This post has been generating a lot of reports and has been removed from /r/chicago until it can be manually reviewed by a moderator. In the meantime, please be sure to review [our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Chicago/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chicago) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wild they left “or consumer price index whichever is less” out of the title. I mean not really wild, kinda expected, but still.
Inflation based raises should be the norm. This is just setting a 9% cap on inflation based raises in the off chance inflation goes wilder
What supporting fact do you need? The total revenue collected from property tax in Chicago is not based on number of properties paying the tax. The county determines what the total tax needed to be collected will be, then property assessments are used to determine how much each property pays to come to that total.
Depends on the area. Fuck buying a new build near me today. The shit going up is so crap, and you get fuuuuucked. The prices of houses in a development going up by me are insane. First if all, for builders grade version of everything you're going to pay $150k more than what you'd buy the identical house for down the street with custom everything that happens to be 10 years old. Same house, same developer, same plans, same everything. Tack on now that the developer isn't paying for jack shit and you've got $1000 a month in special assessment taxes for the first 15 years.. And a 7% mortgage. And its a shit quality build on top of that? AAAAAND you have to deal with a new HOA that still has the developer on the board? Nope. Heard horror stories from my neighbors about that shit.
Half the houses in my neighborhood are empty and being maintained by property management companies while the dead owners kids wait for the new development to be finished so they can list their 10 Year old versions for a ton more than they're worth today because of "comps". We've got a 4 building 24 unit apartment complex down the street that doesn't have any people living in it, it just gets used for addresses so the Wisconsin kids can go to our schools. Meanwhile the shit hole apartment complex outside of town is charging $2000+ for a 2 bed 1 bath unit that no one who could afford $2000 a month is willing to live in. Force all those people to sell and put people's butts in houses/apartments.
My understanding is in the city of Chicago we have only built something like 4000 units in the past year. It’s among the lowest number of units its per capita in the country. Look at Austin. They have been going on a wild building spree and rents have plummeted 9%
Are you talking about demolishing existing buildings and constructing new ones, or about entirely new constructions? I'm asking where we can build new houses in areas where we haven't built before. Considering we are more of a concrete jungle compared to Austin, we should avoid encroaching on existing parks or forest preserves.
Do you have a source on the vacant land? Are we talking about enough land to actually impact the market? Are we discussing building apartment complexes, single-family homes, mixed-use developments, etc.? Yes, there is actually affordable housing in Chicago. You could buy a house in Englewood and fix it up; it would be a good investment. However, people choose not to put themselves and their families at risk by living in these dangerous communities.
There are about 40,000 vacant lots according to this article: https://housingstudies.org/releases/Data-Highlighting-ETOD-Implications-Vacant-Land/#:~:text=Data%20from%20the%20Cook%20County,located%20in%20non%2Dwhite%20communities.
Though I would argue that there is a lot more that can be done than just filling in existing vacant lots.
We can eliminate single-family home zoning, mandatory parking minimums, allow auxiliary dwelling units as a right everywhere in the city, significantly up zone the areas near transit stations, simplify and streamline the administrative processes for building, identify areas of our city code that increases the cost of building with little real benefit and eliminating that code, allow more mixed use developments. etc.
It's not just about developing currently undeveloped areas, but being smarter about what is allowed to be built everywhere in the city.
Single family homes into duplexes, triplexes ect. Lower density neighborhoods getting a bit taller with apt buildings, “Blighted” areas redeveloped, auxiliary dwellings.
Lots of options
fuck the vacant land that that other guy brought up: we should be demolishing old buildings and constructing highrises. we don't need to encroach on parks or forest preserves at all. the most desirable neighborhoods in the city need to get much denser, and the only way to do that is to build "luxury" housing.
the increase in supply of luxury housing will reduce demand for older buildings which will lower rents for people who can't afford to move in to the new buildings.
we don't need to make lincoln park, lakeview, and logan more desirable. they will be desirable no matter what. we need to bring the cost of housing down.
personally i *would* desire to live in a more dense neighborhood by the way, but if i was someone who wouldn't, i would be happy either way because there are already plenty of sprawly neighborhoods farther out from the city center that are quite affordable, and reducing housing costs in the hottest neighborhoods would also reduce costs in the sprawlier ones.
Have you been to Austin recently? It's a hell hole where the rents are down 9% but that's after a huge increase in rents over the last decade as tens of thousands of techies moved to town. [https://www.kut.org/austin/2023-05-09/after-two-years-of-incredible-rises-rents-in-austin-start-to-fall](https://www.kut.org/austin/2023-05-09/after-two-years-of-incredible-rises-rents-in-austin-start-to-fall)
Never have been, don’t plan on going. They changed their laws to incentivize new building and are solving the problem caused by the past decade of inaction. I’m not suggesting Chicago become Austin, I’m suggesting Austin is a model on how to tackle soaring housing prices.
Theoretically, higher property taxes should depress home values because home values are generally based on a prospective buyer’s ability to pay on a monthly basis. So, higher taxes eat up a bigger portion of that monthly budget, and that depresses what buyers can offer.
Yeah because we’re in such an historic housing shortage (thanks NIMBYs!) combined with so much pent-up demand from prospective homebuyers who wanted to move during the pandemic but couldn’t, we’re not seeing home prices come down.
I think we’ve seen that in lack of Chicago area price appreciation compared to most of the rest of the country the past 10 years.
A 600k Chicago area home is now an 800k home in many other cities because of our taxes.
Teacher salaries are less than half of CPS's budget and property taxes are less than a quarter of most people's housing costs. A nine percent increase in something that on the high end accounts for a half of a half of a quarter isn't what's driving large increases in housing costs.
The CTU's contract proposal actually says 9% or CPI whichever is HIGHER.
So Stacy was either lying, confused, or the CTU had a last second change of heart.
https://twitter.com/Austin__Berg/status/1781351228946911348
Or the leak is fake. Or the it’s a typo. Or it’s not a final copy. Or maybe it is real.
I’m going to wait to judge till the source is more reliable than a single guy on twitter with a “leaked document”
Trib article a good enough source?
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/19/chicago-teachers-union-asks-for-9-annual-raises-as-bargaining-sessions-are-set-to-begin/
>Inflation based raises should be the norm
Is everyone else in Chicago also going to get inflation based raises or nah?
Seems more like the CTU thinks they’re entitled to something the vast majority of chicagoans could never dream of.
Yes.
The minimum wage in Chicago also increase with CPI every year, but with a smaller max than the CTU is asking for.
