Chicago Sun-Times: All posts by emartin2014-08-27T02:20:01-05:00https://chicago.suntimes.com/authors/emartin/rss2014-08-27T02:20:01-05:002019-05-10T15:21:49-05:00Can Karen Lewis guard the henhouse? - Chicago
<p>Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, is clearly preparing to run for mayor of Chicago — filing the necessary forms with the State Board of Elections, circulating petitions to get on the ballot and meeting with community groups.</p><p>If elected next spring, one of Lewis’ first big jobs as mayor would be to negotiate a new contract with the CTU.</p><p>Does anybody think that’s a job Karen Lewis could do?</p><p>The current contract between Chicago and the CTU is a three-year deal that expires at the end of June 2015. The next contract will be hugely important to both the city and the teachers. Chicago’s is the third largest school district in the country. Roughly 350,000 children attend Chicago’s traditional public schools. About 32,000 teachers, retirees and other paraprofessionals are members of the CTU.</p><p>Three years ago, the average compensation of Chicago teachers, then $76,000, put them among the highest-paid teachers in the country. The current contract increased that compensation by 7 percent over the three-year term. Moreover, the step and lane system was preserved, so teachers earn more as their seniority increases.</p><p>The next round of contract negotiations, in 2015, will include not only salaries, but also details of the step and lane system, benefits, the school calendar (days, holidays and minutes of teaching per day), teacher evaluations, student testing and other potentially explosive topics.</p><p>Issues between Chicago and the CTU extend beyond renegotiating the contract. Chicago’s fiscal future depends on its ability to reform its various pension systems going forward. Other legislative controversies arise in Springfield from time to time to create additional tensions.</p><p>Negotiating the new agreement with the CTU will necessarily involve arm-wrestling over many dozens of important provisions. At the core of all these issues are questions critical to Chicago’s future: How to improve student learning; and how to control costs — and limit the tax burden on Chicago’s citizens.</p><p>Could the head of the teachers union — not just Lewis but any CTU head — move to the other side of the bargaining table and vigorously represent the interests of all the people of Chicago — school families, citizens and taxpayers — in these negotiations?</p><p><a class="Link" href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/martin/29402997-452/can-karen-lewis-guard-the-henhouse.html#.U_3MNkjPo8A" target="_blank" >CONTINUE READING AT SUNTIMES.COM</a><br></p>
https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2014/8/27/18565317/can-karen-lewis-guard-the-henhouseemartin2014-05-14T13:09:26-05:002019-05-11T09:21:03-05:00Even after reform, pension debt will require tax hikes - Chicago
<p>The real issue in this year’s race for the Illinois governorship is not whether to reduce property taxes, or whether to let the “temporary” component of the income tax expire.</p><p>Reducing property taxes would leave Chicago with even less ability to fund its pensions. Letting the “temporary” income tax component expire would leave Illinois in the same situation. Either of those steps would take us in the wrong direction.</p><p>Reform and funding go hand in hand. Assume for the moment that the state pension reform law is upheld in court, and that the deal Mayor Emanuel has made with two Chicago pension funds is also signed into law and upheld. Suppose he makes other similar deals with respect to the other Chicago pension funds. Toss in the supposition that Bruce Rauner’s proposed switch to “defined contribution” plans — a good idea — were also somehow enacted and sustained.</p><p><a class="Link" href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/martin/27440924-452/even-after-reform-pension-debt-will-require-tax-hikes.html#.U3Pgu-vMLgo" target="_blank" >CONTINUE READING AT SUNTIMES.COM</a><br></p>
https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2014/5/14/18589131/even-after-reform-pension-debt-will-require-tax-hikesemartin2014-01-08T11:22:59-06:002019-05-09T11:30:29-05:00$10 minimum wage in Illinois? Why stop there? - Chicago
<p>Gov. Pat Quinn, running for re-election in 2014, reportedly will make his main campaign theme the need for more income equality in Illinois. Specifically, he will call for an increase in the minimum wage from $8.25 to $10.00 per hour.</p><p>Some skeptics have suggested that this is just a political gimmick — that the governor is only seeking to play on the basic, normal instincts of voters: greed and envy. They say his position is designed to appeal to the self-interest of those now earning less than $10 per hour, and to twang the strings of jealousy on the part of those who are not multi-millionaire or billionaire fund managers or bankers.</p><p>But I think we should give Gov. Quinn credit for being serious. The only problem I have with his position is — as the kids might say in the cute TV ad — isn’t “more” equality better than “less”?</p><p>Why stop at $10 per hour when fund managers and bankers make a lot more than that? If an individual were to earn the new minimum wage and work 40 hours for 50 weeks a year, that would come to only $20,000. That’s only an itsy-bitsy step in the direction of equality.</p><p>Also, why should the only workers who get the benefit of the new minimum wage be those now earning less than $10 per hour? What about the folks who make $10.50 or even $15, which is only $30,000 per year — hardly equal to the earnings of average Republican bankers. (Or even the Democrat banker.)</p><p>Does anyone really think that one tenth — or one twentieth — represents true equality? Would anyone be satisfied if Chicago school children received a public education that was only one tenth or one twentieth as good as that afforded children in richer suburban schools?</p><p>But back to the minimum wage. Republicans object to the increase, saying that if the wage were increased to $10, many employers wouldn’t be able to afford it: they would simply shut down — or let many of their workers go. They’re right that higher costs might tempt employers to fire some workers. But the answer is not to oppose the increase. Instead, Quinn should write into the minimum wage law that current employees cannot be fired just because the jobs have become unaffordable. And they shouldn’t be permitted to move the jobs out of state either. If they do, the directors should be held liable.</p><p>Republican economists point out that increasing wages will mean increasing costs of production, which will lead to higher prices for the goods and services people buy. So what? Consumers already bear (through the prices they pay) the burden of production costs. Why should higher wages be any different?</p><p>Republicans — big corporations, banks, beer distributors — they all use government laws and regulations to extract economic advantages for themselves. Those higher costs are borne by consumers. Until we root out all the costly legal and regulatory advantages they’ve created, why should poorer workers be the only ones prevented from passing on higher costs to consumers?</p><p>If Quinn’s correct that income equality is right and inequality wrong, then why not make it 50 bucks per hour?</p><p>While we’re at it, we should throw in free CTA rides for seniors.<br></p>
https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2014/1/8/18558663/10-minimum-wage-in-illinois-why-stop-thereemartin