Traditional, on-line, distance learning...

And teachers - if you want to take a class, pay for it. If you want to obtain an advanced degree, pay for it.

I'm proud to be a life-long learner, and the courses I take to expand that knowledge cost me money. I pay for them because I either determine they're worth it to me for my current or future business needs/plans, or because I simply desire the information.

However, making the claim that teachers can only learn from a classroom where they get a degree or certificate is just silly. Witness the rise of numerous FREE, online programs attended by MILLIONS worldwide. MIT OpenCourseware, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Khan Academy.... and more. Some even issue certificates for a nominal fee (<$100) so perhaps they could be used toward additional consideration of a potential raise and still provide the life-long learner with new knowledge useful toward one's profession?

For the Highly Qualified teachers that we have in our District, YES they would be forced to leave. Why would a Highly Qualified teacher stay in D112 with all of their health care benefits being cut, no help for professional growth, terrible retirement AND the 1% proposed salary increase? That is insulting for any well-educated professional. The teachers in our district are top-notch: this past year, over 10,000 applicants applied for teaching jobs in the district, where to only thirty-something actually got a teaching position. They want the best education and opportunities for the students; but then again need the best for their own families. With the Board's proposal, the surrounding districts might see our own teachers wanting to move there-- where they would be graciously taken in, and compensated for the hard work that they do. $250 for spending over $15,000? That is a sad joke.

Might I add-- The board’s working cash fund increased from a balance of $9,961,125 in 2007 to $12,091,974 in 2011. If they were able to INCREASE their fund balance while paying those costs, why are they insisting that the union’s proposals of a modest salary increase (now 3.25%), limits to lane movement, no change to retirement benefits and HUGE insurance savings (which will cost
teachers much more out-of-pocket) are unaffordable? Ponder that

Jerry - what specifically do you believe that is "ranting and raving" by me? What do you consider "short sighted"?

And yes I have family members and friends who are teachers, so I understand the teacher's perspective.

This is more than a little disconcerting you would take the word of a very small group of teachers and an outside union agitator Mark Stein, over long time community members. Mr. Hymen's and the entire board, are people that give more back to their community then they ever take. It is disrespectfully and cowards to paint them as greedy or liars. Mark Stein does this same thing community after community, they lie to the teachers they lie to the community. So sure go ahead and believe the guy that makes his living on the backs of teachers.

True not David’s best writings, but his ideas and thinking patterns are more forward thinking than almost anyone else that posts here. Honestly it is your don’t stir the pot mentality that has the hole state in a financial crises.

Thanks for responding Jerry, I appreciate it. Before term "terrorism" was used in these threads, I used the phrase "weaponizing our children" - I believe it was another poster responding to my comment who claimed that I'd called the NSEA terrorists. So I then compared the definition of terrorist to what the NSEA was doing, and it met the definition - I posted that fact in one of the threads. To be certain, they're not killing anyone vis a vis a "traditional" terrorist, but the tactics employed (the threat of a strike) are designed to strike fear into the hearts of those they're demanding something from so that they can achieve their goals.

I agree, this isn't my best writing, I apologize to the gentle readers, and will endeavor to do better in the future :-)

My wife's a teacher - and she agrees with me. The casual observer would say "Yeah, well, she's your wife!", but those who know my wife and I well, know that if she disagrees with me, she's not going to be a wall-flower (nor would I want her to be) :-)

Hi Mark!

What money the district has in the bank isn't really directly relevant to the negotiation, is it? That's like a child saying "I deserve a bigger allowance because I can see you have another $20 in your wallet." The reserves are there for the other expenses of running schools that were almost all constructed 40+ years ago...physical plant, classroom equipment, etc. The district has explained that two such major expenditures are planned in this fiscal year.

Yea I loved that stuff when I was 18; I also thought Ginsburg was a good poet, ahh youth.