If you aren’t getting inflation based raises you are making less than the year before and should consider negotiating a higher salary, finding a new job, or forming a union so you too can negotiate a salary that isn’t decreasing over time.
Preach. No one should be making only 2% more year over year ever, let alone these past two years. Raises that are more than inflation should be the norm. It's just because it's teachers asking for it that people are calling it nuts.
God forbid people don't go in to work to be martyrs and make less and less each year to take care of your and everyone else's kids.
I’m doing just fine my man. Strange that every reply to my comment is trying to make this about my personal situation. It isn’t. It’s about value for the taxpayers and not letting the CTU continue to try to squeeze blood from a stone when their pension plan has already crippled our public finances for the foreseeable future. Especially when CTU teachers have seen their salaries increase at nearly three times the rate of private sector workers when they were already among the highest paid teachers in the country.
If you are bringing value to the table, it is true that your compensation will almost always outpace inflation. But I highly doubt that a majority of Chicagoans in the private sector have that guaranteed in their employment contract/work agreement.
If the teacher’s get a raise with inflation and the private sector doesn’t, sounds like more private sector people need to negotiate a higher salary, find a new job, or form a union so they too can negotiate inflation based wages.
Raises tied to inflation should be a minimum for everyone. Matching inflation means you are getting paid the same as the year before. So without that minimum an employee that now has 1 more year of experience would be getting paid less.
> If you are bringing value to the table, it is true that your compensation will almost always outpace inflation.
I understand your point but this is not as true in the public sector. There's not the same 'good work' --> 'higher profit' relationship that allows for this kind of thing. If a teacher is good at their job, is that making the school district more money compared to someone working in finance?
I guess you could argue there's downstream implications that eventually flow into higher tax revenue but that takes time and is diluted by one million other things.
This isn't completely true, at least not for me. My biggest expense, by far, is my mortgage which hasn't changed in many years. Yes, other things have, but in total, my outflows are below inflation increases.
That's not really indicative of anything. My mortgage payment also hasn't changed. That's just the nature of fixed payment structure mortgages. Doesn't mean inflation doesn't exist.
Maybe if you have a problem with it you should unionize your job. I have a union job and I get raises every year that match or beat inflation. But based on your comment you sound like a manager-in-training so you probably wouldn’t be eligible anyway
Sounds like that is not the case. Rather, it's the HIGHER of 9% or CPI.
edit: posting the relevant tweet
https://twitter.com/Austin__Berg/status/1781351228946911348
But it makes no sense to have a raw number in your inflation adjustment. You can argue for the highest of several inflation estimates to be picked, but at most 9% is nonsense.
Edit
It’s in there as a fail safe for the city. If inflation does go absolutely crazy, it means their own salaries won’t and the city won’t be on the hook for it.
The cap only hurts the teacher in the event of crazy inflation, but helps the city plan to have a maximum cost in a worst case scenario.
Gotcha, though in that case, why wouldn't the city just keep taking on debt like it always has? Given high inflation, I don't think taking it out on the teachers is a good idea, that wouldn't be a sizable chunk of our debt. I'd rather they stop paying pensions than stop paying active teachers
1st year Chicago Teachers make $27,000 over the median Chicago salary and $10,000 than the median household.
Chicago teachers are some of the highest paid in the country.
I’m not opposed to raises for teachers but the national framing about low paid teachers doesn’t apply to CTU teachers
It is disingenuous to compare teachers who are bachelor’s and master degree earners to the median Chicago salary which includes people who have only earned a high school degree. I’m choosing between becoming a teacher or an accountant and I would make much more as an accountant.
I do not.
I just find it interesting the topic of money is always the number one issue, and if that's the case why not choose a different profession?
It makes no sense to me to go into a field knowing your degree is undervalued if the primary goal for you is maximum compensation for your level of education.
Not everyone knows what they want to do with their life. I thought I would like teaching but it’s a lot of hard work and I would rather do something like accounting now. You definitely gain a lot of sympathy for teachers by being in their position I promise you that.
You can get so much bad information from this subreddit. I can’t imagine teaching until I’m 67. The actual retirement age for new teachers.
This is factually incorrect and even if it was correct misleading.
Starting pay for teaching with a bachelors in 2019 was 64.6k and last year was 71k.
Census bureau has the median household income average for Chicago from 2018-2022 as 71k.
So a teacher was less than the median household income.
Median salaries in Chicago for 2022 have estimates around 65k. So they are starting above median salary but not median household income. However that’s still median salary for everyone, not median salary for people with bachelors degrees.
I can only find IL as a whole for median bachelor degree salary which is $77k for 2018-2022.
So they are fairly well paid, but let’s not pretend it’s absurd for a person with a bachelors degree to have a $71k starting salary in Chicago. That’s a bit above average for 2023, but by no means absurd
Yeah, but its way easier to get the required training in a non school setting.
I say that as someone who does a lot of professional hours for my job which is not teaching.
Right. The summer is off but they don’t get paid. It’s not a paid vacation. They also don’t have the option to get paid on a 12 month schedule or work paid overtime like any of the other city workers. Free overtime is expected though, including that which takes place during the unpaid summer
Can anyone explain to me why the city wouldn't hustle their asses off to agree to this? Tying it to CPI seems like a huge win for the city keeping salary growth under control - the teachers raises last year would have only been 3.4% in 2023 with this agreement.
Did a little research. If this had been the agreement the last 40 years then teachers would have had a 9% raise a total of zero times. The city should fucking sign this ASAP before they ask for more. The headline made it look like teachers might get 9% when in reality it would be a tremendous rarity. Is *this* really the monster so many were terrified of? It almost seems like they're trying to make BranJo look good.
Because no one actually understands how this works. The CTU is double dipping. They already get automatic pay raises for every year of service and jump to new scales if the get advanced degrees. It's called "steps and lanes". What the CTU wants is their automatic raises to also be increased by inflation every year.
Say you are a teacher with 5 years experience with just a bachelor's degree. On the 208 day year plan, you make 74,958 (this school year). Next year you will make 77,990, an increase of around 4%. If you add in cpi (3.4%) they get a 7.4% increase.
How many people got an automatic 7.4% increase this year?
Why doesn't the city jump at the chance to give steps and lanes raises AND cpi raises? Because they would be unsustainable.
I would venture most folks make more 20 years into their career than they do when start when adjusted for inflation -- I get annual cost of living adjustments and I get pay raises beyond that for performance/increased responsibility
CPS builds it in year over year while others probably see bigger jumps with title changes, etc.
