In Chicago an interesting dynamic is occurring as I write. The ultra left city administration is in a contract dispute with the radical left teachers’ union. Strangely, we have a situation where the administration is unable to pay its current obligations and the union is unable to teach the children. Both are failing miserably, yet both proclaim the moral high ground. Regardless of the outcome, the teachers will at least receive an unearned pay increase and the city will incur additional unpaid debt. The union will likely get a promise of additional support staff and reduction in class sizes. I’m not at all sure what the housing demand is about but it surely will be expensive and it does seem that the union is brokering to get deeper into the city’s business. If the city and federal and state agencies can’t afford to provide cheaper housing to new teachers, the poor, and homeless now, how would they ever expect it to happen just because it’s promised in writing? Whatever. Both will claim that a fair and balanced agreement was met. The losers have been and will continue to be the tax payers and the students. What does the future hold? The Chicago student population continues to decrease at what should be an alarming rate and upper middle and upper income home owners (property tax payers) are leaving just as fast. The city will go deeper into debt and a greater numbers of students will graduate high school neither prepared to succeed in college nor survive in a competitive economy.
So, what’s the difference what the city promises? If it can’t pay for the current education system, it doesn’t matter if it contracts for more obligations it won’t fulfill. Give the union what it wants. Promise it all, then ignore it.
It's Elementary My Dear. . . 