Even The New York Times Is Against the Chicago Teachers Strike

Chicago's picket line-walking public school teachers cannot be very happy with today's unsigned editorial from the liberal tastemakers at The New York Times:

Teachers' strikes, because they hurt children and their families, are never a good idea. The strike that has roiled the civic climate in Chicago — and left 350,000 children without classes — seems particularly senseless because it is partly a product of a personality clash between the blunt mayor, Rahm Emanuel, and the tough Chicago Teachers Union president, Karen Lewis. Beyond that, the strike is based on union discontent with sensible policy changes — including the teacher evaluation system required by Illinois law — that are increasingly popular across the country and are unlikely to be rolled back, no matter how long the union stays out.

Which side are you on, New York Times?

I also couldn't help but notice the contrast between those words and this June 6 Times editorial attacking Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for his efforts at bringing reform to that state's public-sector workers, which the Times simply denounced as an attempt  "to break the unions."

The PR campaign for the Chicago teachers strike is not off to a great start.