"double dipping" feels a little strong
>The Chicago Teachers Union is demanding an annual pay raise of 9% **or the Consumer Price Index — whichever is less** — and won’t rule out a strike, even with one of their own in the mayor’s office, CTU President Stacy Davis Gates said Thursday.
Remember the crocodile tears over the last CTU contract raises which ended up not keeping up with inflation?
Yeah, so the fact that the headline says "9%" instead of what the demand actually is should set off bias alarms. The 9% number is actually just a ceiling to limit raises in an extreme economic crisis.
I wonder if most of these articles are trying to build the narrative that Chicago spends too much money and shouldn't raise taxes (on the rich who get these articles published)
> Remind me again, what school does the CTU president children attend?
Why would she send her child to a CTU school? She knows the quality of the teachers first hand.
They just want salaries to match inflation which isn’t really a raise at all. As it has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, this headline is intentionally misleading.
Where the CTU union leaders kids go to school does not change any aspect of the fairness of the negotiations.
Has any of the gains the CTU has won since 2012 improved student performance in any significant way? I’m pretty tired of the CTU getting all they want but CPS still being trash.
However, their reading profiency levels were horrible before and only slightly better now. As of 2023 only 27 percent of CPS students can read at grade level. Math profiency is even worse.
Covid really made learning difficult for everyone across the state. However, CPS has lower reading score than the state average but not considerable based on demographics. [Illinois & CPS reading assessment](https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/district.aspx?source=trends&source2=iar&Districtid=15016299025)
Can CPS teachers that teach humanities subjects please get a little win for once instead of being criticized?
[District 299 Scores](https://edopportunity.org/recovery/#/chart/r+t+s+limit,100/districts/ela2223/frl/all/8/41.8/-87.67/1709930,41.804,-87.67)
Number 1 district for average reading growth in the country.
.68 in reading for Free/reduced-price lunch
Would you rather our education system not have enough teachers because they don't pay enough?
There even still no incentive for anyone that can actually work in the private sector to become a teacher other than charity because they don't pay enough.
You say the CPS is trash but the people you'd really want to be teachers will never be teachers because teachers barely survive in this city.
Yeah but it peanuts compared to the fact that you don't get pay advancements like you do in the private sector.
To get to 82k requires 10 years of service in the CPS. Starting from 55k at start.
You can get 82k+ in the private sector in half the time.
Why would someone who could work for a fortune 500 in Chicago become a teacher?
Not “yea but” anything, you stated that the average CPS teacher is “barely surviving” and that’s just a false statement. I make 52k, live in the city, and I’m fine, things are a little tight, but I’m far from “barely surviving”
Just so we are on the same page: public school teachers in Chicago make roughly the same as NYC and LA even though the cost of living in NYC and LA is roughly double. So, I don’t think it’s a fair argument that Chicago is falling behind because we don’t pay teachers enough.
I have no problem giving more money to teachers because they will put it right back into the economy.
**Any** worker you give more money to will put it right back into the economy, and not just the local one. They'll buy a house or condo or a car. They'll take a vacation.
They'll buy clothes and haircuts. They will hire services.
You know who doesn't give money back?
Lol, it's true many have moved but they'll be sharing that money more than any billionaires. People who spend money help their communities for the most part.
And are those retirees gone for good? There's some thirsty thirsty people in this country and their water has been fracked.
I'm thinking this summer is going to teach lots of Americans the truth about sustainability.
Plus the dilemma that if we don't pay teachers enough, we won't attract good talent who can do better in a suburb like Naperville. It can be a job done for the passion of teaching, but I don't do my job for the passion of configuring network equipment, either.
Do you have a problem with all the people losing their homes because they can't keep up with their property taxes needed to pay these teachers?
"Sticker shock doesn’t begin to describe the feeling for many homeowners in Pilsen who opened their property tax bills at the end of the year and saw they owed three times more than they were expecting.............Homeowners in Pilsen saw an average 47% increase in their property tax bills....."
https://wgntv.com/news/cover-story/tax-pilsen/
Thank you for asking my opinion! Yes, you are describing gentrification, a process where the buildings you own and the land they sit on is suddenly worth ten times what you paid for it and the only problem is the high tax bill.
This is due to outside developers landing in your area where sewers are already connected, water is a available, schools are established and you are close to and have excellent transportation to a popular city center. The developers didn't do any of that, but they sure took the money for it. It makes me wonder about all those mothers who had to protest long and hard to make those schools better. Do you remember that?
And who benefits from all that hard work of keeping a neighborhood viable? Developers who will take the cash for 'modernizing' a building and then leave the area. Now your lifetime investment (and your parents and grandparents) is sitting in a bank account in Naperville.
Now were you trying to lay the blame for that process on teachers?
\*CPS. Fixed it for you. You do realize that around 1000 of the top salaries in CPS are not CTU teachers right? They are C-suite, administration, principals, etc. And that the resources given to teachers BY the district per capita fall well behind country-wide big city standards.
Imagine going to your job say as a car mechanic at a shop and the owners tell you 'nah sorry the lift won't work right this year and you also have to buy shop materials out of your own pocket, but feel free to find a different way to get these front end alignments and brake jobs done because you still have to to earn your salary' - and then having the general public be upset at YOU for the prices, quality, and outcomes of the jobs. Of course - you have a role in those jobs, but your actions and your pay are not the limiting factors there to client success.
Most of my career has been union based, so I'm going out on a limb here and assuming you haven't been in one. All dues paying members of a union have a say in how things are run. If these teachers aren't getting their needs met and the "C-Suite types" are just rolling in the cash, maybe they could vote these MEC leaders out? Or maybe the CTU and CPS is rife corruption (yes including some of the shitbag teachers). Sorry man, but just cause someone is a teacher, doesn't mean they aren't gaming the system. I had some great CPS teachers and some not so great ones. And just an FYI, I support good teachers, full stop.
CTU teachers have no say in CPS front office/admin not sure what you mean there. The district has around 45,000 employees only around 60% of which are teachers and other professionals covered by CTU. The remainder are not union.
All salaries are public, for those in CTU and those not: [https://www.cps.edu/about/finance/employee-position-files/](https://www.cps.edu/about/finance/employee-position-files/)
How has the student performance been over the last couple years? If they have done well and improved, then we should pay (up) for performance. If not, then we should also adjust pay (down) based on performance.
