With the Chicago teachers on strike, we’re going to be hearing a lot more about “incentivized” compensation – you know, a merit pay system that demands that you “earn” your raise.

Why is “earn” in quotes? Because the problem with merit-pay schemes is that they are subjective: Does your boss like you or not? The best and brightest workers may – or just as likely may not -- be the best paid.

In bargaining contracts for nearly 80 years, NewsGuild-CWA has always allowed employers to pay more than the minimums we negotiate. If it means keeping a popular columnist or reporter, publishers often loosen the otherwise firm grip on their wallets.

Our concern isn’t the maximum that publishers are willing to pay, it’s the minimum wages and salaries that our contracts set for the majority of workers in a given organization. Those minimums must respect the value of the work our members do.

The same is true of teachers. In fact, we have often compared our professional wages to what teachers earn.

So we can imagine how teachers feel when they’re being told that their financial security could be at the whim of a merit-pay system.

Based on my experience professionally and personally, I can honestly say I’ve never met a merit pay system that worked as it was billed. In most cases managers either don’t do proper reviews, or use skewed criteria. The result is the same – the people hired most recently by current managers, and longer-time favorite employees do well. Older workers, those whom managers have inherited and don’t like, suffer.

What’s most troubling is that these systems are supposed to be based on objective criteria. In a creative environment like a newsroom, that is almost impossible. Writing is a very subjective matter. Some folks have excelled at cranking out a number of quick stories per day, while others focus on longer-term pieces based on research, relationships and investigation. Some are tremendous reporters but less skilled writers who require more editing.

Teaching is subjective, too, no matter how determined administrators and school boards are to tie teachers’ salaries to their students’ standardized test scores. The fact is, student outcomes are based on many things, only some of which are within a teacher’s control.

It’s too simple to say, the better the teacher, the better the students. Some students need far more help than others. When teachers’ financial security is at stake, do they focus on the neediest at the expense of students more likely to score well on standardized tests? The point is, no teacher should have to make that decision.

Unfortunately, merit pay is just the first round for the blame-the-teachers crowd. Their main target is tenure, taking away teachers’ job security. Our teachers are already under enormous stress, and without tenure I have no doubt that we’d lose many teachers – and I don’t mean because bad teachers would be fired. I mean good teachers, already fed up with teaching to the test, would say “Enough!” and leave on their own.

NewsGuild-CWA pursues job security language in our contracts. It allows our members to concentrate on the work they love without worrying that they could lose their job at any moment. I know of no situation where our contract language has inhibited a good manager’s ability to deal with a worker who has shortcomings. Yes, you can even fire people when you clearly make your case using the standard of “just cause.” We don’t protect incompetent workers and never have. We do protect workers from lazy managers who want to play God by firing someone indiscriminately.

That’s the kind of unfair system that teachers are fighting against. It troubles me that good people who should know better – even some of our own members – think that making things less fair for teachers will make things better for students.

It’s time for parents, teachers, administrators and their larger communities to come together in search of real solutions for children’s education. Putting ever-more pressure on teachers and blaming their union are not the answers.