BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[Michael Hardner]

Well maybe you need to understand...

I'm sorry but I asked for a cite, and as per the rules and guidelines it's reasonable that that should be provided.

As to the neo-liberal agenda, I posted a great strategy to address that above.

[Pct2017]

I'm sorry but I asked for a cite, and as per the rules and guidelines it's reasonable that that should be provided.

Here is a greatest hits list of citations posted just on this thread from our young friend Socialist. He is plenty capable of playing that one string banjo, finding websites that support his curious view of the world, but to ask him to support a statement that would require real data is simply never, ever going to happen.

I have asked before and I will ask again, Socialist, if you are as maxed out on time as a teacher as you purport to be, how do you have so much time to surf the web and find wacked out websites? And this list is just for this thread. Think how impressive it would be if I had bothered with any of the other topics on this forum.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-teachers-vote-overwhelmingly-yes-in-strike-vote-1.2563413

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-grants-bcs-request-to-stay-decision-on-teachers-bargaining-pending-appeal/article17113956/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-teachers-federation-wins-2m-in-damages-from-province-1.2513211

http://www.vancourier.com/news/court-sides-with-b-c-teachers-federation-on-bargaining-1.803825

http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/4csposter.pdf

http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Parents/ParentLetterJobAction_en.pdf

http://www.teachersolidarity.com/sites/teachersolidarity/files/research/Neoliberalism_and_Ed_Reform_CompleteProofs.pdf

http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Parents/ParentLetterJobAction_en.pdf

http://rabble.ca/news/2014/03/bc-teachers-math-lesson-workers-labour-rights-stability

http://www.academia.edu/726482/Resisting_the_Common-Nonsense_of_Neoliberalism_A_Report_from_British_Columbia

http://www.bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=20410

https://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=21900

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-must-pay-2m-to-teachers-over-class-size-court-battle-1.1658562

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ987320.pdf

http://socialistalternative.ca/posts/650

http://www.alternet.org/6-reasons-teachers-unions-are-good-kids

http://vancouverobserver.com/news/bc-government-appeals-court-ruling-slamming-its-abuse-public-education-bargaining-rights

http://www.news1130.com/2014/04/04/teachers-and-the-province-no-closer-to-reaching-agreement/?cid=dlvr.it

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-teachers-initial-strike-action-poses-safety-issues-for-students-says-government-negotiator/article17840273/

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/07/the-liberal-education-reform-revolt/

[Pct2017]

I get they aren't in the private sector. they are public employees, teaching our kids. And they deserve to be paid just as much as other professional occupations. Do you not want your kids to be taught by the best teachers we can hire in BC?

Two problems with your argument. First, you equate high pay for teachers with teacher quality. And teachers love that argument. Trouble is, they are a vocational group that relies entirely on union security for continued employment. In other words, you can pay a good teacher more money and you will still have a good teacher. You can pay a crappy teacher more money and you will still have a crappy teacher. Either way, they are teachers for life as their union will protect them from the day they are hired until the day they retire. So, pay has absolutely nothing to do with teacher quality.

As a matter of fact, the exact opposite could be argued. You could reduce pay for teachers and you would not affect the quality of teachers for the exact same reasons stated above.

Second, I am sorry but there is a huge difference between the private and public sectors. The basic difference between working in the private sector and in the public sector is wages, hours worked and benefit package. The private sector has always been the home of long hours and better pay than their government employed counterparts. That just simply has always been the case. When most kids graduate from university, they make the choice between lifestyle (public sector job) and pay (private sector job).

Then in the 1990's, the gap began to grow on the benefits side, particularly in pensions. There was a huge push in industry to do away with defined benefit pensions for salaried positions, replacing them with defined contribution pensions. This has never happened in the public sector. The difference is huge, but is rarely acknowledged by public sector unions.

So, yes, you could argue that teachers should be paid the same as professionals in the private sector, but do you really think that they would be willing to accept longer work hours and a reduction in benefits like pensions?

