Teacher Union Offers Perks to Teachers Who Campaign Against Tories

scribblet · June 8, 2011

What kind of BS is this and what do the teachers tell their civic class why they are absent.. hmmm we can't be in the classroom because we are practicing partisan politics instead of teaching.

Unions are supposed to be advocates for teachers in the work place, not advocating for a political party. I've read that this will cost around $3 million, imagine how many inner city school programs that would fund..

http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10247146

Teacher Union Offers Perks to Teachers Who Campaign Against Tories
Teachers are being offered a couple of paid days off work, if they'll support anyone except the Tim Hudak Conservatives this October.

With campaigning already taking place for the October 6th election, public high school teachers in Toronto are being offered the days off work during the next school year, if they attend one of two training sessions put on by the NDP and Liberals.

They would also have to commit to campaigning for candidates of either of those parties come September.

The cost of covering the absent teachers would be paid by District 12 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation. The union's contract allows teachers to be excused on occasion for union business, but the union must also pay for a substitute.

cont.

it's a protectionist racket :angry:

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/christina_blizzard/2011/04/06/17902926.html

The teachers' union would have you believe it's about "Speaking for the children."
That the $60 a head every member of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association will be required to fork out to pay for a $3-million ad campaign slamming PC Leader Tim Hudak is about students in the classroom.

It's not.

It's a protectionist racket - a shakedown to ensure teachers continue to get their lavish pay hikes and benefits.

Since Premier Dalton McGuinty came to power in 2003, teachers have seen their pay hiked around 25% - an average of about 3% a year.

Topaz · June 8, 2011

Right or wrong, I can understood their thinking after Harris. Hudak could call out the OPP on them too!

guyser · June 8, 2011

. I've read that this will cost around $3 million, imagine how many inner city school programs that would fund..

Imagine....none !

Private money scrib.

The same could be said by your neighbours.....: "hey those scibletts just put in a pool, think of how many books that money could have bought for the school"

As for the political activism, I am in agreement, totally reprehensible.

MiddleClassCentrist · June 8, 2011

Wait.

You are mad about a union paying for teachers to leave the classroom and ad campaigns funded by the union?

Conservatives will slash and burn public education by cutting resources and reducing the quality of our education system... and you are attacking the union for campaigning against it... Any party that ever put a high school drop out as Minister of Education, a minister who is dumb enough to speak into a microphone that he thinks is turned off that "we need to create a crisis in public education", is insane and can't be trusted with public education

What about the billions of dollars spent on lobbying in NA to get government to bow to corporate demands? Maybe you should direct your anger against real evil in the world instead of unions trying to protect the quality of education.

Edited June 9, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

Michael Hardner · June 9, 2011

I think the unions are spending their money wisely.

August1991 · June 9, 2011

Wait.
You are mad about a union paying for teachers to leave the classroom and ad campaigns funded by the union?

Conservatives will slash and burn public education....

There is a difference between "public education" and "teachers". A policy that limits the benefits of teachers does not necessarily hurt public education.

What about the billions of dollars spent on lobbying in NA to get government to bow to corporate demands? Maybe you should direct your anger against real evil in the world instead of unions trying to protect the quality of education.

Billions? Did you just invent that number? In Canada, corporate donations to political parties are limited or illegal.

In any case, any corporation that hires a lobbyist must answer to shareholders who voluntarily decide to buy and sell shares.

In the case of public sector unions, their money comes from taxpayers who are forced to pay.

----

If GM executives fly to Ottawa to negotiate a special deal (an I think that's wrong), I can sell my GM shares or decide not to buy a GM car. I can stop giving them my money.

If Quebec public sector unions actively campaign to elect the Bloc (as they did in the last election), what can I do? Move to another jurisdiction?

This says nothing of the public sector employees who cannot prevent their own union from spending union funds in this money.

MCC, in short, money obtained from taxpayers is a sacred trust. It should not be spent without broad-based support.

I think the unions are spending their money wisely.

