BullshitOf course you don't. You only take salaries into consideration. Think critically using your supply-demand theory and turn it upside down. For a country to fill the demand for smart/competent/capable/educated (use any adjective you like) teachers you must offer a compensation that is attractive. Putting what you value aside for a moment, most developed societies have put considerable, and increasing, value into education; therefore wanting (or demanding) teachers that are considerably, and increasingly, bright. In order to get those types of candidates you must make the compensation more attractive than 'the least someone will do the job for'. Therefore if society is demanding (there's that word again) teachers of certain qualifications (ones that are higher the the average person has or job requires), you must supply an equivalent compensation.
Read the link below. I only skimmed it, but it does give a brief history of teacher compensation and qualifications.
http://www.etfo.ca/SiteCollectionDo...uments/ETFO History Documents/history-pt3.pdf
They should continue to make 83K and keep their benefits.So what do you think they should make then??
Assuming a teacher makes $83K now, do you think they should make $100K??
But more to the point how much they get paid should be done through negotiations as they have in the past not legisliated.So what do you think they should make then??
Assuming a teacher makes $83K now, do you think they should make $100K??
Now I'll call bullshit. You think those applicants aren't going to eventually want to be increasingly compensated for thier qualifications and increasing experience? I guess they'll just work for the same salary and benefits for the rest of their lives. But we'll save today and just replace them with 'green' teachers. If every industry did that (basically hiring the newest/cheapest available workers) then what product would we expect? I guess experience is worthless in your reasoning.Bullshit
You could replace every last one of these teachers @ 20% lower compensation and still have a line up of qualified applicants for the position
Unless you have not heard the supply of jobs is far less than the demand
Somehow you leave the impression that teachers are the cream of the crop & should be compensated as such
They are defiantly not that
Those that can not........teach
Now it appears, that those who can not teach...............strike
I disagree. The supply of jobs availalbe will prevent people from shelling out whatever' teacher's college costs to have a piece of paper and no job prospect. All I know is that the tuition is more than undergrad university.Supply and demand is the usual method.
Right now the union has artificially raised teacher compensation to a point where there are too many people trying to be teachers and not enough jobs for them.
Reducing their pay would correct the over supply of teachers.
Your plan may work, but first the school year would have to change, and like you said, it's very origin lies in the needs of students, not the demand of teachers. To use that as a reason to dissect teacher pay is not a valid argument.Schools are closed two month a year because historically the kids were needed @ home on the farm to tend to the crops during the growing season
This is hardly a reality in present day Ontario
It would far more efficient to run the schools 52 weeks a year, with teacher receiving 4-5 weeks holidays a year (with out a prorated increase)
If you say I have no idea about the job I am judging, please educate me
Please explain where a person can obtain a position that averages $83K / year with 2 1/2 months vacation
Please explain where a person can gain employment where their primary function is required for 3 classes a day
Please describe a job where a person can be absolutely incompetent and ineffective, yet not have to give a second thought to the possibility of getting fired
Please explain how anyone can claim to a professional, yet withhold services from the individuals for whom the position exists, all to protect their collective bargaining rights ?
Call yourself kettle all you want, if you are a teacher and still think you deserve more, I call you much worse
No. The 11K grads are a result of people blindly taking a university degree thinking it will get them a job. The job market for new teachers has sucked for a while. Think about it 11K grads per year..... how many retirements, firings, deaths and new schools are beuing built in Ontario?Sounds like just about anybody can be a teacher !!!
It still comes down to wages NOT refecting the job,...being artificailly high, due to black mail and a vote buying government.
FAST
Exactly. Considerably more.I disagree. The supply of jobs availalbe will prevent people from shelling out whatever' teacher's college costs to have a piece of paper and no job prospect. All I know is that the tuition is more than undergrad university.
