Peace in education

[JBen]

Actually Krakadawn I don't think its gone downhill. At all, for a nice change it's stayed on topic.

This thread is about all teachers giving their Unions strike mandates. Elementary, Public Highschool and Catholic.
A strike or job action that is impacting.
Children (heard on the news one group is considering legal action against teachers)
If my friends son loses his US scholarship (likely worth 20,000-30,000 year) as a result. Know any teachers willing to compensate her?

Tax paying parents who are getting reamed.

Yet more "labour" strife from a group that relatively have it soooooo much better than most of those paying taxes. Who are getting reamed by the cost of Hydro, higher taxation/fees etc, etc.

Seriously.
*******************
Ok so this bout of strikes is over
class size ( a legitimate concern imo)
banked sick days ( nonsense)
something else, I forget.

Its coming when
They have worked tirelessly to keep this party in power. The very party that has screwed so much up
They just worked hard to re-elect them.......when everyone and their uncle and uneducated nephew knew cuts were coming, they are needed to save money, and times are tough.

Deal with it, you helped create it, you "wanted" it, you campaigned for it, you voted for it.

And if they really wanted to, really wanted to look at things, pretty sure they can find a lot of savings, without hurting most teachers (aka theres fat ) and address the class size issue themselves so that those who "deserve" it actually get the benefit of all those tax dollars.

[krakadawn]

JB, when you say deal with it, I don't have a problem but be clear......I didn't help create it, I didn't 'want' it, I didn't campaign for it and I sure didn't vote for it as you suggest.

[JBen]

No problem Krakadawn
That is one reason why I get upset when people "target" teachers. Blame the Unions.
Though in this matter alone (the strike) I myself am a little more "close minded". No doubt there are many teachers who don't agree with everything, many who don't feel they should be striking, or are undecided. Many who haven't voted for the Liberals all the time, or campaigned for them. etc. etc.

But alteast 50% voted for the mandate ( im assuming 50% is needed).
So apologies if Im a little too "broad brush stroke" myself in catching all teachers up kind of thing.

In a perfect world the Unions would be capable of looking at "reality".
FYI not 5 minutes ago I was notified some very good friends of mine ( 5 of them) at BMO have been laid off this week. Puts things in perspective no?

And saying..We know cuts/savings are needed...Surely we can find some.

[Sharon]

If the students in the poorly performing school are anything like I was it probably has something to do with it (and I'm sure parents play the largest factor). I remember the old Canadian Basic Skills testing we used to do. As soon as I heard that the tests were mandatory and that they would not affect our marks I made a point of trying to screw the system up as much as possible.

Once the test results came back I would get called into the office due to my poor performance. During the inevitable questioning I would respond "but did you look at the cards? If you connect the dots they make really cool pictures of boats and airplanes."

.....................

ROFLMBO I had students like you.

[Sharon]

Just on the banking of sick days.
That is an outrageously expensive, outdated perk. Arent "teachers" adequately compensated already? Pensions? Don't they have medical insurance?

No argument they certain a certain amount (X) of sick time per year.
The real world when allotted sick time isn't enough goes on Short Term Disability (usually 70% of salary)
What a novel concept.

So this strike which from what I can glean from the Unions is about the govt not having enough to give our children the educations they deserve, and classroom sizes.

great, do something about it.. It would be ridiculousy easy to find the money in order to be able hire a boatload of more teachers and have classrooms of 20/per.
See above

...............


Banking of sick days ended in 2006 in London

http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/...l_Board/Salary

[Oddmott]

...............


Banking of sick days ended in 2006.

Pretty sure it was in effect until the end of 2012 when Bill 115 - Putting Students First Act eliminated it.

[Hunter John]

Pretty sure it was in effect until the end of 2012 when Bill 115 - Putting Students First Act eliminated it.

Affirmative . The max we were allowed to accumulate was 240 days and they had no cash value unless you were hired before 1980 or something like that. Now you get 11 days a year and at the beginning of the next year you go back to 11. no accumulation and I am ok with that.

[JBen]

I read something put out one of the Unions saying something about the govt wanting to remove it or some such. Thought it odd.

