MiddleClassCentrist

Funny you say that... I pay more now and get less than I did 10 years ago. I guess most corps just raise prices when costs go up. You know, to remain profitable.

I don't trust any politician. That being said. You can't blame a McGuinty for all of those broken promises, especially the ones from his first majority government. You have to remember that the PC's blatantly fudged numbers so when McGuinty made campaign promises in the first election, they were based on the government having a 'surplus' as promoted by the PC's. Not a multi billion dollar deficit, as is the reality of their fudged numbers. You can only really take the second campaign for when he was re-elected. Now those promises, you can tag onto him as lies if broken.

You are mistaken. There are tons of people right below the CEO who would love to have the job. There is no short supply of them, there is no reason for them to get raises either. It's not like companies have a difficult time finding one.

They need to drop tax breaks for political donations. Doesn't that "cost" tax payers more money than the subsidy? But that would target the advantage of Conservatives... so of course they won't. If they really want to cut subsidies, how about starting with the oil industry... You know, the industry that is making record profits? How about removing farming subsidies for large scale factory farm corporations?

Of course you two miss the point to defend your ideological brother without thinking about the statement being commented on. The numbers would have to be perfect election result split for electoral reform .Everyone who didn't vote for the CPC would have to support it and all CPC voters would have to oppose it. This is not the case. I suppose the sarcasm should have been emoted on the last sentence.

At least you are consistent and predictable. Surely conservatives don't believe in electoral reform. They'd never consider it. They don't think for themselves, right?

Highlights 61 per cent are prepared to re-open the Constitution to reform or abolish the appointed Senate. 58 per cent are willing to offer constitutional amendments in a bid to finally secure Quebec's signature on the Constitution. 58 per cent are willing to open up the Constitution to change the country's electoral system. 72 per cent want to be able to vote directly for prime minister.

It really depends on the company and the person anyways (as always) I would never want a corporate activist in a position to manipulate government money and policies.

But, should we be paying to support them? They aren't essential to the well being of people like Education and Healthcare are. Cutting both CBC and Canada Council saves just over 6% of the federal deficit of $29.4 billion and does not affect the quality of life of Canadians. If people want art and entertainment, they pay for it.

This coming from one of the most irrational posters on this forum whose only goal is to "win" arguments by ignoring valid counter points entirely. lol.

Yeah, he needs to scrap the jet purchase until we can afford it.

1. Don't you find it ironic that you are using your unsubstantiated opinion to counter? I know enough teachers and am young enough to remember the reality of high school students. For instance, teacher A gives student B a mark of 90% in grade 10 Academic Math. Student B moves on to grade 11 university level math and earns a 68%. Parents are enraged and Teacher C gets labelled a bad teacher. The reality, Teacher A was too easy on students and didn't challenge them with problem solving questions. Oh, and standardized testing doesn't occur every year. 2. Yes. Very Orwellian. I'm sure parents will be all for this 1984'esque system, especially since their children will be inevitably caught on camera. Infact, lets install cameras at everyone's workstation in every work environment. I'm sure you'd be for this. Now here's the problem in education, most teachers move around the room and are not fixated in one position. I guess this really shows that you have no concept of teaching. Maybe leave it to people who understand the realities in education?

Teachers and Principals haven't been in the same union for quite some time in Ontario. Ontario labour legislation prevents managers from being in the same union as workers.

1. Of course you have not found that to be the case. That would go against your argument . The most popular teachers I ever had were the laid back teachers who didn't actually try to teach, they just entertained students and gave easy marks. The least popular teachers are the ones that actually try to teach students something, because they have higher expectations and don't give A's to everyone. Remember, we are talking about high school students. The maturity level to understand that a B earned is more valuable than an A written on paper isn't there. 2. Ok. Even then, should teachers be punished for a bad year of students? Anyone who knows a teacher, knows that there are cycles of good years and bad years. 3. When trying to cut costs it may seem reasonable to pay a few million on observers to go from school to school observing teachers. Here's the problem. Even a lazy teacher can prepare an awesome, one off lesson, to impress the observers. The mere presence of the observer would also impact the student behaviour (arguably in a positive way). Even then, the potential gain is only a few thousand here or there off the teacher. In addition, teaching styles vary and different teaching styles appeal to different students. The observer would have to be very open in their interpretation of quality learning if the varied learning environment that conservatives argue doesn't exist, is to continue existing. An observer would be paid 90-100k as an experienced education professional, maybe even more!. Lets say a high school has 90 teachers. 4 periods a day to observe (the observer needs a lunch too . 90/4 = 22.5 days per school. Isn't it like 727 high schools in Ontario? (Fraser institute) 184 school days in Ontario subtracting exam days where observation would be meaningless. 184/22.5= 8.17 high schools a year to evaluate every teacher to see if they deserve a raise. 727/8.17 = 88 observers, not including the beaurocracy created by this new system. 88 x 90k = 7.92million dollars year using the low estimate wage, just to observe and determine whether a teacher deserves a raise. I guess you could get high school drop out to evaluate but, then there would be no credibility to the system. THAT IS ONLY FOR HIGH SCHOOL! There are many more elementary teachers than secondary!

