Chung misses the mark on teacher pay

David Chung presented a remarkably uninformed op-ed in last Sunday’s Gazette (“Teachers are underpaid. It’s their fault”) demonstrating a lack of understanding of the realities of our public school system. Chung states teachers have accepted lower salaries in exchange for job security claiming they enjoy some type of job protections. In state history, teacher unions have never had the right to bargain into a union contract any protections from discipline or termination. The meager protections in the law were interpreted by the Iowa Supreme Court to mean any reason which, directly or indirectly, significantly and adversely affects the school district’s mission to provide an education is good enough to fire any teacher. Teachers in Iowa have always essentially been at-will employees, just like the vast majority of private sector workers.

Chung states union contracts reward teachers based on “objective” criteria like years of service, certifications and continuing education. He does not explain why things like experience and additional work to improve your skills are bad things. He ignores the fact that since 2017 any school district can toss those salary schedules based on years of service or advanced degrees into the trash if they choose to do so. He pretends length of service at a private employer is not also a major factor leading to older employees making more money than younger employees. He acknowledges he believes he has been wronged in the private sector by managers who just did not appreciate all his positive contributions, but then suggests that if teachers’ pay were based on the subjective whims of managers things would somehow be better.

Since 2017, school districts are only required to bargain with the union over the starting pay of next year’s brand-new teachers. Since 2017, school districts can never be required to increase teacher pay by more than 3 percent in any year regardless of the rate of inflation. Chung suggests “merit pay” is not allowed; this is also absurd. If any school district told a union, “Hey, we have extra money we want to give to teachers despite the fact we have no obligation to do so,” the teachers’ union reaction would be, “Sure. Pay our members some more money.”

Finally, and obviously, what makes Chung’s column so ludicrous is the lack of any reference to school funding, budgets, sources of money to pay the teachers. If a business needs to increase its overhead to retain staff the business can pass on those costs to customers. A public school relies on tax dollars. Public schools in Iowa have been on a starvation diet for the better part of a decade. Tax cut after tax cut is passed in Des Moines which leads to leaders shrugging, informing us budgets are tight and there just is not much money left for our public schools. Over 60% of the state’s general fund goes to education, yet they pretend there is no connection between more tax cuts and low teacher pay.

Teaching is a profession, a calling and a public service. The fact it is a form of public service, and therefore paid less than private-sector jobs with equivalent educational credentials, is something teachers appreciate and accept. However, it still is also a profession in which rational actors reacting to compensation, job satisfaction, work safety, and comparative opportunities will continue to leave Iowa public schools under their current trajectory. Teachers have chosen educating our kids as their calling, but the choices made by Iowans valuing our teachers, or not, is what will dictate if we can keep them. Meanwhile, folks like David Chung spew gobbledygook about a “Faustian bargain” either blind to the reality of dollars and cents or trying to distract us from reality.

Nate Willems practices labor law in Cedar Rapids.