[BonzoHansen]

I want to interject here as now I've seen the term used numerous times. FWIW if you agree to open a contract and agree to changes, that is not breaking a contract. Like when the MLBPA finally allowed drug testing. They opened the contract, MLB did not break it. If your union is using that term shame on them for incorrect and hostile rhetoric.

How the renegotiation goes is the job of the union negotiator. WW-P (IIRC) teachers agreed to pay freeze in exchange for no layoff clause. It can be done. If a union negotiator opened a contract mid term and allowed a pay freeze w/o job protection you have a giant gripe with the union. They failed - that is the job teachers pay them $700+ annually to perform. I'd take the union to task. I get the sense few teachers would do that.

Good teachers should make $100,000. I honestly believe that. When the teachers agree to help purge the crappy teachers I'd be all ears. But while they remain protected to a fault I have some trouble making that argument. Doing a job for 20 years does not entitle you to more money. Doing it well for 20 years does. That is generally how it works in the real world.

I personally did not get into teaching because of the salary. I knew that in college. I've always thought it was one of those jobs that was done for "the right reasons", not cash. I like cash more. I would like the hours (as I prepare for my weekly Thursday night conference call). I enjoyed my time as an adjunct prof at TCNJ and if it weren't for a mortgage & a baby I would have gotten my PHd and become a college prof. I researched it for weeks. Teaching is personally rewarding. But in a public school or a even in college if your specialty is not in short supply, it is not terrible rewarding financially.