Unions vs Tories

[punked]

And has punked ever sourced his claim that Ontario teachers make less than the median wage in Ontario?

Well I never made that claim so.

[TimG]

We were talking Toronto. However I think if you went across Canada you would find that their are places were teachers earn more and places where they earn less.

Alberta median individual income is $35,550 - that is still lower than the median teachers salary. The medium income also does not take into account pension and vacation benefits.

Unless you can come up with hard numbers I would say you are making crap up to avoid admitting you are wrong.

Edited May 24, 2011 by TimG

[punked]

Alberta median individual income is $35,550 - that is still lower than the median teachers salary. The medium income also does not take into account pension and vacation benefits.

Unless you can come up with hard numbers I would say you are making crap up to avoid admitting you are wrong.

But it Median income does average in hat 15% of people who work part time jobs which kinda skews that data wouldn't you say? My little brother earns 5 000 dollars a year for his summer job and he is factored into that. That drags that number down and we start to compare apples to oranges. Again a race to the bottom, man you socialist who think we should all earn the same as a part time collage kid who only works a summer job make me sick to my stomach.

I think we should have equal pay for equal work, but that means the jobs we compare shold be equal.

[CPCFTW]

Yes you are a lair.

Now if we do want to look at your numbers we can, right now you are advocating that teachers should earn >50,000. You actually want them to fall into an income bracket that is well below average. This is what you believe. Your own charts show 35% of people in Toronto earn less then 50,000. That was my point in the first place that teachers aren't earning some crazy number for their salary in fact that they are earning a very average amount. Your own tables show that is average or less then average for the city of Toronto.

A few things:

1. I never advocated any specific figure for the salary of teachers.

2. > means "greater than"

3. Once again, that is 35% of HOUSEHOLDS in Toronto earn less than $50,000. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll catch on eventually. I know differentiating between an individual and a household is a tough concept to grasp.

BTW your household chart is the SIZE OF THE HOUSEHOLD, NOT income earners like you claim you lair. Yep 48% of Toronto households have more then 3 people them and I am sure if you had your way the 6 year old girl living with her two working parents would also being working (probably sewing cloths right? or shoveling coal?) but they don't work. It is against the law. You claim was STUIPD and a lie.

I never claimed it was income earners. You're a master of the strawman argument, do you teach your students that?

Edited May 24, 2011 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

You paid 500,000 dollars and you can't read a chart right? Wow. Maybe you should sue those teachers you gave that money to.

It's called a table not a chart.

[RNG]

Hold it! Punked is a teacher? We are doomed.

[TimG]

But it Median income does average in hat 15% of people who work part time jobs which kinda skews that data wouldn't you say? My little brother earns 5 000 dollars a year for his summer job and he is factored into that.

Moving the goalposts again. Why can't you just admit you were wrong?

I think we should have equal pay for equal work, but that means the jobs we compare shold be equal.

Attempts at developing comparisons between unrelated jobs are excercises in social engineering that have no legitimacy.

The primary factor in deciding wages levels is supply and demand. If there is a huge supply of teachers there is no need to pay top rates. If there is a shortage of nurses we need to pay better. Level of education, level responsibility or any other factor have no relevance when determining what they should be paid.

Edited May 24, 2011 by TimG

[jacee]

Moving the goalposts again. Why can't you just admit you were wrong?

Attempts at developing comparisons between unrelated jobs are excercises in social engineering that have no legitimacy.

The primary factor in deciding wages levels is supply and demand. If there is a huge supply of teachers there is no need to pay top rates. If there is a shortage of nurses we need to pay better. Level of education, level responsibility or any other factor have no relevance when determining what they should be paid.

Excellent analysis, and when the private sector is depressed, the wheels of public assistance are spinning hard processing people through welfare, EI, education and retraining etc in a time of heavy demand.

Of course the private sector bosses who lay you off will blame the government or the teachers or the internet or 'youth today' or anybody but themselves. Don't let them fool you: it isn't the other working stiffs or their unions causing the problems, but the business leaders themselves. They brainwash workers to blame unions to divide and conquer so they can get away with substandard wages and conditions and rear more profits on your back. It's true that without unions both public and private sector wages would be in the toilet. Fighting unions is a waste of everybodids time and money but Harper and other Harris clones have a personal prejudice they like to indulge. How much will his indulgence cost us I wonder.

One more point: If programs are to be cut if they are not "considered" to be effective, then the 'crime bill' will have to go as there is absolutely no evidence it will reduce crime, and evidence is accumulating to the contrary. Harper will decide for himself what programs are 'effective' from his ideological perspective. Expect cuts in social safety programs and increases in corporate welfare.

And anyone who thinks teaching is easy should definitely try it! Lol!

[TimG]

Excellent analysis, and when the private sector is depressed, the wheels of public assistance are spinning hard processing people through welfare, EI, education and retraining etc in a time of heavy demand.

So? People in the private sector with jobs are expected to work harder for less. The public sector has no right to expect more.