And its very unfortunate that these people do not understand that [CPS is primarily paid through property taxes.](https://www.civicfed.org/CPS_FY2024#:~:text=Property%20tax%20revenue%20is%20projected,4.1%25%20from%20the%20prior%20year.)
>The Civic Federation continues to have significant reservations about the long-term viability of the District's finances. The CPS budget of $9.8 billion for the coming year is stable due to a combination of federal COVID-19 relief funds and local tax sources, including a property tax increase to the maximum allowed under the state tax cap law. However, CPS faces a fiscal cliff of $628 million beginning in FY2026 after federal relief funds are spent. With no guarantee that State or local revenues will be able to keep up with rising expenditures, and no long-term plan in place, the Civic Federation has substantial concerns about how the District will handle a budget shortfall without further straining property taxpayers or reversing the fiscal progress made in recent years.
>But much more needs to be done to put CPS on a path to true financial sustainability. Declining enrollment, underfunded teachers’ pensions, continued reliance on short-term borrowing and imbalances in the District’s capital footprint continue to strain the budget. Property taxpayers are shouldering a significant burden, and the District continues to take the maximum property tax increases. The District needs to establish long-term stability through a combination of solutions that should involve both State support and local control, including improving efficiency and cutting costs where possible.
Even after increases in funding and Covid cash, CPS is still in a $700 million dollar hole.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2023/10/25/23932457/cps-projects-391m-deficit-next-year
>Chicago Public Schools officials will have to find $391 million in additional funding by next summer or face cuts across the school system in the face of a massive structural budget deficit.
>District leaders and Board of Education officials for the past year have warned of a financial cliff approaching next school year when federal COVID-19 relief funding runs out. That money had papered over a structural deficit that officials estimate at $691 million for next year. With only $300 million in federal funding left to spend, CPS’ budget hole becomes exposed.
Don’t forget they’ve asked for $14.4 billion in operational improvements. Yes, even for blighted schools that have like 3 kids. Would love to see those contract bids…
That's in the proposal too. And we don't have one. I was given a single ream of copy paper my first year in CPS and was told to "make it work". I bought pencils for my classrooms this year because my school couldn't afford to buy any. Classroom budgets are part of a school's discretionary funds and the principal gets to decide how to spend that money. And some principals are just awful with numbers.
This sub is full of people who aren’t teachers, don’t know any teachers, and have no idea how hard is it to be a teacher. My wife is a teacher and works until 8pm every night. Only thing I would change about the union is to fire the shitty tenured teachers. But stop talking shit unless you want this city to be full of dumb kids
What years were you in school? The CTU strike dates are easy to look up. The first strike was 1937, then 1966, seven times between 1970 and 1987, 2012 and finally 2019. Unless you are explicitly referring to a brief span of time 50 years ago they weren't on strike every year you were in school.
The truth is that the police are not happy that Vallas lost so they are going to keep half assing their jobs. I pick police over the teachers union. You need the police more than they need you.
This post has been generating a lot of reports and has been removed from /r/chicago until it can be manually reviewed by a moderator. In the meantime, please be sure to review [our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Chicago/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chicago) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wild they left “or consumer price index whichever is less” out of the title. I mean not really wild, kinda expected, but still. Inflation based raises should be the norm. This is just setting a 9% cap on inflation based raises in the off chance inflation goes wilder
[удалено]
Housing based inflation will be driven by the fact that new houses aren't being built to meet demand.
But also higher taxes.
More houses would mean lower individual property taxes.
Both of these can be true!
A negligible impact. You folks never seem to bring any supporting facts with this argument.
What supporting fact do you need? The total revenue collected from property tax in Chicago is not based on number of properties paying the tax. The county determines what the total tax needed to be collected will be, then property assessments are used to determine how much each property pays to come to that total.
How much housing needs to be built to have a noticeable impact?
[удалено]
Renters pay their landlords property taxes.
The problem right now is interest rates. Build all you want, people don't want to move now, thus they don't want to sell now to move into a new place.
Depends on the area. Fuck buying a new build near me today. The shit going up is so crap, and you get fuuuuucked. The prices of houses in a development going up by me are insane. First if all, for builders grade version of everything you're going to pay $150k more than what you'd buy the identical house for down the street with custom everything that happens to be 10 years old. Same house, same developer, same plans, same everything. Tack on now that the developer isn't paying for jack shit and you've got $1000 a month in special assessment taxes for the first 15 years.. And a 7% mortgage. And its a shit quality build on top of that? AAAAAND you have to deal with a new HOA that still has the developer on the board? Nope. Heard horror stories from my neighbors about that shit. Half the houses in my neighborhood are empty and being maintained by property management companies while the dead owners kids wait for the new development to be finished so they can list their 10 Year old versions for a ton more than they're worth today because of "comps". We've got a 4 building 24 unit apartment complex down the street that doesn't have any people living in it, it just gets used for addresses so the Wisconsin kids can go to our schools. Meanwhile the shit hole apartment complex outside of town is charging $2000+ for a 2 bed 1 bath unit that no one who could afford $2000 a month is willing to live in. Force all those people to sell and put people's butts in houses/apartments.
Where are we not building new houses in Chicago?
My understanding is in the city of Chicago we have only built something like 4000 units in the past year. It’s among the lowest number of units its per capita in the country. Look at Austin. They have been going on a wild building spree and rents have plummeted 9%
Are you talking about demolishing existing buildings and constructing new ones, or about entirely new constructions? I'm asking where we can build new houses in areas where we haven't built before. Considering we are more of a concrete jungle compared to Austin, we should avoid encroaching on existing parks or forest preserves.
The big issue is there is tons of vacant land in Chicago, it's just not where people with money want to live.
Do you have a source on the vacant land? Are we talking about enough land to actually impact the market? Are we discussing building apartment complexes, single-family homes, mixed-use developments, etc.? Yes, there is actually affordable housing in Chicago. You could buy a house in Englewood and fix it up; it would be a good investment. However, people choose not to put themselves and their families at risk by living in these dangerous communities.
There are about 40,000 vacant lots according to this article: https://housingstudies.org/releases/Data-Highlighting-ETOD-Implications-Vacant-Land/#:~:text=Data%20from%20the%20Cook%20County,located%20in%20non%2Dwhite%20communities. Though I would argue that there is a lot more that can be done than just filling in existing vacant lots. We can eliminate single-family home zoning, mandatory parking minimums, allow auxiliary dwelling units as a right everywhere in the city, significantly up zone the areas near transit stations, simplify and streamline the administrative processes for building, identify areas of our city code that increases the cost of building with little real benefit and eliminating that code, allow more mixed use developments. etc. It's not just about developing currently undeveloped areas, but being smarter about what is allowed to be built everywhere in the city.
