BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[GostHacked]

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.

Either there were topical graphical issues with the font, but there were periods and commas at the end of each line. Not very good grammar.

[Bryan]

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

No one is talking about not having public education. We already have high quality public education that we already pay a tremendous amount of money to maintain.

[socialist]

No one is talking about not having public education. We already have high quality public education that we already pay a tremendous amount of money to maintain.

Good. And if we want to continue to have world class public education, taxpayes are going to have to pay more. We need smaller class sizes to accommodate all the different learning styles we are faced with as educators. In order for smaller classes to become reality we need more teachers which means costs will have to rise. But that's a small price to pay, a little increase in taxes, to support a world class system. Taxes are necessary for proper democracy.

[Bryan]

Good. And if we want to continue to have world class public education, taxpayes are going to have to pay more. We need smaller class sizes to accommodate all the different learning styles we are faced with as educators. In order for smaller classes to become reality we need more teachers which means costs will have to rise. But that's a small price to pay, a little increase in taxes, to support a world class system. Taxes are necessary for proper democracy.

We already pay far too much in taxes. The continual rise in taxes especially must stop. Education taxes are the most insidious, because they can always use excuses like yours to brow-beat people into digging deeper. If anything, it's time to start cutting those taxes.

The real solution is for school divisions to allocate the tremendous amount of funding they already get in a more efficient manner. Stop with programs that don't actually facilitate functional education, stop paying executives so much, stop spending so much on infrastructure, adjust catchment lines to even out enrolments instead of just building new schools while closing others.

[socialist]

We already pay far too much in taxes. The continual rise in taxes especially must stop. Education taxes are the most insidious, because they can always use excuses like yours to brow-beat people into digging deeper. If anything, it's time to start cutting those taxes.

The real solution is for school divisions to allocate the tremendous amount of funding they already get in a more efficient manner. Stop with programs that don't actually facilitate functional education, stop paying executives so much, stop spending so much on infrastructure, adjust catchment lines to even out enrolments instead of just building new schools while closing others.

List some of these so-called programs that don't facilitate functional education, as you call it. easy to throw out words without evidence. I had enough of the bufoonery reading PCT's posts.

Edited April 8, 2014 by socialist

[Bryan]

List some of these so-called programs that don't facilitate functional education, as you call it. easy to throw out words without evidence. I had enough of the bufoonery reading PCT's posts.

All of the social engineering stuff related to bilingualism, multiculturalism, sexuality, etc.

The only buffoonery in this thread is coming from you.

[socialist]

All of the social engineering stuff related to bilingualism, multiculturalism, sexuality, etc.

The only buffoonery in this thread is coming from you.

Multiculturalism is a major component of Canada's fabric. Only a fool would denigrate it. The more languages you speak the better off you will be. Sexuality....all kids should feel safe in school, it constitutes social justice. You are out to lunch with that post, I'm afraid. You have just proven that you have no understanding of 21st century learning. But by reading your previous posts, 'm not surprised.

[Bryan]

I understand that you really like to spend other people's money. You want that stuff, YOU pay for it.

It's not the government's job to indoctrinate children into their specific brand of social engineering. Culture is a real thing you get from your family and peer groups, not something you get taught by the government.

[bleeding heart]

I would agree with you--or at least assume your argument was principled--if you were to state that ALL forms of "social engineering" were to be abandoned.

But you don't. You ignore by far and away the biggest one, and focus on trivialities.

You mention

1. "bilingualism"...(?).now, how, for example here in New Brunswick, could bilingualism not be something a teacher talks about? It's not some ideology....it's the plain, unequivocal fact on the ground.

And for that matter, what, exactly, do you suppose teachers are instructing their students about on this subject?

2. "Mulitculturalism"....what do you mean? Should they say we aren't a multicultural society? Should they denigrate it? Ignore it altogether?

3. "Sexuality"....what do you mean? What is the "social engineering" that occurs...obviously you think it is a central concern....but what--exactly what--IS your concern? You don't tell us.

At any rate, you ignore the far more prevalent, ingrained forms of incessant social engineering....the outright indoctrination of our youth into nationalist and bigoted Canadian supremacy. Why?

For example, how many history teachers, just as a guess, do you think have informed their students of Canadian history re the nation of Haiti? That we were an integral part of the illegal overthrow of a popularly-elected leader, and his replacement by vicious authoritarians leached from the heavily class-conscious sectors of the minority Haitian elite?

I mean...that's history....Canada's open detestation for democracy and sovereignty, even as we have the unmitigated balls to moan about Russia's recent (far less horrific) behavior.

This is a failure of teachers...of the sort that teachers' most vociferous critics never, ever, ever point out, exposing their own lack of reflection and hostility to ugly facts. This is opposition to truth, and it is unadulterated indoctrination, and propaganda through omission. (Probably the most effective kind.)