Don't let them fool you: it isn't the other working stiffs or their unions causing the problems, but the business leaders themselves.

Hint: anyone who thinks they can do better than the "business leaders" can start their own business and become one. It should be easy the current crop of business leaders are such idiots.

It's true that without unions both public and private sector wages would be in the toilet.

The trouble is the public sector drags down the private sector if its benefits are too rich in comparison to the private sector. If the private sector is not able to grow then the public sector must shrink. There is no other sustainable solution.

And anyone who thinks teaching is easy should definitely try it! Lol!

No one says it is easy. But there is a surplus of people who are training to do the job which indicates the is no need for across the board wage increases at this time. That said, performance bonuses for good teachers are always worth considering. Edited May 24, 2011 by TimG

[jacee]

Double post

Edited May 24, 2011 by jacee

[jacee]

So? People in the private sector with jobs are expected to work harder for less. The public sector has no right to expect more.

Except the corporate bosses who get their 'poor performance' bonuses paid for by the taxpayer. :-)

The public sector is in a high demand phase processing unemployed private sector workers and bailing out the companies. It's just the market forces at work. Our suggestion that the public sector should also take a hit 'in solidarity' with the private sector ignores the market forces at work. Is that what you want? More government, more control? Tit for tat? Is that what works? I don't really think it's proven effective.

Hint: anyone who thinks they can do better than the "business leaders" can start their own business and become one. It should be easy the current crop of business leaders are such idiots.

I have no criticism of small businesses. They are victims of the corporate profiteers too. Gutting public service contracts won't help them though.

The trouble is the public sector drags down the private sector if its benefits are too rich in comparison to the private sector. If the private sector is not able to grow then the public sector must shrink. There is no other sustainable solution.

The demand for constant growth is not sustainable and 'trickle down' doesn't. It's the corporate sector that needs to get it's theories ironed out as their current strategies are unworkable.

No one says it is easy. But there is a surplus of people who are training to do the job which indicates the is no need for across the board wage increases at this time.

Except contracts.

That said, performance bonuses for good teachers are always worth considering.

How's that working out for the private sector? I guess pretty good since the taxes paid by public sector workers are paying performance bonuses to lousy corporate bosses who are laying off workers to protect profits! ;-)

But contracts have to be honoured I guess, even if the public ends up in debt or deficit bailing out failed corporate 'leaders'.

The public sector owes them nothing, and neither do the taxpayers. Where is the accountability of the corporate sector to the taxpayers? These isn't any.

[TimG]

The public sector is in a high demand phase processing unemployed private sector workers and bailing out the companies.

Yes. Bailing out GM was a huge misallocation of taxpayers money. It should have been allowed to fail. Other than that the Canadian government has not been bailing out so your argument is a huge red herring.

I have no criticism of small businesses. They are victims of the corporate profiteers too. Gutting public service contracts won't help them though.

A yes. A small business person on the side of the angels. The only evil people are people running companies that make more than 100K a year. Your world view is delusional. You want to blame other people in order to justify making unreasonable demands. It is nothing but pure naked greed.

The salaries of government workers are paid mostly by the middle class because there are not enough rich people around. You can whine about it as much as you want but demanding higher and higher salaries from people who are facing wage cutbacks is a pathetic and self centered world view.

The demand for constant growth is not sustainable and 'trickle down' doesn't.

In other words you agree that endlessly increasing salary demands by the public sector are not sustainable. So why exactly are you arguing? Edited May 24, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

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

It's not about weeding out the bad apples. It's about identifying where all individual teachers fit on a spectrum of performance from poor to excellent and making sure they are rewarded appropriately.

[Bonam]

Students give great marks to teachers who let them chat and do no work.

I challenge you to find proof for this statement. It might seem intuitive, but I have not found that to the be the case.

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.

The results/rankings could be normalized to the average for that particular school or neighbourhood, as needed.

Professional observers will cost a crapload of money. More money than would be saved by eliminating the few bad apples you are looking for.

A claim that would need to be backed up by numbers. I find it unlikely. Performance evaluations of employees seem to be seen as worthwhile by many companies in the private sector.

[jacee]

Yes. Bailing out GM was a huge misallocation of taxpayers money. It should have been allowed to fail. Other than that the Canadian government has not been bailing out so your argument is a huge red herring.

true. Of more concern here is Corporate subsidies on the workers' backs, and corporate profits posted in the same amount.

A yes. A small business person on the side of the angels. The only evil people are people running companies that make more than 100K a year.

good grief no! Small-medium local business is the engine of communities and the innovaters too. I'm addressing Only the huge guys at the top 5% with 40% of the wealth and all of the power - just like Harper- and no taxpayer accountability. I think any corporation taking public money should show the public what jobs and training we bought for our tax money, don't you?

Your world view is delusional. You want to blame other people in order to justify making unreasonable demands. It is nothing but pure naked greed.

so a contract isn't a contract?

The salaries of government workers are paid mostly by the middle class because there are not enough rich people around. You can whine about it as much as you want but demanding higher and higher salaries from people who are facing wage cutbacks is a pathetic and self centered world view.

and it's not ok for offshore megacorps to post profits with our tax money.