[Michael Hardner]

Two problems with your argument. First, you equate high pay for teachers with teacher quality. And teachers love that argument. Trouble is, they are a vocational group that relies entirely on union security for continued employment. In other words, you can pay a good teacher more money and you will still have a good teacher. You can pay a crappy teacher more money and you will still have a crappy teacher. Either way, they are teachers for life as their union will protect them from the day they are hired until the day they retire. So, pay has absolutely nothing to do with teacher quality.

The obvious counter argument is: if you offer crappy money, the good teachers will find something else to do.

As a matter of fact, the exact opposite could be argued. You could reduce pay for teachers and you would not affect the quality of teachers for the exact same reasons stated above.

Could be argued, yes, but it would need some reasoning behind.

The idea of teachers getting superpowers from radioactive spiders could also "be argued"... let us argue these things, and argue them with reasons hopefully.

So, yes, you could argue that teachers should be paid the same as professionals in the private sector, but do you really think that they would be willing to accept longer work hours and a reduction in benefits like pensions?

Of course not. They need to acknowledge that their power has a political base, and to update their public image as favouring reform.

I would like to see the justification behind the 13% increase, though. That calls out for an explanation.

[WestCoastRunner]

Can I have a cite that says which "professionals" are getting those increase ?

http://career-advice.monster.ca/salary-benefits/salary-information/salary-increase-forecast-canada-2014-ca/article.aspx

Monster has put out an article forecasting wage increases for 2014. In summary:

• technology workers (+ 5.5%), oil sands employees (+4.2%), and financial professionals (+3.2%).
• Services (+3.3%), Credit Unions (+3.2 %), Chemicals (+3.1%) and Utilities (+3%) are industries forecasting increases that are higher than the national average. Overall, the private sector is expected to provide noticeably higher salary increases (+3%) than the public sector.
• Salary increases of 4% could be the norm for IT/software development.
• Administrative professionals are anticipated to rise an average of 3.5 per cent in 2014.
• Other higher than average sectors: chemicals (+3.3%), Business/professional services (at 3.2%) and private sector utilites (at 3.1%).

If these increases were to occur each year over 4 years, they would be comparable to what the teachers are asking for and there is no reason to believe that this wouldn't occur.

[Shady]

Second, I am sorry but there is a huge difference between the private and public sectors. The basic difference between working in the private sector and in the public sector is wages, hours worked and benefit package. The private sector has always been the home of long hours and better pay than their government employed counterparts. That just simply has always been the case

Exactly. Working in the public sector used to be about making a little less, but having better job security and benefits. Now they want better pay as well, but without any of the negatives of the private sector. It's pure greed.

[socialist]

Two problems with your argument. First, you equate high pay for teachers with teacher quality. And teachers love that argument. Trouble is, they are a vocational group that relies entirely on union security for continued employment. In other words, you can pay a good teacher more money and you will still have a good teacher. You can pay a crappy teacher more money and you will still have a crappy teacher. Either way, they are teachers for life as their union will protect them from the day they are hired until the day they retire. So, pay has absolutely nothing to do with teacher quality.

As a matter of fact, the exact opposite could be argued. You could reduce pay for teachers and you would not affect the quality of teachers for the exact same reasons stated above.

Second, I am sorry but there is a huge difference between the private and public sectors. The basic difference between working in the private sector and in the public sector is wages, hours worked and benefit package. The private sector has always been the home of long hours and better pay than their government employed counterparts. That just simply has always been the case. When most kids graduate from university, they make the choice between lifestyle (public sector job) and pay (private sector job).

Then in the 1990's, the gap began to grow on the benefits side, particularly in pensions. There was a huge push in industry to do away with defined benefit pensions for salaried positions, replacing them with defined contribution pensions. This has never happened in the public sector. The difference is huge, but is rarely acknowledged by public sector unions.

So, yes, you could argue that teachers should be paid the same as professionals in the private sector, but do you really think that they would be willing to accept longer work hours and a reduction in benefits like pensions?

You don't understand the number of unpaid hours volunteering to coach kids, extra music practice, marking, preparing lessons, and the list goes on and on. This is for all the clueless who have no idea what an educator's day is like. Step outside your cocoons shady and PCT.

