PLXTO

Teachers to Boycott After School Programs

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Its broken

... it's more than about a freeze for two years.
Yes, its about the $70.00 per hr, plus, plus, plus,...its got totally out of hand under the "education" premier.

Has to be fixed !!!

FAST
 
Last edited:

BSLover

New member
Mar 4, 2006
362
0
0
A big problem is how young teachers are getting screwed in all of this. I know many young teachers who just want to work and are even ok with making some concessions.

It's the greedy baby-boomer teachers that are running the show unfortunately and ruining it for everyone. For decades baby boomers in all sectors have been cashing it in. For the first time in recorded history, the younger generations will earn less than their parents. They will have to live in smaller houses. Drive shittier cars. Work two jobs to afford even the basics...or raise a baby. All because of the blood-sucking baby-boomers whose greed and insatiable appetite for wages and benefits have strip-mined all of society's resources. And many of these assholes still won't retire and make room for young, hungry and energetic people.

This continent and society was in part ruined by the baby-boomers. And it's these same people who raised many of the brats we see running around today and they have the nerve to ask, "what's happened to society?" My answer to them is: you happened.
 

buckwheat1

New member
Nov 20, 2006
1,064
0
0
How do teachers make $70-$75.00 an hour when they start out making $42000 a year? There may be some making that money but not many!!!
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Special

How do teachers make $70-$75.00 an hour when they start out making $42000 a year? There may be some making that money but not many!!!
YA, I guess,...$40.00/hr TO START is right down there with those living at the poverty level,...must really hurt.

FAST
 

buckwheat1

New member
Nov 20, 2006
1,064
0
0
They start out around $26.00 an hour after a minuim of 5 years of university and two degrees who else starts that low with a professional degree?
 

OddSox

Active member
May 3, 2006
3,148
2
36
Ottawa
They start out around $26.00 an hour after a minuim of 5 years of university and two degrees who else starts that low with a professional degree?
Lots of people at Starbucks with degrees who aren't making that kind of money. Plus, that $26 does not include benefits, sick days, time off. And if they want to call it a 'professional' degree they should start behaving like professionals...
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Creative accounting

They start out around $26.00 an hour after a minuim of 5 years of university and two degrees who else starts that low with a professional degree?
PLEASE show your math that = $26.00/HR ??

FAST
 
Last edited:

Curious36

Member
Nov 11, 2007
500
11
18
Very interesting read. John L wins regarding facts/reality while Frank is a great dancer (tap-dancer) while continually focusing on minor points while not addressing the big picture. The big -picture being that the government of Ontario is basically broke....thats what happens when more money is spent year over year than what is taken in. This has created a debt which costs the taxpayers of Ontario over $1000 million/year ($10billion) to just service, not even touching the principle amount. This debt is increasing yearly by approx $1600 million ($16 billion) as spending continually outpaces revenue. Any logical person cannot argue that this is a problem. We are mortgaging tomorrows future for todays greed (yes greed) since future generations will be saddled with this debt. I realize much of this is due to political pressure and politicians who cannot or will not make tough decisions but that is another topic of discussion. Based on the above, we have a couple of "options" we can:
1) do nothing
2) increase revenue (taxation)
3) reduce costs
4) combination of 2 & 3

Obviously #1 is unsustainable and I hope nobody argues that #1 is the best option (if so you have some serious mental issues). Option #2 is not financially prudent in these economic times since a very good way of makiing a bad economic climate worse is to take away disposable income (further taxation) that would otherwise be spent on goods/services (this is economics 101 simple stuff). Option 3 is the most responsible way of dealiing with the fiscal predicament we are facing. Option 4 might be acceptable in theory but any tax increase is usually put in the general government coffers and spent with the same constraint as to which caused this whole mess in the first place, nevermind my objection to Option #2.

