If Seneca Valley School District teachers follow through with their threat to strike on Monday, they should begin the walkout with the understanding that there will be financial consequences stemming from that action. The school district should make that clear and remain committed to that end.

Just as workers in private businesses and industries forfeit pay and benefits during strikes, so too should Seneca Valley teachers feel the negative effects — in their wallets and pocketbooks — of their decision to remain steadfast in their demand for pay raises more than twice as large as the current rate of inflation.

In most, if not all, districts that have endured teachers strikes since Act 195, the Public Employees Bargaining Act, was passed in 1970, teachers didn't lose a cent in pay for the time they were engaged in a walkout. That's because the contract packages ultimately approved were made retroactive to the end of the prior contract, regardless of the extent of the disruptions for which the strikes were responsible.

The losers were the parents who had to adjust their schedules or stay home from work to accommodate their children's unscheduled absence from the classroom; the children, who had the continuity of their studies disrupted; and senior class members and other students who missed summer job opportunities because of having to attend makeup school days deep into the month of June.

None of those victims were compensated for their inconvenience and losses. Neither should the Seneca Valley teachers be shielded from experiencing financial repercussions if they opt to disrupt the school year.

In August, the Seneca Valley School Board announced that if district teachers opted to strike, the district's last, best offer of a 4 percent annual increase in teachers' salaries would decrease for each day of school missed because of the strike.

All considered, that is a fair proposal. Only if the teachers union faces a definite loss via a strike can there be an incentive for the union to be more open to compromise. It has shown very little inclination toward meaningful compromise since the teachers' last contract expired on June 30, 2006.

That's why the teachers' demands are now just a bit less than what they were 16 months ago.

The loss that the board has proposed actually is a generous gesture. The board could have made a stronger statement on behalf of the taxpayers and students if it had declared that all retroactivity would be off the bargaining table if a walkout occurs — and then stick to that position.

Like what the board has threatened, that too would not be unreasonable, all considered.

It is up to the board and teachers union to agree upon the specific provisions that will make up the new contract, whenever one is achieved. And, outsiders should not try to suggest specific ideas for a settlement.

That is for the union and board negotiators to hammer out.

But at the same time, the course and result of the Seneca Valley contract dispute will impact other school systems, since teachers in many, if not most, instances seek to imitate more lucrative contracts achieved by teachers in other districts.

Therefore, the successes the teachers achieve by way of their contract demands will be sought elsewhere in future years.

Seneca Valley has a good teaching staff; that cannot be denied.

But the teachers union, coupled with the influence of the Pennsylvania State Education Association, has tarnished the teachers as being greedy in their demands while many of those who will pay for the contract — Seneca Valley taxpayers — annually receive much lower pay hikes and have fewer or less-generous fringe benefits. Meanwhile, the lengthy contract dispute, coupled with the impending strike, is setting the stage for hard feelings in the district that could last for years.

The Seneca Valley teachers have a right to strike; state law gives them that right.

However, they should not receive full compensation for exercising it.