Bellevue teacher's strike... (Seattle, Marysville: day care, buying, school district)

[70Ford]

Washington law prohibits teacher strikes to protect the critical function of education.

Editorials & Opinion | Don't strike, teachers | Seattle Times Newspaper

We live in interesting times. If you don't send your kids to school, you're breaking the law. If teachers don't teach, they are also breaking the law.

In effect, they are teaching something by not teaching at all. My kids watched this with me on the news last night and they are confused. I've thought on it for a few minutes and I wonder to myself... ...

...

I see the teachers are saying it is because of the curriculum. A worthy goal to fight for, in my opinion. Then I flip it and think to myself..."IF they were being paid 150K a year to teach, would this be a problem?" Or is this simply a way to obfuscate the REAL reason...that simply,

You can't make it in Bellevue on 40K a year.

Local News | No school in Bellevue as teachers go on strike | Seattle Times Newspaper

Washington Compulsory Education Laws - WA Compulsory Education Laws - State Laws, Codes

[70Ford]

For first-year teachers, Bellevue offers the second-highest pay rate in the state — only Marysville pays more. But teachers say they need an increase because the cost of living in Bellevue is much higher than in Marysville.

Local News | Bellevue: Another bargaining day without resolution | Seattle Times Newspaper


**************************
Because...hey.....if you choose to live in an expensive part of town, you obviously deserve more money.

Umm...that makes about as much sense as a goldfish teaching ninja techniques to golden marmosets.... while quoting Shakespeare.

http://www.brandywinezoo.org/images/tamarins.jpg

[jenlion]

Can't believe I'm saying this, but.... I think I kinda agree with 70Ford.

[obsidian97]

Um.

By your logic 70Ford, if I can find someone somewhere else in the world that can do your job from where they live, then it'd be silly insane for me not to lay you off immediately and outsource your position to lower costs. Just because you chose to do your job someplace with a higher cost of living than someone, someplace else is willing to accept, why should I pay you to do it? If you happen to have a job that can't be outsourced because you have to physically be somewhere to do it, then congratulations. I hope you can afford to live close enough to where your customers are.

If the taxpayers can afford to live there, why is it that they can't afford to pay the people who provide them critical services enough to live there (or reasonably close by)? Where do you suggest we build the "teachers/firefighters/police" slum for Bellevue?

Note, that schools basically perform two important functions: warehousing and self-improvement through learning.

How many people are complaining about the fact that the strike is horrible because poor Timmy just can't wait to learn the quadratic equation. Err... basically none.

Which brings me to that first function that people don't like to talk about, but is a critical aspect of our culture: what are we going to do with poor Timmy all day while his parents are off working where he won't be a bother to the community and an interruption to the economy (until he's ready to enter the work force). Want to get more parents involved in the education of their children? Tell them that if Timmy doesn't get at least a 'C' average (or better, whatever you like) that they'll start being billed for the true cost of providing their child a place to hang out all day instead.

Oh, poor Timmy, what are we going to do with you all day?

That's what people are complaining about.

Sure, parents are getting stuck in between those who control taxes and the teachers who provide cheap daycare to their children. What other leverage would you suggest teachers realistically have other than to strike? Nobody is going to care if they strike when school is out.

BTW- I fully know that my argument, by extension, can create some really stupid crazy scenarios too. I'm pretty certain neither one of us is 100% right. Life's messy.

[RobertLCrocker]

I say give all the money back to the parents and let them start their own schools.

[70Ford]

Originally Posted by obsidian97

Um.

By your logic 70Ford, if I can find someone somewhere else in the world that can do your job from where they live, then it'd be silly insane for me not to lay you off immediately and outsource your position to lower costs. Just because you chose to do your job someplace with a higher cost of living than someone, someplace else is willing to accept, why should I pay you to do it? If you happen to have a job that can't be outsourced because you have to physically be somewhere to do it, then congratulations. I hope you can afford to live close enough to where your customers are.

If the taxpayers can afford to live there, why is it that they can't afford to pay the people who provide them critical services enough to live there (or reasonably close by)? Where do you suggest we build the "teachers/firefighters/police" slum for Bellevue?