Teaching has a surplus in Canada because the government and media had been predicting a teacher shortage for years. Many people became educated in the teaching profession with the idea of getting a job only to find that the teacher shortage never happened in Canada. However; there are plenty of jobs overseas and around the world for those willing to leave. Supply and demand wage pricing only works in the employees favour in an open and transparent wage environment. Private employers fight to convince workers that their wage is confidential information to prevent workers from realizing they are being underpaid. The goal in a for profit environment is to pay skilled labour as minimally as possible to transfer wealth to share holders instead of the employee. Private employers try to hide the value of their employees, it is easier to control sheep that are ignorant of their actual worth. I do agree that public sector wage increases (above years of experience on the grid) during private sector hardship does not make sense. I do not agree with cutting wages in a knee jerk ideological response. Under the same idea, cutting corporate taxes when we can't afford current bills is also something I don't advocate. Sure cut taxes but, after we balance the books. We need to be fiscally responsible, not fiscally reckless.

Is that why conservative posters are the loudest? They feel like no one is listening so they have to win arguments at all costs?

Even if you got rid of them and you think half of teachers are bad apples, you'd still need to pay their replacement...

Students give great marks to teachers who let them chat and do no work. Standardized tests are more likely to reflect the neighbourhood and parental involvement than teacher progress as a trend with the teacher being able to influence slightly up or down. Professional observers will cost a crapload of money. More money than would be saved by eliminating the few bad apples you are looking for.

Ok. Now compare them to professionals of equal educational requirements... Not McDonald's lifer who barely passed grade 9 English.

Opportunity cost, troll. Can't work a full time job while in full time university.

Ok. How do you define best teacher vs. mediocre teacher?

I hope you find the irony in your statement. You are advocating that high school graduates should teach. Not industry professionals, not anyone with career experience, not anyone with higher education and the ability for higher critical thinking with a university degree and good marks. And then you complain that teachers aren't willing to work all year without a pay raise... but you are complaining as it is something that may (or may not) improve the system. BTW, Canada ranks in the top 2 among OECD countries. Yeah, our system sucks... (lol) What? With how you describe the teaching profession you haven't already switched? I'm shocked. Temporary teachers can claim EI as any other temporary contract job can. Permanent can not, as legislated by the Government. Oh, and regarding fire fighters - http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=High_School_Teacher/Salary/by_Years_Experience They actually look very comparable to teachers, considering that you don't need to sink 5-6 years and 100k into education to become one.

You make a great point. We should be comparing professionals to other professionals of equivalent education/experience! Not the masses who didn't bother investing in themselves and work at Burger King and Pizza Pizza. Even then, keep attacking the litter pickers as being out of line. I know that is your talking point. If the job is that good. Why don't you sign up?

I'm calling complete and utter BS on your part here. I remember this deal clearly because I wondered "WTF, the government has them by the balls. Why did they give 3% per year...?" There was a government deal of 3% per year for 4 years. $53,000 x 1.03^3 = $57,900 Not nearly as drastic as you claim... Are you claiming that someone should not be able to move up the salary grid during a wage increase freeze?

Firstly, they aren't vacations. They are periods of unemployment. Teacher's aren't paid for the vacation time, they are paid per hour which is portioned out as a salary. Second, my mother gets over a month of vacation time as a bank teller and she can choose when that vacation is. Third, if you are arguing for year round schooling in some twisted way, I'm for year round schooling. However, I hope that you keep going with that ideological thinking. I want to see you start slandering fire fighters for having a job, with public money, that is 98% downtime. In addition, they can only work 3 or 4 days a week for the entire year.