Right again. Just to be clear, the backload of graduates not finding adequate work in their field is in no way limited to teachers. I hope this isn't news to anyone.No. The 11K grads are a result of people blindly taking a university degree thinking it will get them a job. The job market for new teachers has sucked for a while. Think about it 11K grads per year..... how many retirements, firings, deaths and new schools are beuing built in Ontario?
You can't call it 130 hours as that assumes zero prep time, zero marking, zero meetings.It should not cost anywhere much money as it currently does
It appears that is not enough for the parasites (well educated trained professional) either as they are willing to strike
Fair warning:
When someone is making $83K a year for for what amounts to a little over 130 days work per year @ 3 classes per day & they are still so unhappy they are willing to strike , then you can draw a conclusion about this particular group of people
They will never, ever reach a point where they are satisfied and and will aways want more, regardless of the provinces ability to fund their excess.
Time to say enough is enough
Salary is not the only factor.My job isn't unionized, so it is fair to say that my employer pays me as little as they possibly can. Fortunately for me, there just aren't many people in the world who can do my job. The others my employer could find when they hired me either weren't as qualified as I am, or wanted too much money.
Let's set teacher's salaries the same way. Let's not argue over what they should be. Let's let schools hire and fire whoever they want, at whatever salary they want. Clearly, if they offer a salary that is too low, no qualified teacher would accept the position. The salary level will rise or fall to what is fair.
You and I both know that will result in a drop in teacher's salaries, given that there are a huge number of unemployed teachers out there, who are all qualified, and who would happily work for less than current teachers are being paid.
Unionized schools deliver neither. You get an overpaid teacher with seniority who cannot be fired no matter how lazy they become, unless they actually rape a student.Would you be satisfied growing old in a society where people were taught by the most cost effective teachers or one where they were taught by the best available?
Private schools have to pay more than public schools, otherwise they have no value proposition to offer.Private schools have no unions, can hire and fire at will yet they still pay high wages.
What I take into consideration is the oversupply of new teachers. You can make whatever huffy and fluffy arguments you like. So long as there is such a high rate of unemployment against newly certified teachers there is an oversupply. The solution to an oversupply is to lower salaries. This is economics 101.Of course you don't. You only take salaries into consideration. Think critically using your supply-demand theory and turn it upside down. For a country to fill the demand for smart/competent/capable/educated (use any adjective you like) teachers you must offer a compensation that is attractive. Putting what you value aside for a moment, most developed societies have put considerable, and increasing, value into education; therefore wanting (or demanding) teachers that are considerably, and increasingly, bright...
As usual, only mentioning the worst. I've worked with a lazy teacher and agree their should be more accountability on the individual level. I'm not a big union booster for many of the reasons mentioned here and every other similar thread. However, when I make these argu.ments I am making them for the majority of teachers who are good at their jobsUnionized schools deliver neither. You get an overpaid teacher with seniority who cannot be fired no matter how lazy they become, unless they actually rape a student.
That's a different problem. We have what appear to be overqualified taxi drivers because our immigration system is wacky. We allow people into the country on the grounds that they have a credential that we then turn around and fail to recognize. We also have immigration categories that aren't properly tuned to what we ACTUALLY need in the economy.Salary is not the only factor.
You've got taxi drivers and people making minimum wage who are qualified to do more. Why take the low paying jobs? Becasue they have to. You can only say no so long before you take a job out of necessity rather than fair compensation.
Not true most private school pay less.Private schools have to pay more than public schools, otherwise they have no value proposition to offer.
You guys can wheeze and whinge all you like, but when there is such a high unemployment rate among new teachers, there is an oversupply, and the oversupply is a strong indicator of overpay. Given the power of the teachers union, that really isn't surprising.
If you don't want to eliminate the union, I simple solution would be to freeze teacher salaries until there was a strong demand for new teachers. Rather than harm anyone with a pay cut, just let inflation take care of it over time, and use the unemployment rate of new teachers as a benchmark to indicate when the freeze should be lifted.
