fryingpan

Southern Ontario is doing okay. It's the Northern half thats sinking. The paper mills towns are even worse off. I don't think anyone there makes over 50K a year.

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't you hired because you were the best for the job? Isn't the pay for job usually compensatory of the effort and skills required? As a manager I gave raises to people who showed initiative and worked hard. Those who held their skills held hostage for more money never lasted beyond the probationary period when I was in charge. If you want more money you work harder and show initiative, you don't hold your skills hostage for more money. I sure wish more people had that idea. Employees along with employers. There are too many people in unions who sit on their butts and do nothing and then demand to get a raise so they can buy another car.

Yeah, no kidding. The college teachers on strike over here were offered 95K a year just to get them to go back to work. They turned it down, and they are still negotiating for a better deal. I was somewhat kidding. I think teachers are paid farily, they do an increidably important job... I'm not going to go out and start demanding they get paid too little, because there are lot of perks with the job, like entire summers off (to make more money or relax), four weeks vacation during the year, paid professional development and relatively short working hours. It does take many years of education to become a teacher though, and they need to be rewarded for their opportunity cost. So... I think teachers should get raises only set to inflation from here on in and let it be settled. 95K is a LOT where I live. If the teachers got that much they would be making more than everyone except maybe the top ten wealthiest people in the city. In which city is there only 10 people making $95k+? That is actually beyond unbelievable. Unless it's not a city, and some remote northern town. A city with extremely high unemployment, 2 major employers which are in a race to see who can downsize the fastest, and the only jobs being created are the minimum wage ones (which are now being jeopardized thanks to the minimum wage increases). Maybe I'm exaggerating about the number of people making more than 95K a year, but a lot of people don't get anywhere near that (even the dual income families). Most of the ones that did left back in the 90s.

What I'm really interested in is what the "living wage" advocates think of this. If people start using these on a regular basis, will businesses still need the same amount of cashiers they employed before? If not, what's going to happen to the cashiers who suddenly find themselves making $0/hour? What do you guys think? Replace 'em (the cashiers) - if that s what the market wants. Too bad for the cashiers. They'll land on their feet. Maybe some will find work as automated cashier machine attendants. Definition of a union: (1) an organization that attempts to recieve more than market value for it's members. (2) an organization that promotes inefficiency by protecting jobs that would otherwise be obselete. I don't feel very sorry for the cashiers, I just wanted to know whether or not these self serve checkouts would have an effect on their jobs (since there seems to be so many different opinions on it). May I add "at the expense of other people"?

Yeah, no kidding. The college teachers on strike over here were offered 95K a year just to get them to go back to work. They turned it down, and they are still negotiating for a better deal. I was somewhat kidding. I think teachers are paid farily, they do an increidably important job... I'm not going to go out and start demanding they get paid too little, because there are lot of perks with the job, like entire summers off (to make more money or relax), four weeks vacation during the year, paid professional development and relatively short working hours. It does take many years of education to become a teacher though, and they need to be rewarded for their opportunity cost. So... I think teachers should get raises only set to inflation from here on in and let it be settled. 95K is a LOT where I live. If the teachers got that much they would be making more than everyone except maybe the top ten wealthiest people in the city.

I think every government official in the province should have their paychecks cut to minimum wage. With the excess funds, we can increase spending by 200% to every single program we have and reduce taxes to 0%. For the next 20 years. This would encourage economic growth among businesses (non-existant taxes = endless opportunities for expansion). It would also encourage more people to remain in Canada instead of going to the States, since they can actually keep their money. This would result in better services for all of us, since our professionals would have actual skills. And most importantly, it will help stop the constant leaching of the government.

Most of the left wing supporters I know belong in unions, and union members sure aren't poor. However, I know quite a few people making minimum wage who support the left wing because they believe left wingers will give them the "easy life". I do wish left wingers would stop messing with the economy. Things like raising taxes and raising minimum wage and tougher labour regulations are what hurts the economy.

Yeah, no kidding. The college teachers on strike over here were offered 95K a year just to get them to go back to work. They turned it down, and they are still negotiating for a better deal.

Even the part-time cashiers (students still in school, etc...)? Most of the cashiers where I live are not unionized, and I doubt any of Wal-Mart's cashiers are. What about security systems? If a store becomes fully automized, they will still need someone there to prevent people from stealing.