[The_Squid]

I don't want a teacher who is also a preacher! LOL Teachers are "doctors"? Really? This isn't a bit of hyperbole? A nurse, maybe... Actually, maybe a first aid attendant at best. Assuming they have any first aid training at all.... But a doctor? That's actually laughable.

What an asinine list.

[socialist]

I don't want a teacher who is also a preacher! LOL Teachers are "doctors"? Really? This isn't a bit of hyperbole? A nurse, maybe... Actually, maybe a first aid attendant at best. Assuming they have any first aid training at all.... But a doctor? That's actually laughable.

What an asinine list.

The only thing asinine is the fact that you have no clue what an educator's day involves. We wear many hats, and the ignorant choose not to understand that.

[socialist]

Exactly. Working in the public sector used to be about making a little less, but having better job security and benefits. Now they want better pay as well, but without any of the negatives of the private sector. It's pure greed.

Also, many educators spend thousands of dollars for classroom supplies because the neo-lib government is underfunding public education in an agenda to privatize to appease the corporate masters.

[Michael Hardner]

• technology workers (+ 5.5%), oil sands employees (+4.2%), and financial professionals (+3.2%).
• Services (+3.3%), Credit Unions (+3.2 %), Chemicals (+3.1%) and Utilities (+3%) are industries forecasting increases that are higher than the national average. Overall, the private sector is expected to provide noticeably higher salary increases (+3%) than the public sector.
• Salary increases of 4% could be the norm for IT/software development.
• Administrative professionals are anticipated to rise an average of 3.5 per cent in 2014.
• Other higher than average sectors: chemicals (+3.3%), Business/professional services (at 3.2%) and private sector utilites (at 3.1%).

If these increases were to occur each year over 4 years, they would be comparable to what the teachers are asking for and there is no reason to believe that this wouldn't occur.

There is an issue as to what 'professional' means, exactly. Often, it means that you belong to a professional organization as teachers and so on do, but often it is used to mean office workers. From that list, I would pick business/professional services as the best description that could be considered close to what teachers could be grouped with. The increase we're talking about comes down to something more than 4.3% per year which is considerably higher than the business/professional services increase.

[Michael Hardner]

You don't understand the number of unpaid hours...

But that's not new, so it has nothing to do with increases over the normal/average increase.

[WestCoastRunner]

1.1% is not considerably higher.

[Michael Hardner]

1.1% is not considerably higher.

Yes, 1.1% over 3.2% is more than 1/3 higher.

[Michael Hardner]

To be clear - I'm calling for more realistic dialogue on both sides. People who complain about teacher salaries as though they don't "deserve" the money are on the wrong path, as are teachers who don't realize how good they have it.

If both sides could acknowledge some basic realism then we could find a 3rd way forward to solve a few problems.

[Shady]

http://career-advice.monster.ca/salary-benefits/salary-information/salary-increase-forecast-canada-2014-ca/article.aspx

Monster has put out an article forecasting wage increases for 2014. In summary:

• technology workers (+ 5.5%), oil sands employees (+4.2%), and financial professionals (+3.2%).
• Services (+3.3%), Credit Unions (+3.2 %), Chemicals (+3.1%) and Utilities (+3%) are industries forecasting increases that are higher than the national average. Overall, the private sector is expected to provide noticeably higher salary increases (+3%) than the public sector.
• Salary increases of 4% could be the norm for IT/software development.
• Administrative professionals are anticipated to rise an average of 3.5 per cent in 2014.
• Other higher than average sectors: chemicals (+3.3%), Business/professional services (at 3.2%) and private sector utilites (at 3.1%).

If these increases were to occur each year over 4 years, they would be comparable to what the teachers are asking for and there is no reason to believe that this wouldn't occur.

There's many problems with this list. This is a forecase for one year. The next year, these same professions could experience a smaller increase, or even a decrease. Also, I think it's rather ironic that oil sands and energy workers are listed by this particular poster, when they're part of the group that wants to shut down the oil sands and significantly cripple Canada's fossil fuel industry. I guess its nice to see them finally acknowledge the fact that the energy industry is an important industry in providing good wages and a growing middle class.