The main point (right word?) is that they had better start saving money. No argument most everyone could point fingers at the "fat cats" in the bureaucracy. Or point fingers at X. That human nature, anyone but me.

ok who. and wont they do the same. Why me, look at X.
*****
If class size is an issue. What's the answer?
More teachers.
How? Especially when there are lots of young teachers on contract, cant get full time positions.
*********
I also think/understand the Unions (some teachers) are balking at changing the pay grid and increasing the number of years between new salary range. And that to is one reason for the strike.
X years = $X.XX
Y years = $Y.YY
Z years = $Z.ZZ

Ok, Im not a rocket scientist but even I know if they bring that in, that will save money. It make little sense to me, in any industry to have pay scales based solely on time served to begin with.
Just because Ive been at my job for 20 years doesn't bump me into higher bands.
*********

Part of the problem (imo) is the fact Unions are inflexible. Oh sure, when the economy is booming and money is flowing they are really quick to ask for more.....Then Dig their heels in when things go south. These days most people are getting 1.75%...back in 2011 it was around 1.5%. So even the 2%-2.5% most received is/was out of line.

If I recall correctly 2000 to 2008 they commonly got more than what was typical. It adds up. Factor in how Pensions are determined by amounts earned, especially DBPs (typically the 3 to 5 highest earning years).......That adds up large. When things go south we cant very well lay off 10% of the Teachers (OPP or other can we?). Claw back 1% or 2%....yeah, good luck with that

When the economy picks up and kicks in again. There are the Unions asking for 3% or 3.5% (or whatever "reality" says is warranted)
Spread that over 10-15-20 years and a couple economic cycles?
They are way ahead of the game.
******

So given things say since 2006/2007.
Would it really hurt Teachers if (just a "if)
Those earning north of the duo mean (75k) flatlined those north of 100k maybe a wee cutback (don't forget they have Pensions to) and those under 75k got cost of living
1.75 these days or slightly less (given the way things work aka there's never clawbacks when things go south)

If the past 4 years were Boom years and contracts were handed out giving 5% raises....but it suddenly goes south, hundreds of thousands lose jobs, more see income levels reduced (bonuses or clawbacks)

PS Unionized people? Keep getting 5% year...then get X (say 2%) and when good times return back up to 5%
And don't forget Pensions are based on earnings to...So a 3% raise
Or 8.5% OPP raise also means the Pension contributions/payouts increase as well.

The problems we have
The problems coming
Are all mostly known/quantifiable.

/wonders when someone will actually be willing to sit down and see what can be done.

[fishermccann]

My question JB is why were 5 employees laid off at BMO? Assets 588.6 Billion. Rev. 16.7 Billion. Net income 4.3 billion..... 4th. largest bank in Canada, 10th largest in North America. Is 4.3 billion a year in profits not enough for them? As you would say the rich get richer. How many employees would the CEO's pay of over 10 million( including shares), have kept.

[JBen]

Does it matter G?

Seriously you need to dig your head out of the sand and realize a few things. A number of them.
Maybe their department was unprofitable. Maybe this or that. Further you really don't understand how businesses work

Is 4.3 billion a year in profits not enough for them?

What's the return on capital G
How much risk is involved here or there (different area's, divisions, types of business)
Do you have any clue with respect to the industry changes that have come in, are coming in with respect to leveraging, or capital reserves and how those things impact profitability.

Wouldn't you be the first to cry if a bank blew up, took big risk trying to earn 1b?

Is a trade or business transaction worth it if your RoC is 5%? or if the spread is 10bps? I used to do a lot business (certain types of trades, actually with BMO) where the spread was 20bps (do you know what a basis point is). Any lower than that and it wasn't "worth doing". Various regulatory changes have killed those business lines. So where before I could do a trade for $250,000,000 and earn 20bps ($500,000) those trades are no longer "profitable" once you weight VaR and other things.

And on
And on
And on
And on

Maybe they were in a credit department/area but because of tightening credit rules/regimes...
/pink slips

Maybe they were in the mortage end of the business and changes there.
/pink slips

For all your gripiing about big bad coporate America, you really don't understand.
The world changed in 2008 and the only industry that doesn't seem to "get it" is
PS, socialist.