Teachers should definitely not be allowed to strike. Especially college and university teachers. The students have to pay up front to get their services and have no way of knowing when/if teachers are going to strike. I am a teacher. I teach from 8:30 until 3:45. That is purely class time, the lessons do not plan themselves. In my first few years teaching I never finished my planning and marking before 9PM. I can now afford the luxury of watching a hockey game in the evening if I so please. In the summers I typically spend between 20 and 25 hours a week preparing for the coming school year and making changes due to new curriculum. A babysitter already probably makes more money an hour than a teacher. Just using the Calgary board scale, a teacher with four years of university will never earn $70,000. To earn that much you need to have 7 years of university and 8 years of teaching experience. Collective agreement Do I sound irritated? Well that's because I am. I have worked in accounting and in financial services for a lot more money than I'm earning now. I have also never worked as hard at anything. Yet I have to hear know-it-alls tell me that I'm lazy and overpaid. Through two years of subbing and 8 years teaching I have only met a handful of teachers that I would term uncaring and lazy. I had a teacher in my high school that would leave school before dismissal. The guy would leave the room 10 minutes early without saying why, 2 minutes later, he'd be walking by the classroom door with his coat on. This same teacher spent more time out of the class than he did in it.

Self Serve Checkout Here is an interesting article on self serve checkouts in grocery stores. What I'm really interested in is what the "living wage" advocates think of this. If people start using these on a regular basis, will businesses still need the same amount of cashiers they employed before? If not, what's going to happen to the cashiers who suddenly find themselves making $0/hour? What do you guys think?

I like this plan I think all the provinces should implement it too.

I agree that everyone should be working, but wouldn't raising minimum wage make it harder for them to find a job? The first thing employers do when minimum wage is raised is to stop hiring people, even when they're shortstaffed. The only exception would be if you live in Alberta, the starting rate there for McDonalds is above the minimum wage you suggest.

You are quite right, the situations above will occur. I'm not at all suggesting we should be coercive and preventing them from occuring, but people should be made to take responsibility when they do occur. Women and girls are free to bear kids "out of wedlock" as long as they don't expect society to support them. Men who abandon women with their children should be forced to pay their share of the child rearing costs. We already have systems in place to collect everything from loan defaults to parking fines, so it is hard for me to believe we can't enforce parents stepping up to their responsibilites. Whether a women is abused or not she may choose to leave a relationship. That choice frees neither parent from their parental support obligations. I'm pretty sure that men who abandon their children have to pay child support. I think they actually deduct it off the father's income along with his taxes and then give it to the mother. This way, the only way he can stop paying child support is if he stops working.

Put yourself in a pregnant woman's shoes in the current environment. All you have to think about is "do I want to be a mother? yes or no"...and someone else will pony up the cash if you do. Must be a nice coloured sky in that world. Yeah it must be, because as far as I know, no one is checking to make sure the child support money is being used to support the child. How are we to know that the mother isn't just spending all the money on herself? I know some mothers receiving child support who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. They aren't working, so they aren't getting that money themselves. How does smoking help support the children?

Yeah, no kidding. Plus college students would have even more of a case since they have to pay part of the tuition themselves. And as for the part that was subsidized by taxpayers, I think they should get a refund too. After all, they worked hard to pay those taxes, and even if they aren't using the service right now, those tax dollars are never going to be seen again.

I agree. And for those fathers who do choose to pay child support, I think there should be a system in place to make sure the money is ONLY being used to support the child. I know many people where I live who receive child support. Not very much of this money is being spent on their children.

How many of them do you think actually make $95000 ? The fact of the matter is that the starting salary is just over $32000 and goes up to $82000. The average salary for a high school teacher will be higher by next year than a college teacher's salary. The unions demand result in an effective raise of only 2.43% per year in the actual dollar value of the increase. If you factor in inflation, Ontario colleges are spending 20% less on each student than they were 15 years ago. PDF link to more info. I don't think any of them make $95000, that was the deal offered during negotiations while the teachers were on strike. Not sure what they were making before, but it's a lot higher than what the high school teachers here make.