I don't know much about this specific case but IMHO, the union executives are spending the money in their own interests. Call me cynical but I'd be very surprised to learn otherwise. Edited June 9, 2011 by August1991

Michael Hardner · June 9, 2011

In the case of public sector unions, their money comes from taxpayers who are forced to pay.

Taxpayers pay union dues ?

Michael Hardner · June 9, 2011

I don't know much about this specific case but IMHO, the union executives are spending the money in their own interests. Call me cynical but I'd be very surprised to learn otherwise.

So they're like businesses then ? Ok.

Shady · June 9, 2011

Taxpayers pay union dues ?

Yep.

punked · June 9, 2011

Yep.

You win dumbest thing said today. Congrats.

Michael Hardner · June 9, 2011

Yep.

Really ? How so ?

lukin · June 9, 2011

Any way you slice it, public education is a joke. Too bad the sheep aren't capable of figuring this out.

Smallc · June 9, 2011

You win dumbest thing said today. Congrats.

Except that he's right. First, they're tax deductible. Second, I'll give you an example. I was a couple of years ago working as a substitute teacher. Half way through my time working, the substitute teachers became unionized. What did this mean? It meant higher wages....it also meant union dues. So, it went from about $75 a day to somewhere around $82. Then, union dues for MTS and the FTA were taken away....leaving me with just under $77.

So what happened there? The government gave me a pay raise (because the government pays teachers) and that pay raise went almost completely to unions.

Shady · June 9, 2011

Except that he's right. First, they're tax deductible. Second, I'll give you an example. I was a couple of years ago working as a substitute teacher. Half way through my time working, the substitute teachers became unionized. What did this mean? It meant higher wages....it also meant union dues. So, it went from about $75 a day to somewhere around $82. Then, union dues for MTS and the FTA were taken away....leaving me with just under $77.

So what happened there? The government gave me a pay raise (because the government pays teachers) and that pay raise went almost completely to unions.

Great example! It's another illustration of how and why public unions are a racket.

August1991 · June 9, 2011

Taxpayers pay union dues ?

Where does the money come from?

There are chits. The government takes chits from all of us and then gives some of them to government employees who give them to public sector unions.

Unlike the money I use to buy GM shares, or buy a GM car, these chits are not voluntary.

So they're like businesses then ? Ok.

Public sector unions are like businesses? Not. Ontario teacher union executives act in their own self-interest, and they have access to other people's money.

Call me cynical but I make this conclusion based not on my knowledge of Ontario teachers union, but on my experience with life well outside of Canada and its unions.

Edited June 9, 2011 by August1991

SF/PF · June 9, 2011

The teachers' union would have you believe it's about "Speaking for the children."
That the $60 a head every member of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association will be required to fork out to pay for a $3-million ad campaign slamming PC Leader Tim Hudak is about students in the classroom.

It's not.

It's a protectionist racket - a shakedown to ensure teachers continue to get their lavish pay hikes and benefits.

Since Premier Dalton McGuinty came to power in 2003, teachers have seen their pay hiked around 25% - an average of about 3% a year.

$60 for a 3% wage increase? Can I pay $600 for 30% please??

Imagine, spending union dues to improve the circumstances of the union workers. Reprehensible! :rolleyes:

Also, 3% per year isn't lavish. Its pretty close to breaking even.

Michael Hardner · June 9, 2011

Where does the money come from?

If you're saying that we pay the dues because we pay the salaries, then that's a stretch. Applying that principle to all situations would produce some similarly odd results.

Public sector unions are like businesses? Not. Ontario teacher union executives act in their own self-interest, and they have access to other people's money.

You ask a question, then answer it right afterwards: company executives act in their own interest, and they have access to investor money. It's naive to assume that these groups take the interests of others into account before their own.

Shwa · June 9, 2011

Where does the money come from?

Government revenues, that the government "owns" once they are received by the Receiver General. Once that happens, the money ceases to have any ownership by you - or anyone else - in any meaningful way.

