The lot of them are as useless as tits on a bull.
Tits on a bull. I'm going to invent a drink and call it that.
The lot of them are as useless as tits on a bull.
I've said it before, so I'l say it again. The 'perks' teachers get are not necessarily built in for them. Summer's off (which are not as 'off' as most here believe) are a leftover from the need for families to have children work on the family farm. Same goes for other breaks such as March Break and Christmas. They are there for the students to receive breaks and for families to have time together.The teacher hate comes from people who are jealous of the perks that the teachers receive, but yet are too stupid themselves to become a teacher.
Not really buying any of the above. Who's deserving of what would require a more in-depth look. Are the majority or minority of lawyers, CEOs, and/or other high-paid private sector employees deserving of their jobs? Ask those who are out of jobs with Future Shop who had jobs on Friday, but are out of work as of yesterday. Don't worry about the influence they have on our children. Pretty sure most here were educated by these 'union elites' and, as you can read, they don't have near the influence that you're suggesting.The Law Societies are in no way shape or form a union.
Teachers have our kids' attention and respect. It's a shame that so few of them are deserving of it. Most are socialists who seek to undermine or hamstring the economies that pay them so generously. (All the more reason why it is unfortunate that they are able to influence our children.) Few would be able to compete in a private enterprise setting, or have any notion of what life is like for those who labour to create wealth in our society.
I've said it before, so I'l say it again. The 'perks' teachers get are not necessarily built in for them. Summer's off (which are not as 'off' as most here believe) are a leftover from the need for families to have children work on the family farm. Same goes for other breaks such as March Break and Christmas. They are there for the students to receive breaks and for families to have time together.
To those that say other jobs have work to take home (and find it acceptable), there is a difference and a problem. First, teachers have always had to and will always continue to do this. The on-site hours don't permit for the job to be completed. On the other hand, for many other professions that do this, I would say it would be better if you didn't take-work-home. Why? Because the more you complete outside your paid schedule, the more private sector employers will expect while continuing to lower wages and salaries (i.e. you're actually a tool in both yours and others' suffering). Rather than blaming teachers/unions as 'bad', you should thank them (to a degree) for maintaining a high compensation standard in an environment inn which the private sector does everything in its power to get the most out of its employees (you can thank the internet for making 'work' accessible from almost anywhere) for as little as they can pay.
Look at it like this; if left to the private sector, how much would they pay teachers etc., for these jobs; what kind of individuals would want/do these jobs; and how would this affect the compensation in all jobs?
By the way, aren't 'private' lawyers part of 'law societies'? Isn't that a union of professionals? Aren't these same 'unified' professionals the same politicians that convince the public that unions are bad?
Hmm.....
Re-read what I wrote and then read this thread: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?519627-Reliable-Low-Commission-RealtorThe Law Societies are in no way shape or form a union.
Teachers have our kids' attention and respect. It's a shame that so few of them are deserving of it. Most are socialists who seek to undermine or hamstring the economies that pay them so generously. (All the more reason why it is unfortunate that they are able to influence our children.) Few would be able to compete in a private enterprise setting, or have any notion of what life is like for those who labour to create wealth in our society.
Teachers? Really?
I had some great teachers growing up and also have a couple of friends who are teachers. They work hard for not all that much pay. They take work home to mark and have to plan assignments, etc. They don't get paid for the work they do at home. They still go to work with a smile on their face and adore their students.
Many teachers don't get their summers off until they've been around for a while. A lot of teachers either teach summer school or go to school themselves.
And what are you doing inside on this fine day?Toke: I hate it when those with whom I disagree persist in replying with a moderate, reasonable tone.
I suggest you go outside and enjoy the blinding sunshine of thisbeautiful day, lest for you it turn into a waste of oxygen.
I've said it before, so I'l say it again. The 'perks' teachers get are not necessarily built in for them. Summer's off (which are not as 'off' as most here believe) are a leftover from the need for families to have children work on the family farm. Same goes for other breaks such as March Break and Christmas. They are there for the students to receive breaks and for families to have time together.
To those that say other jobs have work to take home (and find it acceptable), there is a difference and a problem. First, teachers have always had to and will always continue to do this. The on-site hours don't permit for the job to be completed. On the other hand, for many other professions that do this, I would say it would be better if you didn't take-work-home. Why? Because the more you complete outside your paid schedule, the more private sector employers will expect while continuing to lower wages and salaries (i.e. you're actually a tool in both yours and others' suffering). Rather than blaming teachers/unions as 'bad', you should thank them (to a degree) for maintaining a high compensation standard in an environment inn which the private sector does everything in its power to get the most out of its employees (you can thank the internet for making 'work' accessible from almost anywhere) for as little as they can pay.