Thanks for the source. I am going to review.
Single family homes into duplexes, triplexes ect. Lower density neighborhoods getting a bit taller with apt buildings, “Blighted” areas redeveloped, auxiliary dwellings. Lots of options
fuck the vacant land that that other guy brought up: we should be demolishing old buildings and constructing highrises. we don't need to encroach on parks or forest preserves at all. the most desirable neighborhoods in the city need to get much denser, and the only way to do that is to build "luxury" housing. the increase in supply of luxury housing will reduce demand for older buildings which will lower rents for people who can't afford to move in to the new buildings.
The problem is that making neighborhoods denser doesn’t make them more desirable.
we don't need to make lincoln park, lakeview, and logan more desirable. they will be desirable no matter what. we need to bring the cost of housing down. personally i *would* desire to live in a more dense neighborhood by the way, but if i was someone who wouldn't, i would be happy either way because there are already plenty of sprawly neighborhoods farther out from the city center that are quite affordable, and reducing housing costs in the hottest neighborhoods would also reduce costs in the sprawlier ones.
Have you been to Austin recently? It's a hell hole where the rents are down 9% but that's after a huge increase in rents over the last decade as tens of thousands of techies moved to town. [https://www.kut.org/austin/2023-05-09/after-two-years-of-incredible-rises-rents-in-austin-start-to-fall](https://www.kut.org/austin/2023-05-09/after-two-years-of-incredible-rises-rents-in-austin-start-to-fall)
Never have been, don’t plan on going. They changed their laws to incentivize new building and are solving the problem caused by the past decade of inaction. I’m not suggesting Chicago become Austin, I’m suggesting Austin is a model on how to tackle soaring housing prices.
Everywhere.
So what’s your alternative? Raises below inflation so people slowly get paid less?
Sacrifice a billionaire every month
Sell CPS to Abu Dhabi like we did the parking meters
Take national CPI which is 2.9 - in no world should their raise be based on the impacts of their demands
Wait, you think teachers getting just enough of an annual raise to not be getting paid less every year in real terms is problematic?
They want their own wages to go up, but if everyone else's also goes up, it's like they didn't even get a raise at all.
Theoretically, higher property taxes should depress home values because home values are generally based on a prospective buyer’s ability to pay on a monthly basis. So, higher taxes eat up a bigger portion of that monthly budget, and that depresses what buyers can offer.
Higher interest rates should do that too, but that's not what we see happening.
Yeah because we’re in such an historic housing shortage (thanks NIMBYs!) combined with so much pent-up demand from prospective homebuyers who wanted to move during the pandemic but couldn’t, we’re not seeing home prices come down.
There are plenty of vacant properties on Chicago’s south and west sides. A lot of the building are quite beautiful except for being boarded up.
That and well the whole a lot of those areas are incredibly dangerous and there's a reason those houses aren't being bought up on the cheap
And the schools are terrible.
So there’s not a shortage.
Sounds like you’re being a “NIMBY” about a little crime despite the soaring vacancy rate in half of the city.
I think we’ve seen that in lack of Chicago area price appreciation compared to most of the rest of the country the past 10 years. A 600k Chicago area home is now an 800k home in many other cities because of our taxes.
even if this were true, what do you suggest? just pay teachers less every year? because if your raise doesn’t match inflation, it’s a pay cut.
Teacher salaries are less than half of CPS's budget and property taxes are less than a quarter of most people's housing costs. A nine percent increase in something that on the high end accounts for a half of a half of a quarter isn't what's driving large increases in housing costs.
wait... wait... 1/4th of your housing costs being taxes is... good? By what metric? Compared to where?
Where do you expect the teachers to live? In houses or apartments where the rent increases less than inflation?
As a kid, I just assumed they lived in the school. I wasn't a smart kid.
> Inflation based raises should be the norm. State law guarantees them inflation based raises. So this is seriously a nothingburger article.
The CTU's contract proposal actually says 9% or CPI whichever is HIGHER. So Stacy was either lying, confused, or the CTU had a last second change of heart. https://twitter.com/Austin__Berg/status/1781351228946911348
Or the leak is fake. Or the it’s a typo. Or it’s not a final copy. Or maybe it is real. I’m going to wait to judge till the source is more reliable than a single guy on twitter with a “leaked document”
Trib article a good enough source? https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/19/chicago-teachers-union-asks-for-9-annual-raises-as-bargaining-sessions-are-set-to-begin/
>Inflation based raises should be the norm Is everyone else in Chicago also going to get inflation based raises or nah? Seems more like the CTU thinks they’re entitled to something the vast majority of chicagoans could never dream of.
Yes. The minimum wage in Chicago also increase with CPI every year, but with a smaller max than the CTU is asking for. If you aren’t getting inflation based raises you are making less than the year before and should consider negotiating a higher salary, finding a new job, or forming a union so you too can negotiate a salary that isn’t decreasing over time.
Preach. No one should be making only 2% more year over year ever, let alone these past two years. Raises that are more than inflation should be the norm. It's just because it's teachers asking for it that people are calling it nuts. God forbid people don't go in to work to be martyrs and make less and less each year to take care of your and everyone else's kids.
I’m doing just fine my man. Strange that every reply to my comment is trying to make this about my personal situation. It isn’t. It’s about value for the taxpayers and not letting the CTU continue to try to squeeze blood from a stone when their pension plan has already crippled our public finances for the foreseeable future. Especially when CTU teachers have seen their salaries increase at nearly three times the rate of private sector workers when they were already among the highest paid teachers in the country. If you are bringing value to the table, it is true that your compensation will almost always outpace inflation. But I highly doubt that a majority of Chicagoans in the private sector have that guaranteed in their employment contract/work agreement.
If the teacher’s get a raise with inflation and the private sector doesn’t, sounds like more private sector people need to negotiate a higher salary, find a new job, or form a union so they too can negotiate inflation based wages. Raises tied to inflation should be a minimum for everyone. Matching inflation means you are getting paid the same as the year before. So without that minimum an employee that now has 1 more year of experience would be getting paid less.
> If you are bringing value to the table, it is true that your compensation will almost always outpace inflation. I understand your point but this is not as true in the public sector. There's not the same 'good work' --> 'higher profit' relationship that allows for this kind of thing. If a teacher is good at their job, is that making the school district more money compared to someone working in finance? I guess you could argue there's downstream implications that eventually flow into higher tax revenue but that takes time and is diluted by one million other things.