I am not anti-teacher, anti-police, anti-firefighter etc but concessions must be had or else. One must also remember that interest rates are low at the current moment when interest rates increase debt servicing will eat up a much bigger chunk of the funds available for education, health etc. If our province gets another unfavourable credit rating this will also add to increasing cost of borrowing $. This will definitely happen if action is not taken. Are teachers overcompensated? In todays reality YES!!
To address the OP, it has been stated that teachers volunteer for after school programs and technically they do but it has also been stated that in order for a teacher to get promoted to VP or principle that these actions are required. So even though these activites are voluntary in nature this is obviously some altruism built in so that the "volunteers" can potentially pave a brighter future for themselves. So if you add this to the equation it sheds some light on whos benefit these volunteer hours are geared toward in SOME cases.
Someone mentioned taxing big business and the banks more to make up the shortfall in spending. This is a very simplistic/non-thoughtout arguement. Society had better hope that corporations and the banks are making money since they employ the majority of the tax-base that PAY for revenue generated. These corporations and banks also make up a large percentage of the investment vehicles in the Ontario Teachers Pension plan.....so to further tax these corporations/banks would dimininsh profits which in turn would lower the value of retirement plans which are ALREADY taxpayer subsidized since they are all defined benefit vs real-world defined contribution (which you are also lucky to get in the private sector). So better be careful in taking profit (taxing) big business further.
In closing, many are missing the point. I have read how hard teachers work etc and I have no doubt they do, as do the majority of other workers in other occupations but real-world economics state that compensation is based on what the market can bare. Obviously the market (taxpayers) cannot bare the cost due to constant deficits resulting in greater debt so something has to be done. If we wait it will only make the pain worse later on.....
 

GameBoy27

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2004
12,902
2,907
113
Very interesting read. John L wins regarding facts/reality while Frank is a great dancer (tap-dancer) while continually focusing on minor points while not addressing the big picture. The big -picture being that the government of Ontario is basically broke....thats what happens when more money is spent year over year than what is taken in. This has created a debt which costs the taxpayers of Ontario over $1000 million/year ($10billion) to just service, not even touching the principle amount. This debt is increasing yearly by approx $1600 million ($16 billion) as spending continually outpaces revenue. Any logical person cannot argue that this is a problem. We are mortgaging tomorrows future for todays greed (yes greed) since future generations will be saddled with this debt. I realize much of this is due to political pressure and politicians who cannot or will not make tough decisions but that is another topic of discussion. Based on the above, we have a couple of "options" we can:
1) do nothing
2) increase revenue (taxation)
3) reduce costs
4) combination of 2 & 3

Obviously #1 is unsustainable and I hope nobody argues that #1 is the best option (if so you have some serious mental issues). Option #2 is not financially prudent in these economic times since a very good way of makiing a bad economic climate worse is to take away disposable income (further taxation) that would otherwise be spent on goods/services (this is economics 101 simple stuff). Option 3 is the most responsible way of dealiing with the fiscal predicament we are facing. Option 4 might be acceptable in theory but any tax increase is usually put in the general government coffers and spent with the same constraint as to which caused this whole mess in the first place, nevermind my objection to Option #2.