I to hear the shots ringing out from Haymarket and Pullman, United mine workers bring your guns I will stand by you. Who you think you are, who I think you are Jimmy Hoffa banging his hands on the table “I will shut this dam country down”. Just a point of view and 100 years.

You want to quote Hoffa how about this one "Never let another man in your cab unless he is a friend of labor, because he's the only friend you've got." That is never clearer than today.

Illinois has a "one day rest in 7" law on the books. With very limited exceptions, an employee doesn't have to work 7 days straight.

What "right to work" refers to is the right of an employee to not have to join a union or contribute so-called "fair share" payments to a union.

I've asked several times - haven't seen a response yet - but just "what value does the Union bring to the taxpayers?"

Yes, Unions were started to protect workers from abusive employers, but there's a couple of things to keep in mind:

1) The labor laws were different "back-in-the-day", some of what Unions were formed for is now covered by Federal/State laws. This diminishes the need for a Union.

2) I'd argue that Unions are doing to employers now what employers did to the employees so long ago. The pendulum needs to swing more toward the middle.

We need to stop giving out raises en masse regardless of performance levels, we need to stop giving our raises just because someone took a class, we need to bring benefits more in line with what the Private Sector receives, we need to stop spiking pensions in the last few years of employment, and so on. We need to change, and we're going to have to start somewhere. There's no time like the present.

I hope you realized you just stereotyped a lot of people!

Just what is a "living wage"? Is it the same for everyone or does it vary depending upon the expenses that a particular individual or family has? What should the taxpayers be expected to fund or not fund? If someone happens to have an event occur in their life, and their wages aren't enough to cover the costs of that event - are we then no longer paying them a 'living wage', and must we then pay them more?

I take exception with your comparisons to other professions. Here's some other ways to look at your comparisons:

* Teachers draw their salaries primarily from taxpayer funded public entities. Just as medicare makes some payments to Doctors.

* Teachers Unions use various tactics to cause negotiations to go their way. Just like some lawyers in negotiations or the court room.

* Teachers don't want to gamble on the risk of continuing education, so they're trying to shift that risk to the District (and by extension the taxpayers), just like options traders use Collars to reduce their exposure.

They have very decent wages and even after the Board proposal - very decent health care (at least it's similar to that offered in the Private Sector) - given that we're ranked 3rd or 4th in salary levels - I'd say that's "pretty decent".

They have an offer - they can take it or leave it. Their choice.

First calling the teachers, as individuals greedy is simply wrong and childish. Is it your assumption we are all rich in Highland Park? We can afford it well that’s not even worth a response.

They've been offered fair pay for work - given that there's really no performance ratings yet - we don't know if everyone's working at the same level as everyone else.

What's greedy is asking for raises that exceed revenues, and expecting an entity to draw money out of their reserves to cover the additional parts that exceed revenues.

Those reserves are needed for other purposes besides partially funding fiscally unsustainable pay raises. Asking the taxpayers to pay more because we live in a nice community is greedy.

Oh yes, your conspiracy theory instincts are well honed, my friend.

Walter: I asked WHY and posited one possibility. I never claimed a "conspiracy".

However, there is a great body of knowledge regarding color and how it affects persons who view it. Casinos use that knowledge to their advantage every day.

It seems as if unified colored t-shirts are a common tactic by Unions...

See here:

http://geneva.patch.com/articles/geneva-teachers-stage-walk-in-at-high-school-middle-schools

What do you think about the theory that:

* The shirts are a common color and verbiage to indicate a "unified" front by the employees.

* That all the employees wearing a common color before the strike is designed to send a particular message. Black typically means something 'dark', 'deadly', or 'bad'.

* That all employees wearing a particular combination of colors after the strike is intended to send yet another message. White + Blue? "It'll be blue skys and fluffy clouds if you give us what we want!".

Or maybe they just picked white and blue because those are some traditional colors used here in HP? Still doesn't explain the all-black before the strike though...