You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
teachers strike?
- Thread starter red
- Start date
Never said that, so the answer is obvious.
Yes it is. There are too many people trying to be teachers, therefore, they are overpaid.
Yes it is. There are too many people trying to be teachers, therefore, they are overpaid.
Sorry but one does not mean the other. I can say that students who get good grades therefore have good teachers, but one does not necessarily mean the other.
Another stupid slam at your much more successful neighbor to the South.
Better Eduction System? Don't make me laugh. Yale/Harvard/Princeton alone squash any competition (if you can even call it that) from you losers.
Heck Canada can't even think of a good enough reason to exist in your present form.
Wait, you are comparing private Universities to public education? Not surprising.
...
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.
....
And how do you define 'artificial'?
I asked in the last thread what the salaries are of comparable professions and never got an answer.
And how do you define 'artificial'?
What do you think would happen to salaries if schools could hire and fire at will, in a labour market where there is 30% unemployment?
That is what I mean by artificial.
Salaries are not set by looking at "comparable professions". They are set by supply and demand. Employers seek to pay as little as they can for labour, and employees take the job that offers the highest pay. In an efficient market without artificial barriers, the labour market will clear, with only frictional unemployment.
What is happening now is that teacher's total compensation is being held at unrealistically high levels by union action. Those lucky enough to have won the union lottery have it so well that there are a large number of people who are willing to go to teacher's college and risk chronic unemployment just for a chance to play in that lottery and become one of the lucky full time employed union teachers.
And how do you define 'artificial'?
I asked in the last thread what the salaries are of comparable professions and never got an answer.
According to these guys teachers are nothing more than babysitters. Look at how hard they have come under fire when they threaten job action. They think (like most do) that teachers getting one hour (give or take) per day for prep is all that should be given and all that is needed. The same crowd that bashes and questions many other jobs and the pay while never answering questions like the one you asked above or to disclose any clue as to what they do and are compensated for it. Instead they make sweeping comments about their niece's Holiday Concert being cancelled in order to prove their 'fact'.
Let's put their jobs up for discussion and see how well they defend their salaries.
So then hire a 20-year old drop-out to do it. Nope, you want a well educated trained professional. That costs $.
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
Wrong again...
What do you think would happen to salaries if schools could hire and fire at will, in a labour market where there is 30% unemployment?
That is what I mean by artificial.
Salaries are not set by looking at "comparable professions". They are set by supply and demand. Employers seek to pay as little as they can for labour, and employees take the job that offers the highest pay. In an efficient market without artificial barriers, the labour market will clear, with only frictional unemployment.
Nice method to further hide dodge the question asked.
What is happening now is that teacher's total compensation is being held at unrealistically high levels by union action. Those lucky enough to have won the union lottery have it so well that there are a large number of people who are willing to go to teacher's college and risk chronic unemployment just for a chance to play in that lottery and become one of the lucky full time employed union teachers.
Love it. Compensation is 'unrealistically high' but public expectations of teachers is 'realistic'?
Let's put their jobs up for discussion and see how well they defend their salaries.
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.
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
So should they be paid for the amount of work they do outside the classroom? Tests and assignments don't write or mark themselves. Do you think creating a lesson takes less or more time than delivering it? You have no idea how much work it takes to be a teacher.
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.
Of course the salaries will drop. So will the quality of education students recieve. I did not contribute to the thread regarding teachers not participating in extra-curricular activities, but I was amused to hear everyone moan about teachers not giving their free time (nothing in their contracts about that), but now is willing to go to the other extreme and suggest hiring the cheapest, not best, candidates available.
Of course the salaries will drop. So will the quality of education students recieve.
Do you have some proof to back up this ludicrous assertion that the quality of education students receive will drop? I flat out don't believe that. I don't believe that the union rules that guarantee the high salaries in fact promote the best and most able teachers. Quite the contrary. I think those rules keep in place horrible teachers, when much better teachers are unemployed and looking for work.
A merit based system, that allowed schools to promote the best teachers, and fire those not doing a good job, would raise the quality of teaching, not lower it.
What do you think would happen to salaries if schools could hire and fire at will, in a labour market where there is 30% unemployment?
...
Private schools have no unions, can hire and fire at will yet they still pay high wages. Supply and demand doesn't seem to work for this example.
I would rather have a high enough pay to attract the best candidates to teach our children. It would be nice if public schools had the ability to get rid of dead weight but that has absolutely nothing to do with what teachers get paid and a large pool of unemployed people with a teaching license has nothing to do with whether the unemployed are good teachers.
...
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.....
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?
Yet this has absolutely nothing to do with teacher pay. If you want to argue that teachers should all be on short term contracts I'd agree with you but that's not what you've been complaining about.Do you have some proof to back up this ludicrous assertion that the quality of education students receive will drop? I flat out don't believe that. I don't believe that the union rules that guarantee the high salaries in fact promote the best and most able teachers. Quite the contrary. I think those rules keep in place horrible teachers, when much better teachers are unemployed and looking for work.
A merit based system, that allowed schools to promote the best teachers, and fire those not doing a good job, would raise the quality of teaching, not lower it.
So should they be paid for the amount of work they do outside the classroom? Tests and assignments don't write or mark themselves. Do you think creating a lesson takes less or more time than delivering it? You have no idea how much work it takes to be a teacher.
You have no idea how hard you must work to make $83K in the private sector
In the private sector you do not count the number of extra hours you put in, you just do it
BTW, if the majority of teachers did put in the hours like you describe you might have a point, however do not try and fool anyone by insinuating the majority of teacher put in 70+ per week
83K is an outstanding compensation , add in the gold plated benefits and 2 1/2 months off at the cottage and teachers have It soooo much better than the average taxpayer/
They should not take that taxpayer for granted
Shame on the lot of them.
They do not deserve the trust they have been given, as they as a group are clearly driven by compensation. rather than rather than the desire to prepare our youth for the future
Last edited:
Do you have some proof to back up this ludicrous assertion that the quality of education students receive will drop? I flat out don't believe that. I don't believe that the union rules that guarantee the high salaries in fact promote the best and most able teachers. Quite the contrary. I think those rules keep in place horrible teachers, when much better teachers are unemployed and looking for work.
A merit based system, that allowed schools to promote the best teachers, and fire those not doing a good job, would raise the quality of teaching, not lower it.
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. 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
You have no idea how hard you must work to make $83K in the private sector
In the private sector you do not count the number of extra hours you put in, you just do it
BTW, if the majority of teachers did put in the hours like you describe you might have a point, however do not try and fool anyone by insinuating the majority of teacher put in 70+ per week
83K is an outstanding compensation , add in the gold plated benefits and 2 1/2 months off at the cottage and teachers have It soooo much better than the average taxpayer/
They should not take that taxpayer for ranted
Shame on the lot of them.
They do not deserve the trust they have been given, as they as a group are clearly driven by compensation. rather than rather than the desire to prepare our youth for the future
Do you even know why schools close for two months a year (without Google-ing it)? If you did then you wouldn't use that argument unless you support hiring new teachers every year.
Funny that you remind me of what I have no idea about, seeing as you have no idea about the job you are judging.
"Hi pot, I'm kettle."
Do you even know why schools close for two months a year (without Google-ing it)? If you did then you wouldn't use that argument unless you support hiring new teachers every year.
Funny that you remind me of what I have no idea about, seeing as you have no idea about the job you are judging.
"Hi pot, I'm kettle."
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
Similar threads
- Replies
- 149
- Views
- 22K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 549
- Replies
- 43
- Views
- 9K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 6K
