The idea of just getting up and leaving, and that this is somehow so easy, is simply not the case with so many people.
For one, there's the leaving of family and friends in many cases. For another there's often a loss of some pay and sometimes benefits, plus risks at having less seniority at one's new job. For another, moving is quite expensive and may be beyond what many families can afford. And then there's the effect on the kids-- and it's the kids that education is about.
Your statement "That doesn't mean your employer has to pay whatever you demand" is really quite a strawman since that's simply not how negotiations work. Generally speaking, no one usually comes out with all they would like to have.
But there's more, in that which model does one prefer: an authoritarian one or a democratic one? If the workers don't work, no work gets done and the company fails if that were to continue, hurting both labor and management. Therefore, there's incentive on both sides to work out some sort of agreement, and this is how a "democratic model" works.
The "authoritarian model", however, is pretty much dictatorial by its nature. For a ma & pa operation, that can work out in many cases quite well for all parties since the owners tend to personally know their employees and bonds are often created that encourages empathy between the parties. But on a much larger scale, these bonds and the personal empathy tends to wane or be almost entirely absent. You're simply a number to the owners of a large company or to the CEO in a corporation-- that's all. Eliminating you is a piece of cake with no sweat off their brow because they don't know you from Sam Hill. And I have worked under both conditions over my 73 years, and the atmosphere between the two is simply not the same.
In education, "where the rubber meets the road" is the teacher/student relationship. This is where the work really gets done because without the teacher or without the student there would be no need for the educational system because little to no education would be taking place. So, how is it fair in any way that those whom are actually doing most of the work to somehow to be treated as if they were merely a machine?
How does it make any sense whatsoever that the teachers would have no say in a system as such? or even the students as well? Are they just to be pawns for the administrators even though it is they, not the administration, that is doing most of the "grunt work" in the classroom where the real action is? After all, the teachers are the educators here, and it is their bond with their students that is so very essential.
So, which do you prefer: the "authoritarian model" or the "democratic model"? If it's the former with you, we'll never agree on this and quite a few other things that can be related to these two models.
You make some good points, and I've noticed this in both the public and private sector. Those who are in administrative posts invariably take the lion's share of compensation compared to the people who are actually in the trenches and doing all the actual work. Here in TUSD, a former superintendent was criticized for hiring four administrative assistants, each earning in excess of $100,000 per year. And yet, when it comes time to pay the teachers, they plead poverty and claim they don't have enough money for decent compensation.
A private sector example might be hospitals, where administrators (who aren't doctors and don't treat patients) earn several times more than the doctors and nurses who are actually treating the patients and doing the work. Insurance company CEOs get even more money, which would indicate that they're at the top of the food chain in that industry.
Akivah is correct in that people can always walk away and go someplace else. People do it all the time. For some, it might be a struggle, but either way, the consequences of myopia and being pennywise and pound foolish will visit us just the same.
I think we're already seeing the consequences of a badly-managed and neglected educational system. But it's also uneven, so it may not be visible from some areas. I know that in America, some districts in affluent areas are well-funded, with supportive parents who care about their children's education. As a result, those schools are top-notch and are on par with any of the top schools in the industrialized world.
But in the less affluent areas, that's not the case. So, when it all averages out, it makes it look like America is lagging behind the rest of the world in education.
A lot of Arizona is pretty depressed, economically speaking. A few years ago, Tucson was noted as the 6th poorest city in America. (30-40 years ago, there were high hopes that we were going to experience a great boom in high-tech industries moving into the city, which never really materialized as they hoped it would.) Many of the school buildings are in sad shape. A lot of boarded up stores and vacant properties. The roads are in terrible condition - potholes and rough patches everywhere. Some areas are still nice, but a lot of the outlying rural areas are in even worse shape.
The politics are corrupt. Everyone seems to have some axe to grind or some personal agenda, and it seems to be even worse when it comes to school board squabbles. I remember many years ago when there was some kind of intractable dispute on the local community college board of governors. I don't remember all the details, but it was one of the most bizarre episodes of political infighting and intrigue within a political body, with the local media covering it play by play. There's something about Arizona which produces colorful politicians, even at the local level.
I'm not sure what's going to happen with this strike. I don't think compromise will be easy, as both sides seem pretty set in their positions. Public opinion seems mixed. Even among teachers, they're not all of one like mind on this. They all agree that teachers should earn more, but some don't believe a strike is the way to go about it. Others also questioned the timing of the strike, just a few weeks before the end of the school year.
