I am posting this announcement of the strike and the reasons for it by Chicago Teacher's Union (CTU) President Karen Lewis simply because mainstream media never covers the union's point of view on strikes. They only cover any negative aspects of strikes such as inconvenience to the public, some sensational incident related to the strike, and testimonies from people who are opposed to the strike. (See this and this for the two articles about the strike that I found this morning in the Chicago Tribune.) In this video the union president makes an impassioned plea to protect education for Chicago's children, but it will be a plea that will go unheard or unreported in Chicago media.
Another analysis of the strike and related larger issues is the coverage provided by a left-wing source, World Socialist Web Site, entitled "Teachers strike in Chicago". This report portrays the position of the union's hierarchy as willing to make numerous concessions in order to maintain harmonious ties to the Democratic party. This is a typical position of nearly all union leaders who over the past decades have been largely co-opted by the ruling class in the US.
Another source, the Occupied Chicago Tribune argues that under a new leadership this union is now rooted in the grass roots of Chicago, and as such is really fighting for education of its children.
Before CTU President Karen Lewis and members of the Caucus of Rank-and-File Educators (CORE) became the new union leadership in 2010, the CTU, like its national union, the American Federation of Teachers, was a willing pawn in the privatization game. CORE broke from the CTU leadership and won respect from the majority of union members by actively supporting parent- and student-led protests at schools across the city. After gaining office, they continued to organize against privatization with the already active education community, and to educate its own members about the importance of doing so.So, how is one to evaluate the Lewis' media presentation. Is she sincerely fighting for issues of vital concern for the education of children, or is she merely acting out the appearance of doing so to maintain some legitimacy with union members? In reality is she,and the union hierarchy, far more concerned with maintaining the union's favorable relationship with the liberal wing of the One Percent ruling class and willing to to give away much in the negotiations to satisfy them? You must decide, or wait for more information before deciding.