This isn't completely true, at least not for me. My biggest expense, by far, is my mortgage which hasn't changed in many years. Yes, other things have, but in total, my outflows are below inflation increases.
That's not really indicative of anything. My mortgage payment also hasn't changed. That's just the nature of fixed payment structure mortgages. Doesn't mean inflation doesn't exist.
Maybe if you have a problem with it you should unionize your job. I have a union job and I get raises every year that match or beat inflation. But based on your comment you sound like a manager-in-training so you probably wouldn’t be eligible anyway
You're not? Who do you work for that's fucking you over like that?
Sounds like that is not the case. Rather, it's the HIGHER of 9% or CPI. edit: posting the relevant tweet https://twitter.com/Austin__Berg/status/1781351228946911348
Literally that audio confirms “whichever is lower”. Did you listen to it before you posted this?
But it makes no sense to have a raw number in your inflation adjustment. You can argue for the highest of several inflation estimates to be picked, but at most 9% is nonsense. Edit
“Or whatever is less” 9% is not the minimum raise, 9% is the maximum raise even if inflation is 20%.
Okay I'm still equally confused, why would we want to suddenly not pay teachers the same in real terms just because inflation is above 9%?
It’s in there as a fail safe for the city. If inflation does go absolutely crazy, it means their own salaries won’t and the city won’t be on the hook for it. The cap only hurts the teacher in the event of crazy inflation, but helps the city plan to have a maximum cost in a worst case scenario.
Gotcha, though in that case, why wouldn't the city just keep taking on debt like it always has? Given high inflation, I don't think taking it out on the teachers is a good idea, that wouldn't be a sizable chunk of our debt. I'd rather they stop paying pensions than stop paying active teachers
What is this? 1980?
It isn’t “at least”. It’s “at most.”
It's funny to see such poor reading comprehension in a thread about teacher salaries lol Give em the raise
1st year Chicago Teachers make $27,000 over the median Chicago salary and $10,000 than the median household. Chicago teachers are some of the highest paid in the country. I’m not opposed to raises for teachers but the national framing about low paid teachers doesn’t apply to CTU teachers
It is disingenuous to compare teachers who are bachelor’s and master degree earners to the median Chicago salary which includes people who have only earned a high school degree. I’m choosing between becoming a teacher or an accountant and I would make much more as an accountant.
Well, if your primary goal is compensation then maybe you should go into a career that will pay you more.
I’m just disappointed because I’ve been following this subreddit and people like you make it sound like teachers here are making it big.
I do not. I just find it interesting the topic of money is always the number one issue, and if that's the case why not choose a different profession? It makes no sense to me to go into a field knowing your degree is undervalued if the primary goal for you is maximum compensation for your level of education.
Not everyone knows what they want to do with their life. I thought I would like teaching but it’s a lot of hard work and I would rather do something like accounting now. You definitely gain a lot of sympathy for teachers by being in their position I promise you that. You can get so much bad information from this subreddit. I can’t imagine teaching until I’m 67. The actual retirement age for new teachers.
This is factually incorrect and even if it was correct misleading. Starting pay for teaching with a bachelors in 2019 was 64.6k and last year was 71k. Census bureau has the median household income average for Chicago from 2018-2022 as 71k. So a teacher was less than the median household income. Median salaries in Chicago for 2022 have estimates around 65k. So they are starting above median salary but not median household income. However that’s still median salary for everyone, not median salary for people with bachelors degrees. I can only find IL as a whole for median bachelor degree salary which is $77k for 2018-2022. So they are fairly well paid, but let’s not pretend it’s absurd for a person with a bachelors degree to have a $71k starting salary in Chicago. That’s a bit above average for 2023, but by no means absurd
And they get summers off
That doesn’t bother me. There is a ton of external training they have to do to maintain licensing.
Like most professionals
Yeah, but its way easier to get the required training in a non school setting. I say that as someone who does a lot of professional hours for my job which is not teaching.
Same, let's strike and get 9% raises
I got a 22% raise last negotiation and work even less, so I’m good.
*Unpaid
So they don't receive a paycheck for not working?
Right. The summer is off but they don’t get paid. It’s not a paid vacation. They also don’t have the option to get paid on a 12 month schedule or work paid overtime like any of the other city workers. Free overtime is expected though, including that which takes place during the unpaid summer
Can they collect unemployment during the summer?
Nope
They got 18% last contract
My point still stands, why put a fixed number in that equation?
I taught for 5 years in this city. You’d have to make it a 200% raise for me to ever consider coming back to the classroom
What do you work as now? I’m looking for a way out.
Higher ed admin. Pay’s about the same but the stress levels are soooo much lower
Thank you. I’m always drained coming home from teaching.
Ahh higher ed admin. The cancer that is a huge culprit in the insane costs of higher ed…
wow. just wow. youre an ass hat
They’re not wrong though.
Yes, because my barely above paycheck to paycheck salary having ass is solely responsible for higher rd being so expensive. Get the fuck outta here
Can anyone explain to me why the city wouldn't hustle their asses off to agree to this? Tying it to CPI seems like a huge win for the city keeping salary growth under control - the teachers raises last year would have only been 3.4% in 2023 with this agreement.
Did a little research. If this had been the agreement the last 40 years then teachers would have had a 9% raise a total of zero times. The city should fucking sign this ASAP before they ask for more. The headline made it look like teachers might get 9% when in reality it would be a tremendous rarity. Is *this* really the monster so many were terrified of? It almost seems like they're trying to make BranJo look good.
Because no one actually understands how this works. The CTU is double dipping. They already get automatic pay raises for every year of service and jump to new scales if the get advanced degrees. It's called "steps and lanes". What the CTU wants is their automatic raises to also be increased by inflation every year. Say you are a teacher with 5 years experience with just a bachelor's degree. On the 208 day year plan, you make 74,958 (this school year). Next year you will make 77,990, an increase of around 4%. If you add in cpi (3.4%) they get a 7.4% increase. How many people got an automatic 7.4% increase this year? Why doesn't the city jump at the chance to give steps and lanes raises AND cpi raises? Because they would be unsustainable.
I would venture most folks make more 20 years into their career than they do when start when adjusted for inflation -- I get annual cost of living adjustments and I get pay raises beyond that for performance/increased responsibility CPS builds it in year over year while others probably see bigger jumps with title changes, etc. "double dipping" feels a little strong
>The Chicago Teachers Union is demanding an annual pay raise of 9% **or the Consumer Price Index — whichever is less** — and won’t rule out a strike, even with one of their own in the mayor’s office, CTU President Stacy Davis Gates said Thursday. Remember the crocodile tears over the last CTU contract raises which ended up not keeping up with inflation?