That could work. After the teachers get the 6 digit income they're asking for, they should have no trouble affording it. Well the students are being financially hurt by this strike. There is no reason why a class action against the union wouldn't be reasonable. I'd definitely go for it if I was in that situation. Now, are these colleges that have professors or colleges that have instructors? A PhD holding prof might have a valid argument for a 6 figure salary. A college teacher without a graduate education doesn't though. Some of them are full-time professors, but a lot of them are sessional instructors.

The students should sue the teachers union for tution and lost wages. That could work. After the teachers get the 6 digit income they're asking for, they should have no trouble affording it.

I know people who have been affected by that strike...none of them are getting a refund on their tuition, not even a partial one. If the teachers don't go back to work by April, many people are going to have to come back for another semester to get their degree. The teachers in my area were offered $95,000 a year and they turned it down! So now they stand there wearing signs that say "we care about quality education" while their students get screwed out of the service they paid for.

Because they want the kids out of their hair? Or to maybe have them learn very valuable life skills that go beyond any dollar value. Personally I saved for post-secondary out of self-dignity, and the fact that I valued work more than school, not because I had to. My siblings will be paid for by the parents because they chose a different path to get to where they want to be at. When I got my first job, my parents didn't make me. I wanted to work. I wanted to pay for my own post-secondary. It wasn't even about money, I could have nearly anything I wanted without working. It's an attitude that exists in many people, and not in others. Thats why we have employed and unemployed people. Work is more than just money, its dignity and self-respect. What if the kid really wants to work and is willing to contribute to the family? Shouldn't the parent allow them to work if the kid contributes his/her fair share back to the family? This way, the kid could learn valuable life skills like you said, but the parent wouldn't have to worry about losing money. Well, firstly, a kid's got to work alot to have their parents lose the deducation. They have to make more than the allowable earnings... which is around $10k right now. Thats a decent pay for a kid. I think parents should do whats best and let the kid work personally. But they have to look at their finacial postion and the costs associated with it. Some parents don't think their kids are ready to work... or don't like the thought of some of the jobs the kids do work... this may be also justified in some situations. I'm telling you I grew up fast working in a busy kitchen, not the most pleasent place in the world. For some people, it teaches you the real world fast, for others at a young age, its truly frightening! Thats not unreasonable... though I kind of have objections to 14 year old kids paying board. I think we ought to encourage kids to get out in work and not have them taxed by their parents. But... I guess that all depends on family finances. If a family was having trouble making ends meet, then I can see that being reasonable. Kids should definitely be allowed to work (if they are legally old enough). In this day and age, employers are just as interested in work experience as they are in grades. Even if you only work at McDonalds, it's still more impressive than a blank space under "work experience" on your resume. I'm not sure on this, but I heard that if a kid makes more than about $3500 or so, the parents only get a partial deduction. After 10k, they lose the deduction completely. Most teens working part time make about 6k a year, at least in Ontario.

I think that people coming here from other countries should at least attempt to adapt to Canadian customs and cultures. They shouldn't have to give up their own cultures entirely, but to insist that Canadians change to accomodate them just isn't right. Canadian citizens should not have to give up their beliefs just to please a small percentage of people. The truth is, you can't please everyone. There will always be cultures that clash with each other, and there is no way you can allow one group to do something that won't offend another group. I say we should go with what the majority wants, at least then most people will be happy. Or at least content.

You are right. Reverse discrimination is never right, we just need to enforce the current laws against discrimination in hiring. Most Canadians abhor racial discrimination, yet support the notion of one group receiving preferential treatment based on ancestry or skin colour. All people should be treated equally, including natives, they should be full and equal citizens and not 'apart' on reservations. Agreed. The idea that because the 'natives' got here first they deserve extra benifets is ridiculous. It may sound racist, but its actually further from it than the current reservation (ie ghetto) system. There should be no affirmative action, no reserves, no payments for past wrongs (again, saying we are responsible for our past 'white' ancestors actions, awfully racist) and no hiring initives that support minorites. Thats the only way to eliminate racism in our society. It will also let people who are the most qualified and hard-working get the jobs they deserve. This will result in better service and higher productivity. There are fewer things worse than highly qualified and experienced people forced out of the job market due to affirmative action.

Is it true that Alberta raised their minimum wage, even though Burger King starts people at 9.75/hour? Why would they do that, especially when most people start at higher than the new wage? It's great that Alberta has such low unemployment, but when they head into a recession (and they will eventually) the higher minimum wage will make it harder for the people living there to find work.