In other words you agree that endlessly increasing salary demands by the public sector are not sustainable. So why exactly are you arguing?

that profiteering from public money has reached a new low, and we now subsidize them. Public sector workers pay into their own salaries and spend on local businesses. I draw the line at paying offshore profits. they count on us fighting each other when we are all community, and they are the predators.

Not arguing, just commenting and asking for accountability for my tax money, if Harper's going to bust unions and subsidize profiteering megacorps with our money I want to know someone got a job.

Edited May 24, 2011 by jacee

[fellowtraveller]

I would hazard a guess that within a decade, perhaps sooner, all Federal Government administative functions are condensed into a single deparment, likely Public Works.

You're an optimist, they've been trying to consolidate for decades and every junior manager and up- and there are legions of them- fight this trend like wolverines defending their young.

Departments like CRA, Defence, Indian Affairs, HRDC have big budgets and much power and resist change fiercely. All of them do, really.

It has nothing to do with common sense, and everything to do with protecting your job and pay grade. And it applies all the way to Deputy Minister level- and beyond.

I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it will take a terrific fight.

[jacee]

You're an optimist, they've been trying to consolidate for decades and every junior manager and up- and there are legions of them- fight this trend like wolverines defending their young.

Departments like CRA, Defence, Indian Affairs, HRDC have big budgets and much power and resist change fiercely. All of them do, really.

It has nothing to do with common sense, and everything to do with protecting your job and pay grade. And it applies all the way to Deputy Minister level- and beyond.

I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it will take a terrific fight.

Aging workforces cost more temporarily, but attrition will follow no doubt.

[Scotty]

You're an optimist, they've been trying to consolidate for decades and every junior manager and up- and there are legions of them- fight this trend like wolverines defending their young.

Departments like CRA, Defence, Indian Affairs, HRDC have big budgets and much power and resist change fiercely. All of them do, really.

It has nothing to do with common sense, and everything to do with protecting your job and pay grade. And it applies all the way to Deputy Minister level- and beyond.

I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it will take a terrific fight.

And to repeat, I have seen where they have done it, at least partially, and my estimate is not only is there no cost saving, it actually winds up costing more.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Attempts at developing comparisons between unrelated jobs are excercises in social engineering that have no legitimacy.

The primary factor in deciding wages levels is supply and demand. If there is a huge supply of teachers there is no need to pay top rates. If there is a shortage of nurses we need to pay better. Level of education, level responsibility or any other factor have no relevance when determining what they should be paid.

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.

Edited May 24, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I challenge you to find proof for this statement. It might seem intuitive, but I have not found that to the be the case.

The results/rankings could be normalized to the average for that particular school or neighbourhood, as needed.

A claim that would need to be backed up by numbers. I find it unlikely. Performance evaluations of employees seem to be seen as worthwhile by many companies in the private sector.

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!

[fellowtraveller]

And to repeat, I have seen where they have done it, at least partially, and my estimate is not only is there no cost saving, it actually winds up costing more.

Ah, but it does not have to be that way. The additional cost was not necessary.....

Public Works & government Services is an example. They outsourced a lot of property management services and 'asset management' positions to contractors, then simply converted all those redundant jobs into micromanaging the contractors. It was ridiculous and doomed to cost more. But it served the objective of keeping all those middle and senior managers in safe, well paid postions indefintiely while the unions can wring their hands and say 'see, no benefit'.

Nope real change will take spine at levels never seen in Canada. A reasonable model and guide to reform would be Australia, where nearly all civil servants are not in lifetime posiitons. There, most are on employment contracts with an end date. If you fail to perform- or equally important if your role is redundant- you look for another job. Just like people in the private sector, imagine that..

[fellowtraveller]

it may seem reasonable to pay a few million on observers to go from school to school observing teachers.

Every school in Canada already employs a veteran, experienced 'observer' that is or should be very capable of asssessing teachers and their performance. They are called principals.

Unfortunately, they do little of worth in this regard since they are members of the same union as the teachers. There is a pretence that they are managers or somehow represent management, but clearly they cannot overcome this conflict of interest and few pretend that they do.

[Michael Hardner]

Ah, but it does not have to be that way. The additional cost was not necessary.....

Public Works & government Services is an example. They outsourced a lot of property management services and 'asset management' positions to contractors, then simply converted all those redundant jobs into micromanaging the contractors. It was ridiculous and doomed to cost more. But it served the objective of keeping all those middle and senior managers in safe, well paid postions indefintiely while the unions can wring their hands and say 'see, no benefit'.

This also lends support to the idea of publishing project plans and monitoring results.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

...they are members of the same union as the teachers.

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.

[TimG]

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.

Who said anything about cutting wages? I said that public servants need to dispense with the notion that they are entitled to any raises for the foreseeable future. If that means that their real income decreases because of inflation then they will have to adjust like the people who work in the private sector who are not getting any wage increases either.