Note, that schools basically perform two important functions: warehousing and self-improvement through learning.

How many people are complaining about the fact that the strike is horrible because poor Timmy just can't wait to learn the quadratic equation. Err... basically none.

Which brings me to that first function that people don't like to talk about, but is a critical aspect of our culture: what are we going to do with poor Timmy all day while his parents are off working where he won't be a bother to the community and an interruption to the economy (until he's ready to enter the work force). Want to get more parents involved in the education of their children? Tell them that if Timmy doesn't get at least a 'C' average (or better, whatever you like) that they'll start being billed for the true cost of providing their child a place to hang out all day instead.

Oh, poor Timmy, what are we going to do with you all day?

That's what people are complaining about.

Sure, parents are getting stuck in between those who control taxes and the teachers who provide cheap daycare to their children. What other leverage would you suggest teachers realistically have other than to strike? Nobody is going to care if they strike when school is out.

BTW- I fully know that my argument, by extension, can create some really stupid crazy scenarios too. I'm pretty certain neither one of us is 100% right. Life's messy.

But teachers say they need an increase because the cost of living in Bellevue is much higher than in Marysville.


Umm... teacher's logic, I think.

I read it as them saying that simply because they live in an expensive area, they need more money. The argument doesn't make any sense to me.

That's like me buying a 1.2 million dollar home, while making 30K a year, and then striking for more money, because , hey - I need more money.
They are striking because they can't afford to support their lifestyle and where they choose to live. Should taxpayers pay for their expensive decisions? I'm tired of paying for other people's lifestyle choices. I understand they need more money. I just don't understand why they deserve more than the teacher that lives in Marysville. Is the Marysville teacher not worth the same? Why? Because they chose to live in Marysville?
**************
P.S. Good point about striking when no one is in school. Like I told my wife...this doesn't hurt the kids. They will extend the school year. This hurts the parents (i.e. the day care you mentioned) and parents can turn this into a pressure cooker situation pretty fast.

[obsidian97]

Originally Posted by 70Ford

But teachers say they need an increase because the cost of living in Bellevue is much higher than in Marysville.

Umm... teacher's logic, I think.

I read it as them saying that simply because they live in an expensive area, they need more money. The argument doesn't make any sense to me.

That's like me buying a 1.2 million dollar home, while making 30K a year, and then striking for more money, because , hey - I need more money.
They are striking because they can't afford to support their lifestyle and where they choose to live. Should taxpayers pay for their expensive decisions? I'm tired of paying for other people's lifestyle choices. I understand they need more money. I just don't understand why they deserve more than the teacher that lives in Marysville. Is the Marysville teacher not worth the same? Why? Because they chose to live in Marysville? [quote]

I'd be willing to bet that most of the teachers are not new to the district. They haven't gone on strike in something like 20+ years either. We all know that the cost of living most places has been going up.

I believe the analogy that is being used is that you shouldn't pay a teacher in a high-cost area (by the way, the teachers aren't the ones who made the cost of living in this area high, people like me who moved in from somewhere else did) the same wage as a teacher in a low cost area. The argument being that you should pay them in accordance to the cost of living in the general area in which they are working/living.

My point is that the people of Bellevue should evaluate the teacher's request based on the service that they expect to receive for what they're paying, and not based off of what the teachers do with that pay. That's a very slippery slope, and a standard that we rarely hold ourselves to.

[Ira500]

In the private sector, money is one of the motivating factors that help a company lure the people they want. The Bellevue School district has long been considered very good, and it's good to have a mixture of people living in a town. Do you want a place where only wealthy professionals live? Some cities subsidize the housing of firefighters and police so they can live in the city. Should teachers be in that category too, or is what they do not essential?

[allforcats]

Originally Posted by 70Ford

... a goldfish teaching ninja techniques to golden marmosets....

You had me at "golden marmosets"
I'm still transfixed by this magical image.....

[obsidian97]

Well, it seems there's an agreement on everything but pay increases.

Gee, apparently this was really about pay increases.