I am not anti-teacher, anti-police, anti-firefighter etc but concessions must be had or else. One must also remember that interest rates are low at the current moment when interest rates increase debt servicing will eat up a much bigger chunk of the funds available for education, health etc. If our province gets another unfavourable credit rating this will also add to increasing cost of borrowing $. This will definitely happen if action is not taken. Are teachers overcompensated? In todays reality YES!!
To address the OP, it has been stated that teachers volunteer for after school programs and technically they do but it has also been stated that in order for a teacher to get promoted to VP or principle that these actions are required. So even though these activites are voluntary in nature this is obviously some altruism built in so that the "volunteers" can potentially pave a brighter future for themselves. So if you add this to the equation it sheds some light on whos benefit these volunteer hours are geared toward in SOME cases.
Someone mentioned taxing big business and the banks more to make up the shortfall in spending. This is a very simplistic/non-thoughtout arguement. Society had better hope that corporations and the banks are making money since they employ the majority of the tax-base that PAY for revenue generated. These corporations and banks also make up a large percentage of the investment vehicles in the Ontario Teachers Pension plan.....so to further tax these corporations/banks would dimininsh profits which in turn would lower the value of retirement plans which are ALREADY taxpayer subsidized since they are all defined benefit vs real-world defined contribution (which you are also lucky to get in the private sector). So better be careful in taking profit (taxing) big business further.
In closing, many are missing the point. I have read how hard teachers work etc and I have no doubt they do, as do the majority of other workers in other occupations but real-world economics state that compensation is based on what the market can bare. Obviously the market (taxpayers) cannot bare the cost due to constant deficits resulting in greater debt so something has to be done. If we wait it will only make the pain worse later on.....
As far as I'm concerned, you've hit the nail on the head Curious36. It's unfortunate that many will think you're out to lunch!
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,912
6,838
113
Very interesting read......
Rational. Don't know if I agree with it all but rational. I do have a question though.

If the current economic climate requires significant cuts to the public sector, does that mean you would support significant increases when the economy is good?
 

Curious36

Member
Nov 11, 2007
500
11
18
Rational. Don't know if I agree with it all but rational. I do have a question though.

If the current economic climate requires significant cuts to the public sector, does that mean you would support significant increases when the economy is good?
First off it is not a matter of "if" the cuts are required to the public sector, it is a matter of how much, since we probably agree that the current system is non-sustainable. Secondly I tend to agree with rationale but I'm not here to pick fights. To answer your question, if the tax-base can afford increases in compensation/benefits then I have no problem with it. But please remember we have a $25500 million dollar debt in Ontario to tackle first :) (btw I like putting billions in million figures so that the true value is more transparent).
 

KBear

Supporting Member
Aug 17, 2001
4,169
1
38
west end
www.gtagirls.com
if the tax-base can afford increases in compensation/benefits then I have no problem with it.
What does pay rate have to do with the ability to afford it. Shouldn't pay be based on market rate for a given job?

If the province is paying 2x market rate for a given job with benefits and pension, and that falls to 1.9x with the pay freeze in place, why would you increase pay based on ability to afford it.
 

Curious36

Member
Nov 11, 2007
500
11
18
What does pay rate have to do with the ability to afford it. Shouldn't pay be based on market rate for a given job?

If the province is paying 2x market rate for a given job with benefits and pension, and that falls to 1.9x with the pay freeze in place, why would you increase pay based on ability to afford it.
Kinda begs the question on why the province is paying twice the market rate in the first place......or is it?
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,912
6,838
113
What is the 'market rate' for teachers? I asked before and didn't get an answer. Private school teachers are payed the same, just have renewable short term contracts. Next closest is professors who do pretty well (they don't teach as much and don't have discipline issues but teaching is only part of the job). Tutors get payed $30-$50/h for one kid. What other jobs could you compare it to?

I guess you could compare to the states but there is a reason the US public system is massively struggling to find teachers.

You could also talk supply and demand. There are more qualified teachers than jobs so you could argue that you could pay less and still get quality teachers which is probably true but if we use your assertion of twice the market rate, you aren't going to get quality if teachers max out at $45,000. What new University grad would be happy with a starting salary below the poverty line?
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
What is the 'market rate' for teachers? I asked before and didn't get an answer. Private school teachers are payed the same, just have renewable short term contracts. Next closest is professors who do pretty well (they don't teach as much and don't have discipline issues but teaching is only part of the job). Tutors get payed $30-$50/h for one kid. What other jobs could you compare it to?

I guess you could compare to the states but there is a reason the US public system is massively struggling to find teachers.