Look at it like this; if left to the private sector, how much would they pay teachers etc., for these jobs; what kind of individuals would want/do these jobs; and how would this affect the compensation in all jobs?
By the way, aren't 'private' lawyers part of 'law societies'? Isn't that a union of professionals? Aren't these same 'unified' professionals the same politicians that convince the public that unions are bad?
Hmm.....
Not being a teacher (or retired) I am dividing my attention between working and educating my fellows on this fine message board.And what are you doing inside on this fine day?
The evidence above suggests you failed to grasp the elements of informed communication that is the principle purpose of most teaching. It's a pity you blame most of an entire profession for the possible failings of the few you encountered.The Law Societies are in no way shape or form a union.
Teachers have our kids' attention and respect. It's a shame that so few of them are deserving of it. Most are socialists who seek to undermine or hamstring the economies that pay them so generously. (All the more reason why it is unfortunate that they are able to influence our children.) Few would be able to compete in a private enterprise setting, or have any notion of what life is like for those who labour to create wealth in our society.
I echo Ridgeman's comments about the overtime factor.
I wish I had 2 months off with the same salary. I wish the phone calls and demands on my time would stop at 2:30 pm or 3:00 pm.
Having said that, I have relatives and friends who are teachers. They are good at what they do and are dedicated. One of my friends does not take work home but would rather stay until 5 if not later to finish marking, etc.
Now this is something I can somewhat agree with. Of course the current situation with unions has many flaws and is different from 'law societies' and such. However, the point that I was trying to make (to those who paint unions and their members with a single broad stroke) is that if we were to go in one direction or the other; unionized employment would be preferred (IMHO). Unions maintain compensation for their members (yes, even the union leaders). Sometimes for the worse. However, the private sector's only mandate is to be highly profitable for a few. A great example would be how garbage has been handled in Toronto. Since it has been partially privatized, has anyone seen savings in their pocket? I'd be happy to know who has seen the savings, but I can tell you that it has become a much less desired job.There's some truth here Toke about employers exploiting private sector employees, but please don't make unions sound like they're altruistic or that they function for the benefit of society at large.
There are many differences between unionized civil servants, i.e., teachers, and members of professional bodies like the LSUC or CPA Canada or Royal Collage of Physicians. For one thing - competition amongst said members. Secondly, unions generally go to bat for teachers. Professionals have to face disciplinary committees and may need to hire their own lawyers in response to a complaint.
The Law Societies are in no way shape or form a union.
Teachers have our kids' attention and respect. It's a shame that so few of them are deserving of it. Most are socialists who seek to undermine or hamstring the economies that pay them so generously. (All the more reason why it is unfortunate that they are able to influence our children.) Few would be able to compete in a private enterprise setting, or have any notion of what life is like for those who labour to create wealth in our society.
Sometimes I wish I was in a union (like our construction crew). I suppose the right response would be, if one is educated and a professional, they should be able to negotiate for more compensation, but a single person can't force an employer to do anything other than leave and find employment elsewhere, and it gets harder with age.Now this is something I can somewhat agree with. Of course the current situation with unions has many flaws and is different from 'law societies' and such. However, the point that I was trying to make (to those who paint unions and their members with a single broad stroke) is that if we were to go in one direction or the other; unionized employment would be preferred (IMHO). Unions maintain compensation for their members (yes, even the union leaders). Sometimes for the worse. However, the private sector's only mandate is to be highly profitable for a few. A great example would be how garbage has been handled in Toronto. Since it has been partially privatized, has anyone seen savings in their pocket? I'd be happy to know who has seen the savings, but I can tell you that it has become a much less desired job.
All fair comments. I just disagreed with the person who said "in at 8:45 and out at 3:05". (Nothing personal against the person who said it). I just don't feel that's true.... many teachers get to work early to help with breakfast programs, etc. and to prep. When I was 12 I got to school at 8:15 (school started at 9) to help prep the kindergarten. Fill the paint jars, set up name cards, help the kids remove their coats and boots, etc. I didn't get paid because I was only 12, lol, but I know some teachers are there pretty early.
Many volunteer for extracurricular activities (like coaches as someone else mentioned). And they do take work home with them.
And, from what I've heard, newer teachers are expected to work or take courses during the summer.
and get a raise for bettering myself too.
I meant more money so I can treat you more, sexy. (I was fantasizing about you. I think you should come out to one of these 'orgies' that was held recently.)You can't get much better.
it's all fun and games when the male student is wanted for child supportThe teachers who sleep with their male students are the good ones. The rest I don't have much use for. :wink:
Of course, all of this is much too late for me.
In hindsight most of my teachers were adequate or good. Only a few bad apples.