Sure, doubtless a tiny handful of teachers did mention it, probably to the spitting ire of parents, whose patriotism makes them moral cretins and intellectual weaklings.

Because the issue extrapolates exactly from this point. Patriotism often DOES make people morons, and ethical cowards. And yet students ARE taught nationalist "virtues" [sic]...a far more insidious form of "social engineering" than the ones you mention but refrain from spelling out.

Edited April 8, 2014 by bleeding heart

[overthere]

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.

I did not invent those two factors: performance and profitiability- as the basis of compensation(inclduing raises and bonus money) in the private sector.

That is exactly what I had to assess as a manager in a medium sized business that was not unionized.

If we lost money, the discussion was never about how much salaries would increase or what COLA was that year. It would focus on how we could return to profitability, or more accurately the return on investment. There is no point in breaking even over the longer term while risking large amounts of operating money or credit lines.

If we achieved our profit targets, increases to individuals would be done assessed on how much they contributed as compared to their peers. Some people did not warrant a raise and did not get one. Others got an increase. Others got a large increase. If an individuals performance over time was below average, they'd be looking for a new job eventually.

If we exceeded our profit targets(which were not onerous)there would be a bonus pool. People would be compensated in the same way they were for increases in salary.

If your private sector experience was different- if your pay was dependent on something else- I suggest that company would and must have some financial problems.

The above was in a non-union company. Our turnover was low. We had a really good, cohesive staff overall.

I also worked as a manager in larger companies and government, both unionized. Different story there, for sure.

Now I've been self employed for many years. Whew, finally found my niche.

[bleeding heart]

Like I said, I saw the same thing everywhere. Sure, sometimes individual achievement was recognized...sometimes not. Same with, shall we say, comparatively apathetic performances.

And no, obviously sometimes meritocracy works out...of course.

Just as plenty of unionized employees are stellar workers...a heretical notion, I understand, but only for the--ideologically inclined.

As for my experience--the most salient one I was talking about was Walmart. Not primarily famous for financial problems...and certainly little of anything there is based on a meritocratic performance record, as about a million aggrieved "associates" would inform you. (Quietly,of course, lest they get fired.)

[overthere]

Like I said, I saw the same thing everywhere. Sure, sometimes individual achievement was recognized...sometimes not. Same with, shall we say, comparatively apathetic performances.

And no, obviously sometimes meritocracy works out...of course.

Just as plenty of unionized employees are stellar workers...a heretical notion, I understand, but only for the--ideologically inclined.

As for my experience--the most salient one I was talking about was Walmart. Not primarily famous for financial problems...and certainly little of anything there is based on a meritocratic performance record, as about a million aggrieved "associates" would inform you. (Quietly,of course, lest they get fired.)

Walmart... a family worked there as a cashier.

They didn't do any calisthenics or sing any songs. The pay was the same as everyhwere else: about $3 over minimum wage. The benefits were the same as everywhere else: basically nil for casual workers. She said the time flew because it was al;ways busy. Turnover- as in all crap retail work here- was high.

I also have a friend who has worked as a department manager for a couple of years at Walmart. She previously did much the same job at Superstore, then Sears. According to her, Walmart is the best of those three. Money is a bit better, benefits were the same as Sears and much better than Superstore, management was friendlier to her and if she is willing to relocate she can move up the mgmt ladder.

I agree that many union members are hard workers and superb employees. My point was that in general that makes no difference at all to compensation. I found the work environment to be a lot less collegial too.

[bleeding heart]

And the work environment at Walmart is not especially collegial---which is part of the reason it's so controversial. The controversies aren't all union propaganda, I hope you realize.

To be fair to Walmart, it is not especially different from most similar jobs. It has become rather symbolic of them. (The remuneration is actually less than at many, such as Costco and Target...so your friend's personal experience is not the usual one.) Most associates make about ONE dollar over minimum wage.

Management depends on the store, obviously. My foray there had more decent than indecent managers....it was the actual corporate policy that was ugly and demoralizing....

....and it is intentionally demoralizing. Which, to me, makes the the preditable defense of the company, from people who have never worked there, baffling, if not galling.

At any rate, as per your penultimate statement, is not clear that being a "hard worker and superb employee" makes little to no difference in compensation at walmart and its peers? And that since this is self-evidently true, it raises the question of why you'd point it out...implying that it does?

At any rate, since we're offering personal anecdotes: which do you think I'm likely to take more seriously: my own personal experience, or the second-hand sources you offer?

But both our anecdotes are rather beside the point, admittedly.

The point is that merit does NOT play a serious role in the sorts of jobs that make up truly massive amounts of employment for the lowest-wage workers.

So unless we become selective about which parts of the private sector we're discussing (deriding many tens of millions of workers' experience as irrelevant, since their lives don't fit neatly into ECON 101), the "meritocracy" notion is problematic...to be highly generous.