You could also talk supply and demand. There are more qualified teachers than jobs so you could argue that you could pay less and still get quality teachers which is probably true but if we use your assertion of twice the market rate, you aren't going to get quality if teachers max out at $45,000. What new University grad would be happy with a starting salary below the poverty line?
Most tutors charge around 40 to 50 and that's for one student. So to pay 70 for handling 30 to 90 kids is not that unreasonable..... with the understanding that enough teachers will volunteer to run all the extracurriculars.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
What is the 'market rate' for teachers? I asked before and didn't get an answer. Private school teachers are payed the same, just have renewable short term contracts. Next closest is professors who do pretty well (they don't teach as much and don't have discipline issues but teaching is only part of the job). Tutors get payed $30-$50/h for one kid. What other jobs could you compare it to?

I guess you could compare to the states but there is a reason the US public system is massively struggling to find teachers.

You could also talk supply and demand. There are more qualified teachers than jobs so you could argue that you could pay less and still get quality teachers which is probably true but if we use your assertion of twice the market rate, you aren't going to get quality if teachers max out at $45,000. What new University grad would be happy with a starting salary below the poverty line?
For people who think they are baby sitters I guess compare the rate for daycare and then prorate it for a higher student to teacher ratio.

People won't like that as I'm pretty sure that day care amounts to more money than what the average person contributes to education.


Or maybe it should be more than a tutor who only handles one kid at a time and does volunteer work as well.

To me the real issue is job security. The pay is fair but the protection of deadwood needs to go.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
People blame the greedy baby boomers but the salary increases has pretty much been close to the rate of inflaction. Both have been around 3% each year.

I think people need to be more upset that minimum wage and the avg canadian salary has not done as well.
 

Curious36

Member
Nov 11, 2007
500
11
18
First off inflation hasnt averaged 3%/year....its less...especially in the last few years with current market conditions. Too lazy to look it up but if you want to you will see. Also people can argue till the cows come home on what is "fair" compensation and i am sure many in their current occupations will state that they are worth twice, triple etc of what they are currently getting paid. My concern (and it should be everyones concern) is the province's (taxpayers) ability to pay. Debt will sink our economy if things are not turned around. One has to only look at Spain, Greece, itally, portugal, ireland to name a few to get an idea.
Nobody should blame babyboomers for current situation but blame goes to the politicians/policy makers who had very short sightedness and no political will.
The whole reason why the whole "overcompensation" issue came up in the first place is because of the fact that the average canadian salary has not done well. Taxes have increased while compensation has went down. This is what is pissing the average taxpayer off. This can be rectified, but consumers drive the market i.e. are you willing to pay $30 for a big mac combo? Didnt think so.....
 

Musketeer

Well-known member
Nov 17, 2002
7,560
272
83
68
Mississauga
First off inflation hasnt averaged 3%/year....its less...especially in the last few years with current market conditions. Too lazy to look it up but if you want to you will see. Also people can argue till the cows come home on what is "fair" compensation and i am sure many in their current occupations will state that they are worth twice, triple etc of what they are currently getting paid. My concern (and it should be everyones concern) is the province's (taxpayers) ability to pay. Debt will sink our economy if things are not turned around. One has to only look at Spain, Greece, itally, portugal, ireland to name a few to get an idea.
Nobody should blame babyboomers for current situation but blame goes to the politicians/policy makers who had very short sightedness and no political will.
The whole reason why the whole "overcompensation" issue came up in the first place is because of the fact that the average canadian salary has not done well. Taxes have increased while compensation has went down. This is what is pissing the average taxpayer off. This can be rectified, but consumers drive the market i.e. are you willing to pay $30 for a big mac combo? Didnt think so.....
Hear, hear and while we're at it, why should the teachers along with non unionized government workers be the only ones in the public sector to shoulder the province's massive debt?

They did not cause this debt, nor were they responsible for the EHealth and Orange fiasco. The teachers had nothing to do with the cancelling of the two power plants which is costing the taxpayers millions. The McGuinty government made these costly mistakes.

The province's debt is a 'collective' responsibilty and should be shared by all taxpayers, not just 'one' profession. A 1% sutax on all those earning more than $100,000 would have a much greater impact on reducing this massive debt and would go a long way towards eliminating it.
 
Toronto Escorts