Chicago teachers strike puts politics first, kids last

Union demands would cost Chicago taxpayers more than $1.1 billion over three years. Lightfoot’s proposal would cost only $216 million. To put that in perspective, the typical Chicago homeowner could see their property tax bill rise by at least $235 next year if the Chicago Teachers Union’s demands were funded completely by property taxes. Lightfoot’s offer would only cost the typical taxpayer $13 on their property tax bill.

So, why is the union hell bent on canceling class? The strike certainly doesn’t help students. Research shows that teachers strikes can permanently harm educational achievement for affected students. Perhaps this is why Chicago is an outlier among major cities, with teachers explicitly allowed to strike under state law.

More and more, the Chicago Teachers Union’s decision to strike appears to be a power play intended to establish dominance over a new mayor.

The union backed Lightfoot’s opponent Toni Preckwinkle for mayor of Chicago, donating nearly $300,000 to her campaign in 2019. But Lightfoot won, throwing the union’s plans into turmoil.

Even after the mayor offered the Chicago Teachers Union a generous contract, including raises and new hires, union leadership walked away. Here’s what they’re holding out for: The union wants less instruction time in the elementary and middle schools, 55 additional “community schools,” more than 4,000 new support staff, and a reduction in police positions at the schools to be replaced by other support staff positions.

The union also wants the school district to help new teachers buy homes and demands a moratorium on school closures for the next 10 years, regardless of whether declining student population or economic factors require it. Mass hiring and school building inflexibility make little sense, especially when you consider that student enrollment in Chicago Public Schools has dropped significantly in recent years, from 395,079 students in 2014 to 372,214 in 2018.

Teachers are also demanding Chicago Public Schools reduce their health insurance premium contributions and increase average pay to $91,407 from $78,961 in just three years — a salary increase of 15%. That’s despite Lightfoot’s willingness to go along with the fact finder’s recommendation to increase health insurance premiums by 1% and salary by 16% over five years, which would have increased the average teacher pay to $89,666.

And union demands don’t stop at the school district level. The union’s offer also dictates what legislative efforts the school district should support, and it mandates that the school district “ensure” the city uses certain funds for affordable housing units.

All of this is a result of Illinois’s legal landscape, which gives teachers unions immense power over taxpayers, including the ability to walk out on strike.

That isn’t the case for most school districts in the United States. Teachers strikes are illegal in eight of the top 10 largest school districts. And while strikes have occurred in Los Angeles, the second-largest school district, there is no statutory allowance for strikes in California.

That makes the Chicago Teachers Union the outlier, with state law sanctioning teacher strikes.

The union’s political maneuvering has serious implications for Chicago families. Families are stuck scrambling for child care to avoid missing work. They also have to wonder: Can we afford to stay in a city where each taxpayer is liable for $119,110 in debt, or should we move on?

The Chicago Teachers Union leadership doesn’t seem to understand this math. It’s more concerned about political clout, no matter the human cost.

Mailee Smith is a staff attorney and director of labor policy for the Illinois Policy Institute.