(Incidentally, did you know that the term "meritocracy" was coined by a satirist to lampoon the idea? )

Edited April 9, 2014 by bleeding heart

[overthere]

To be fair to Walmart, it is not especially different from most similar jobs. It has become rather symbolic of them. (The remuneration is actually less than at many, such as Costco and Target...so your friend's personal experience is not the usual one.) Most associates make about ONE dollar over minimum wage.

I live in Alberta. If employers don't pay whaterver is required to retain unskilled workers, they don't get workers. My friend is a manager and of those three retailers she has worked for Walmart has been the best overall.

The point is that merit does NOT play a serious role in the sorts of jobs that make up truly massive amounts of employment for the lowest-wage workers.

Now you've moved the goalposts. We were discussing public vs private/union vs non union at one point. Since we are now talking about only the lowest paid workers, that eliminates all public sector workers. It also cuts out most private sector wortkers, since they tend not to be unionized.

Walmart only then?

[socialist]

Would hate to see our nation without public sector unions sticking up for the little guy. The war against unions will be defeated.

[socialist]

[bleeding heart]

Overthere:

Where do you get your "Walmart only" retort...since I explicitly argued this was not the case.

I'm merely properly "greying" the faith-based, intensely ideologically-driven notion that "non-union" organizations are inherently "meritocratic."

It's such a massive overgeneralization that it's as "true" as "all union employees are lazy" (also a religious belief).

[overthere]

In Canada, the samller portion of the work force that is public sector is about 70% unionized. The larger private sector is around 18% overall.

Merit has little place in union work in establshing wages, promotions, bonus money. Let's not pretend otherwise. There is nowhere for such notions in CBAs, or you'd have to also allow for penalties for poor performance. It is simply true that non union environments are far more likely to recognize performances on either end of the spectrum. Grey enough for you?

And now you are claiming that somebody said all union employees are lazy. Let's shift those goalposts yet again

[bleeding heart]

It may well be "true that non union environments are far more likely to recognize performances on either end of the spectrum," but since it is your claim, the onus is on you to offer something a little more expansive than you have (ie nothing).

And you have not begun to address (aside from some obvious, demonstrable errors) my central point: that millions upon millions of low-wage workers in what is ostensibly the most "meritocratic" region on Earth (North America) are working in a situation in which merit plays little to no part whatsoever.

If it did play more of a part, it would undoubtedly be better for them, though the real "meritocratic" entities (shareholders, et al) obviously oppose such ideas strenuously, probably in a ways that you personally do not.

That you can relegate such a significant portion of the labour class as irrelevant to your point about "recognizing performance" is striking.

Even for those (and I'm not talking about you) who consider masses of low-paid humanity to be essentially losers, who get what they "deserve" based on laughable notions of "market principles"....the fact that the "meritocratic" workforce is at least partially a monumental myth speaks for itself.

Edited April 14, 2014 by bleeding heart

[socialist]

The BC neo-liberal government got its wish. It has forced teachers to strike. This is what happens when you don't value public education by ubderfunding it. BC students receive $1000/student than the next lowest province. The neo-liberals have badly miscalculated public perception here because the public is greatly in favor of the BCTF and teachers in this assault on BC public education.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/255708751.html

When the economy is bad, investing in public education is good policy. Cut and watch the economy tank.

Edited April 17, 2014 by socialist

[socialist]

Maybe the neo-lberal government inn BC can stop cuttin g corporate tax rates and increase education funding!

[socialist]

Waldo, I hope you are educating yourself on this important issue facing BC education. You are very knowledgeable on many subjects but I find your understanding of the neo-liberal assault on BC public education is lacking. I will try to help you understand.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/08-6

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/08-6

Edited April 18, 2014 by socialist

[Pct2017]

Ah yes. Out here in BC, there are many sure signs of spring in April. The sound of lawn mowers, cherry blossoms are in full bloom, golf clubs are coming out of the garage. And, of course, the teachers are going on strike.

Oh, pardon me, they do not strike. They have job actions. That is a very important distinction!

Edited April 18, 2014 by Pct2017

[socialist]

Ah yes. Out here in BC, there are many sure signs of spring in April. The sound of lawn mowers, cherry blossoms are in full bloom, golf clubs are coming out of the garage. And, of course, the teachers are going on strike.

Oh, pardon me, they do not strike. They have job actions. That is a very important distinction!

True. It is a job action. The neo-liberals have forced teachers to do this. Neo-libs could care less about kids and deteriorating conditions due to a lack of funding.

Thanks for chiming in PCT. You still have little knowledge of what is happening.

[Bryan]

The neo-liberals have badly miscalculated public perception here because the public is greatly in favor of the BCTF and teachers in this assault on BC public education.

If the teachers think the general public supports strike action, they are the ones who have badly miscalculated. People do not appreciate this kind of extortion. They are going to sour whatever good will they still have with the working taxpayers who pay the teachers' salaries.