There are chits. The government takes chits from all of us and then gives some of them to government employees who give them to public sector unions.

If you want to use 'chits' as the abstract, ownership still applies. You pay your 'chits' and once they come into government possession, they are no longer your chits and you have no connection with them whatsoever.

Unlike the money I use to buy GM shares, or buy a GM car, these chits are not voluntary.

Next time you drive down the public road, think about the absurdity of your position. Speed up to 200 km/ph and see if anyone notices and asks you to appear in court to pay more involuntary chits due to these things called "laws."

Public sector unions are like businesses? Not. Ontario teacher union executives act in their own self-interest, and they have access to other people's money.

Yes, they are 'like' businesses that serve clients that pay for their services and deal with accounts receivable and accounts payable. And they operate in the best interests of their clients.

Call me cynical but I make this conclusion based not on my knowledge of Ontario teachers union, but on my experience with life well outside of Canada and its unions.

"Cynical" isn't the word I was thinking about. How about naive? That is a better fit.

First, you would have some "sacred trust" of your tax dollars determine how they are spent even after they are given to others in the form of payment for work they do. And somehow, through some convoluted condition of logic, this "sacred trust" then applies further to a perfectly legal group formed to support these people who you are paying for.

Let me guess August, your preferred footwear are jackboots yes?

scribblet · June 9, 2011

There is a difference between "public education" and "teachers". A policy that limits the benefits of teachers does not necessarily hurt public education.

---------------

I don't know much about this specific case but IMHO, the union executives are spending the money in their own interests. Call me cynical but I'd be very surprised to learn otherwise.

Of course they are, they are afraid that a conservative gov't might freeze wages or make other cutbacks, cutting into the union ranks. They are protecting themselves and teacher pay scales but not the kids or anything to do with the public interest.

The interesting thing is that McGuinty has allready said he will freeze their wages when their contract is up next year - but then - maybe they expect a secret, hidden raise as he did with other unions.

So, who is running things here, the gov't elected by the voters or the big unions.

mentalfloss · June 9, 2011

More unions need to reward their members for campaigning against tories, lol

MiddleClassCentrist · June 10, 2011

Of course they are, they are afraid that a conservative gov't might freeze wages or make other cutbacks, cutting into the union ranks. They are protecting themselves and teacher pay scales but not the kids or anything to do with the public interest.

The interesting thing is that McGuinty has allready said he will freeze their wages when their contract is up next year - but then - maybe they expect a secret, hidden raise as he did with other unions.

Teachers expect a wage freeze, at best. The ones I know, know what is coming based on the polls.

4-8 years of Conservative reign, trying to destroy education for the middle class and poor who can't afford private school.

Our education system is #2 in the OECD. Only other system that received a grade of A. The conservatives keep trying to bring American style policies here... Newsflash, the US systems ranks much worse. Only the Conservatives would use such inferior systems as the standard to follow.

dre · June 10, 2011

Teachers expect a wage freeze, at best. The ones I know, know what is coming based on the polls.

4-8 years of Conservative reign, trying to destroy education for the middle class and poor who can't afford private school.

Our education system is #2 in the OECD. Only other system that received a grade of A. The conservatives keep trying to bring American style policies here... Newsflash, the US systems ranks much worse. Only the Conservatives would use such inferior systems as the standard to follow.

Our education system is #2 in the OECD

Ah yes but those ranking systems are the product of a gigantic global left wing conspiracy.

Smallc · June 10, 2011

I'd be happy if teachers could give up at least part of their summer to do inservices so they wouldn't disrupt classes at least once a month.

BubberMiley · June 10, 2011

I'd be happy if teachers could give up at least part of their summer to do inservices so they wouldn't disrupt classes at least once a month.

You needn't be bitter over all those Cs.

But I don't think you'll be happy until unions and the corresponding middle class are eradicated, and workers here have the same standard of living as those in India or China.

Edited June 10, 2011 by BubberMiley