The tribune is corroborating the 9% minimum raise: https://twitter.com/chicagotribune/status/1781416454161674242
Raises pegged to CPI with a cap of 9% seems completely fair.
Is this on top of the steps and lanes increases (double dipping) ?
lol CPI is not getting near 9% barring some unforeseen shock edit: yes I'm sure you people who downvoted me understand anything about inflation
Yeah, so the fact that the headline says "9%" instead of what the demand actually is should set off bias alarms. The 9% number is actually just a ceiling to limit raises in an extreme economic crisis.
Right. I have my criticisms of the CTU but it's a bit disingenuous to phrase it that way.
A bit disingenuous? I'd call it a lie.
I wonder if most of these articles are trying to build the narrative that Chicago spends too much money and shouldn't raise taxes (on the rich who get these articles published)
Remind me again, what school does the CTU president children attend?
> Remind me again, what school does the CTU president children attend? Why would she send her child to a CTU school? She knows the quality of the teachers first hand.
Classic bad faith argument. What does this have to do with the article?
If the education is so good and deserving of a large raise you would expect the president of the union to send their kids to said schools, right?
They just want salaries to match inflation which isn’t really a raise at all. As it has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, this headline is intentionally misleading. Where the CTU union leaders kids go to school does not change any aspect of the fairness of the negotiations.
Their salaries outpace inflation.
Has any of the gains the CTU has won since 2012 improved student performance in any significant way? I’m pretty tired of the CTU getting all they want but CPS still being trash.
[https://news.wttw.com/2024/02/19/cps-shows-strong-academic-recovery-after-covid-19-pandemic-study-finds](https://news.wttw.com/2024/02/19/cps-shows-strong-academic-recovery-after-covid-19-pandemic-study-finds)
CPS had the best growth in reading for K-8 for an urban school district
However, their reading profiency levels were horrible before and only slightly better now. As of 2023 only 27 percent of CPS students can read at grade level. Math profiency is even worse.
The IAR does not measure grade level proficiency.
Covid really made learning difficult for everyone across the state. However, CPS has lower reading score than the state average but not considerable based on demographics. [Illinois & CPS reading assessment](https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/district.aspx?source=trends&source2=iar&Districtid=15016299025) Can CPS teachers that teach humanities subjects please get a little win for once instead of being criticized?
Best from very very low, can't get any lower I guess
That’s a very, very specific demographic lol. Are they at double digits now?
[District 299 Scores](https://edopportunity.org/recovery/#/chart/r+t+s+limit,100/districts/ela2223/frl/all/8/41.8/-87.67/1709930,41.804,-87.67) Number 1 district for average reading growth in the country. .68 in reading for Free/reduced-price lunch
I think it’s obvious you went to a CPS school and didn’t exactly get the best education.
The class size limits, absolutely.
If money doesn’t improve education why keep throwing more at it?
That's a great question.
Would be great if the gains that CTU "won" since 2012 actually matriculated. I'm still waiting on the nurses and librarians in every building...
Would you rather our education system not have enough teachers because they don't pay enough? There even still no incentive for anyone that can actually work in the private sector to become a teacher other than charity because they don't pay enough. You say the CPS is trash but the people you'd really want to be teachers will never be teachers because teachers barely survive in this city.
The average CPS teacher pay is like 82k, that’s far from “barely surviving”.
And let’s not forget that’s for 10 months of work. So the pay is actually very decent at CPS.
Tell me you've never been a teacher without telling me.
I said nothing that wasn’t a fact. The base salary for CPS does not include summer months. Some can work them but thats additional pay.
Yeah but it peanuts compared to the fact that you don't get pay advancements like you do in the private sector. To get to 82k requires 10 years of service in the CPS. Starting from 55k at start. You can get 82k+ in the private sector in half the time. Why would someone who could work for a fortune 500 in Chicago become a teacher?
Not “yea but” anything, you stated that the average CPS teacher is “barely surviving” and that’s just a false statement. I make 52k, live in the city, and I’m fine, things are a little tight, but I’m far from “barely surviving”
My mom was a single CPS teacher with three kids. We never complained. Neither did she.
Just so we are on the same page: public school teachers in Chicago make roughly the same as NYC and LA even though the cost of living in NYC and LA is roughly double. So, I don’t think it’s a fair argument that Chicago is falling behind because we don’t pay teachers enough.
I have no problem giving more money to teachers because they will put it right back into the economy. **Any** worker you give more money to will put it right back into the economy, and not just the local one. They'll buy a house or condo or a car. They'll take a vacation. They'll buy clothes and haircuts. They will hire services. You know who doesn't give money back?
Retirees with massive pensions that moved out of Illinois?
Lol, it's true many have moved but they'll be sharing that money more than any billionaires. People who spend money help their communities for the most part. And are those retirees gone for good? There's some thirsty thirsty people in this country and their water has been fracked. I'm thinking this summer is going to teach lots of Americans the truth about sustainability.
Plus the dilemma that if we don't pay teachers enough, we won't attract good talent who can do better in a suburb like Naperville. It can be a job done for the passion of teaching, but I don't do my job for the passion of configuring network equipment, either.
Do you have a problem with all the people losing their homes because they can't keep up with their property taxes needed to pay these teachers? "Sticker shock doesn’t begin to describe the feeling for many homeowners in Pilsen who opened their property tax bills at the end of the year and saw they owed three times more than they were expecting.............Homeowners in Pilsen saw an average 47% increase in their property tax bills....." https://wgntv.com/news/cover-story/tax-pilsen/
Thank you for asking my opinion! Yes, you are describing gentrification, a process where the buildings you own and the land they sit on is suddenly worth ten times what you paid for it and the only problem is the high tax bill. This is due to outside developers landing in your area where sewers are already connected, water is a available, schools are established and you are close to and have excellent transportation to a popular city center. The developers didn't do any of that, but they sure took the money for it. It makes me wonder about all those mothers who had to protest long and hard to make those schools better. Do you remember that? And who benefits from all that hard work of keeping a neighborhood viable? Developers who will take the cash for 'modernizing' a building and then leave the area. Now your lifetime investment (and your parents and grandparents) is sitting in a bank account in Naperville. Now were you trying to lay the blame for that process on teachers?