The key phrase though is this... "If these increases were to occur each year over 4 years". Well, like I've already said, that's a pretty big assumption. And if these increases don't occur each year for four years, will teachers be ok if their wage increase is scaled back at the same rate? I doubt it.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Shady

[Pct2017]

http://career-advice.monster.ca/salary-benefits/salary-information/salary-increase-forecast-canada-2014-ca/article.aspx

Monster has put out an article forecasting wage increases for 2014. In summary:

• technology workers (+ 5.5%), oil sands employees (+4.2%), and financial professionals (+3.2%).
• Services (+3.3%), Credit Unions (+3.2 %), Chemicals (+3.1%) and Utilities (+3%) are industries forecasting increases that are higher than the national average. Overall, the private sector is expected to provide noticeably higher salary increases (+3%) than the public sector.
• Salary increases of 4% could be the norm for IT/software development.
• Administrative professionals are anticipated to rise an average of 3.5 per cent in 2014.
• Other higher than average sectors: chemicals (+3.3%), Business/professional services (at 3.2%) and private sector utilites (at 3.1%).

If these increases were to occur each year over 4 years, they would be comparable to what the teachers are asking for and there is no reason to believe that this wouldn't occur.

You are doing a bit of cherry picking. The article you quote from goes on to say a couple of times that public sector employees will not make the same gains as their private sector counterparts in the timeframe referenced.

Look, the employer opened with a low offer, the union countered high and they will eventually settle in the middle. The only remaining question is how much unnecessary posturing will the teachers do between now and then.

[WestCoastRunner]

I didn't cherry pick anything. I just copied and pasted some lines. I could have copied and pasted the whole article but that would be silly. Why do think I provided the link. So folks can read it themselves.

[Bryan]

Look, the employer opened with a low offer, the union countered high and they will eventually settle in the middle. The only remaining question is how much unnecessary posturing will the teachers do between now and then.

No. The employer made an offer that was already far too generous, and the union is trying to bleed the taxpayers dry. As usual.

[socialist]

No. The employer made an offer that was already far too generous, and the union is trying to bleed the taxpayers dry. As usual.

It's the job of all citizens to pay for public education. Without public education we would lose democracy.

[overthere]

I don't find the 13.5 per cent wage increase over three years unreasonable at all. In the private sector, in a professional capacity, you could expect at least that much. To expect to be paid a seven percent increase over 10 years, which is being offered by the BCPSEA seems quite low for a professional. If we want to attract good teachers to teach our kids, lets pay them a comparable wage that is being paid in the private sector for a professional. It's not about teachers being greedy. That statement is really painting a broad negative stroke against the teachers in BC. My kids went to school in BC. They certainly did not come across as greedy to me.

In the private sector salary increases would be based on two main factors: job peformance and profitability.

Teachers cannot be touched for poor or medicocre performance, neither can exceptional teachers be rewarded.

Profitability is a foreign concept to public servants, they know the well of money is endless.

Oh, and COLA is around 6% over 3 years.

Hope that helps.

Very few people in private sector even get COLA, their money depends on.... see above.

[Michael Hardner]

OT - the link from Monster puts private sector increases at 3%

[Bryan]

It's the job of all citizens to pay for public education. Without public education we would lose democracy.

They already are paying for it handsomely. What you're talking about is the exact opposite of democracy, it's extortion.

[socialist]

They already are paying for it handsomely. What you're talking about is the exact opposite of democracy, it's extortion.

No, because everyone benefits from public education . Sorry you're too ignorant to understand that.

[bleeding heart]

No doubt very-real issues with the public sector aside, I do take some issue with the mostly faith-based belief that "in the private sector, salary increases [are] based on two main factors: job performance and profitability."

The second point may or may not be true (in a highly qualified sense); but the first, well, it's far from so clear. As someone who has spent their entire life working solely in the private sector, in numerous jobs and in numerous positions of responsibility, the oft-stated idea of "meritocracy" as it relates to "the efficiency of the market" are often--maybe mostly--illusions.

I understand the theory, and sure, it sounds right, doesn't it?

But maybe we should stop pretending, for ideological reasons, that, when theory and practice clash (which they are wont to do, continually) that theory wins out; that theory is more important--hell, more real--than lived reality itself.

I beg to differ.