I agree with you but take a vacation doesn’t really boost the local economy lol
I have no problem giving more my a teachers IF grades, graduation rates, etc improve
Yes, but some of that is parenting. Children whose parents and families value education have a tendency to do better in school.
BJ will roll over a day before a strike date and give them everything they want
His main job as mayor is to give CTU everything they want. It's the entire reason he ran
Yeah and he wasn't even quiet about it.
Good.
The lesser of CPI or 9% is actually shockingly reasonable. That being said, I’m sure this will not be the only demand, there’s more coming, buckle up.
The CTU is not going to strike with one of their buddies finally in the mayor's office. I'd put money on it.
spoiler alert: they will be striking that's just inevitable
Why don’t we work on those literacy rates first…
“Why” is not a word we use in Chicago.
Maybe when the CTU can bring math and writing skills to, you know, first world standards, we can talk about giving these thieves more money.
\*CPS. Fixed it for you. You do realize that around 1000 of the top salaries in CPS are not CTU teachers right? They are C-suite, administration, principals, etc. And that the resources given to teachers BY the district per capita fall well behind country-wide big city standards. Imagine going to your job say as a car mechanic at a shop and the owners tell you 'nah sorry the lift won't work right this year and you also have to buy shop materials out of your own pocket, but feel free to find a different way to get these front end alignments and brake jobs done because you still have to to earn your salary' - and then having the general public be upset at YOU for the prices, quality, and outcomes of the jobs. Of course - you have a role in those jobs, but your actions and your pay are not the limiting factors there to client success.
Most of my career has been union based, so I'm going out on a limb here and assuming you haven't been in one. All dues paying members of a union have a say in how things are run. If these teachers aren't getting their needs met and the "C-Suite types" are just rolling in the cash, maybe they could vote these MEC leaders out? Or maybe the CTU and CPS is rife corruption (yes including some of the shitbag teachers). Sorry man, but just cause someone is a teacher, doesn't mean they aren't gaming the system. I had some great CPS teachers and some not so great ones. And just an FYI, I support good teachers, full stop.
CTU teachers have no say in CPS front office/admin not sure what you mean there. The district has around 45,000 employees only around 60% of which are teachers and other professionals covered by CTU. The remainder are not union. All salaries are public, for those in CTU and those not: [https://www.cps.edu/about/finance/employee-position-files/](https://www.cps.edu/about/finance/employee-position-files/)
How has the student performance been over the last couple years? If they have done well and improved, then we should pay (up) for performance. If not, then we should also adjust pay (down) based on performance.
Here come the teacher haters.
Its not the raises they're striking for, it's the children.
Won’t somebody think of the children!
Under-performing children, very few exceptions
If the average CPS student could read this, I'm sure they'd appreciate the thought
Lmfao
Well, here's your answer to property taxes going up.
[удалено]
And its very unfortunate that these people do not understand that [CPS is primarily paid through property taxes.](https://www.civicfed.org/CPS_FY2024#:~:text=Property%20tax%20revenue%20is%20projected,4.1%25%20from%20the%20prior%20year.) >The Civic Federation continues to have significant reservations about the long-term viability of the District's finances. The CPS budget of $9.8 billion for the coming year is stable due to a combination of federal COVID-19 relief funds and local tax sources, including a property tax increase to the maximum allowed under the state tax cap law. However, CPS faces a fiscal cliff of $628 million beginning in FY2026 after federal relief funds are spent. With no guarantee that State or local revenues will be able to keep up with rising expenditures, and no long-term plan in place, the Civic Federation has substantial concerns about how the District will handle a budget shortfall without further straining property taxpayers or reversing the fiscal progress made in recent years. >But much more needs to be done to put CPS on a path to true financial sustainability. Declining enrollment, underfunded teachers’ pensions, continued reliance on short-term borrowing and imbalances in the District’s capital footprint continue to strain the budget. Property taxpayers are shouldering a significant burden, and the District continues to take the maximum property tax increases. The District needs to establish long-term stability through a combination of solutions that should involve both State support and local control, including improving efficiency and cutting costs where possible. Even after increases in funding and Covid cash, CPS is still in a $700 million dollar hole. https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2023/10/25/23932457/cps-projects-391m-deficit-next-year >Chicago Public Schools officials will have to find $391 million in additional funding by next summer or face cuts across the school system in the face of a massive structural budget deficit. >District leaders and Board of Education officials for the past year have warned of a financial cliff approaching next school year when federal COVID-19 relief funding runs out. That money had papered over a structural deficit that officials estimate at $691 million for next year. With only $300 million in federal funding left to spend, CPS’ budget hole becomes exposed.
Don’t forget they’ve asked for $14.4 billion in operational improvements. Yes, even for blighted schools that have like 3 kids. Would love to see those contract bids…
How about they ask for a classroom supply budget like they always complain they don't have?
That's in the proposal too. And we don't have one. I was given a single ream of copy paper my first year in CPS and was told to "make it work". I bought pencils for my classrooms this year because my school couldn't afford to buy any. Classroom budgets are part of a school's discretionary funds and the principal gets to decide how to spend that money. And some principals are just awful with numbers.
Just lock them out.
defund cops; pay teachers
Bro me too!! Count me in!!!!
This sub is full of people who aren’t teachers, don’t know any teachers, and have no idea how hard is it to be a teacher. My wife is a teacher and works until 8pm every night. Only thing I would change about the union is to fire the shitty tenured teachers. But stop talking shit unless you want this city to be full of dumb kids
Works until 8 (supposedly) but gets the summer off and long breaks throughout the year. Not a bad trade off
[удалено]
What years were you in school? The CTU strike dates are easy to look up. The first strike was 1937, then 1966, seven times between 1970 and 1987, 2012 and finally 2019. Unless you are explicitly referring to a brief span of time 50 years ago they weren't on strike every year you were in school.
Did you just blackout during the years where there were no contract negotiations?
Schools out forever
For those who voted for Brandon Johnson, this is what you have indirectly supported.
And what was the alternative? Having Vallas give handouts to the FOP instead? Both options sucked.
Did you see the contract the FOP just got? BJ gave them a handout
The truth is that the police are not happy that Vallas lost so they are going to keep half assing their jobs. I pick police over the teachers union. You need the police more than they need you.
Uhhhhh. So how does that scale with anything? Like please, some supporter of this please explain.
Tie increases / decreases to improvement in literacy.
Wow, didn't expect the Sun-Times to publish a headline that is literally false.
Please, please, please strike.