Toronto Sun - Ontario teachers headed for court

[JohnLarue]

I don't dispute that teachers are well compensated but it's also an important and stressful job that does require two degrees. I don't begrudge them beyond their union making it difficult to deal with incompetence.

I also have no problem with bankable sick days or the payout since they are incentives that save the employer money. Probably 20 is high, maybe 10 bankable days would be more reasonable but any day a teacher is sick costs the board more money than the payout at the end.

Currently they are able to bank up to 200 sick days over many years.
This has nothing to do with a teachers health
It is a retirement bonus that has been re-branded as sick days.
That is just an abuse of taxpayers money and it has to go !

If that was the only retirement plan they had, it might be overlooked
But no- they have a defined benefit plan which costs the province Billions.

 

[ogibowt]

hey larue, your back posting....and posting your usual backward thinking drivel.....welcome back, i missed your idiocy..lol...

 

[basketcase]

As you keep missing, it is an incentive program to save costs in supply teachers. 200 banked sick days means that the teacher saved 200 possible days of supply teachers which is far greater than the payout.

Any bets as to the difference between the use of bankable and non-bankable sick days? I'd put good money that people with non-bankable days use more of them each year than those who can bank them and each of those sick days costs the province money.

 

[JohnLarue]

As you keep missing, it is an incentive program to save costs in supply teachers. 200 banked sick days means that the teacher saved 200 possible days of supply teachers which is far greater than the payout.

Any bets as to the difference between the use of bankable and non-bankable sick days? I'd put good money that people with non-bankable days use more of them each year than those who can bank them and each of those sick days costs the province money.

No I am afraid you are missing the point
If a teacher is sick, a supply teacher is required

The number of banked sick days should be irrelevant to the decision to call in sick or not
If a teacher is allowed 20 per year, then take them, when needed

If anything the ability to bank is a disincentive to calling in sick as those closer to retirement will be hesitant to take time off as it prevents them from maxing out that 200 day bonus.

Any bets you say?
If the banking of sick is not a big deal to the teachers , give that perk up
Now do you make some bets?

10:1 they scream bloody blue murder.

If it not that big a deal, then why was it highlighted back in the spring as a significant and excessive cost for the province.

Why in the world will a supply teacher cost more ?
Do they make cost more than $100, 000 per year ?
Do they require more prep time?


Keep spinning your strange view of the world and I will continue to show you the way it really i

 

[basketcase]

No I am afraid you are missing the point
If a teacher is sick, a supply teacher is required

The number of banked sick days should be irrelevant to the decision to call in sick or not
If a teacher is allowed 20 per year, then take them, when needed
...

Sure it does.

If someone without banked sick days feels a little sick - not so much to pass out but less productive - they have no incentive to work sick. Someone with banked days knows that if they go to work they can use those days when they really need them or get paid when they retire.

Because of that, banking should be a bog deal to the boards and the teachers.

As for cost, 200 saved sick days gets half a years worth of pay upon retirement. 200 sick days would be a full year plus of work for a supply teacher.

 

[fun-guy]

The number of banked sick days should be irrelevant to the decision to call in sick or not
If a teacher is allowed 20 per year, then take them, when needed

If anything the ability to bank is a disincentive to calling in sick as those closer to retirement will be hesitant to take time off as it prevents them from maxing out that 200 day bonus.

If someone without banked sick days feels a little sick - not so much to pass out but less productive - they have no incentive to work sick. Someone with banked days knows that if they go to work they can use those days when they really need them or get paid when they retire.

Because of that, banking should be a bog deal to the boards and the teachers.

The two of you are not comparing apples to apples in your example, but you're both right. If someone is close to retirement they will not use up sick days and bank them to get paid as much as possible upon retirement.

If you're younger with many years until retirement, and have no sick days banked, then they will not go to work sick.

However, in reality based on city workers, most younger workers have no sick bank saved up as they take those days off even when they're healthy just to stay home or do other things and get paid for it. Very few banked, and now they can't bank anymore.

 

[JohnLarue]

The bottom line is that the banking of sick days is an excessive perk which the tax payer should not have to fund.
Their entire compensation package is excessive and there is room for a whole lot of cost savings from that compensation , in many different ways. The province will desperately need those funds in a few short years to fund the increased demand on health care

There will be a tipping point soon and if teachers do not play ball now, they will be subjected to very harsh and draconian measures. i.e. thousands of layoffs in the future.

Mark my words, this will happen, as sure as some left wing union head will foolishly respond "Just raise Taxes"

Unfortunately under the future scenario, the quality of eduction will suffer
But given a choice of:
a) do what is right and necessary to ensure future generations (ie. kids born in 2011 / 2012) get a quality eduction or
b) preserve their excesses as long as possible

The union will default to the greed option

 

[basketcase]

You call it excessive because you have already decided that teachers earn too much.

Banking saves the boards money in supply teachers. It's looks bad to people who don't bother looking into the actual economics so it's an easy target for McG. As it is, they'll still be required to pay out for teachers who accumulated sick days under previous contracts so the potential savings won't even be seen for 20 years when we've already gone through several economic cycles.

All that McG will have accomplished is piss of teachers and unions in a possibly unsuccessful attempt to gain a majority. Cutting sick days will not save a cent for this government. You won't find many against a pay freeze at this time so that would be money saved whether through legislation or if the government allowed collective bargaining. The net result of this legislation will only be seen until a future government and if the justification is poor economy, once the economy turns around there will be some pretty high demands just like after the decade of pay freezes under Rae and Harris.

 

[CTSblues]

I think it is important to get the facts right before we can discuss an issue. So I actually took the time to talk to former teachers and principals who I can trust and see if their stories are internally consistent. Here is what I found:

Teachers are allowed to bank sick days up to a certain maximum number. In retirement, they can get up to half a year’s worth of salary as gratuity. This was negotiated by school boards in the 1960s when there was a shortage of teachers as a way to encourage teachers to stay, and in lieu of wage increases.

Another thing that came out of those conversations was the fact that the Ontario government for decades were using the money of the teachers’ pension plan as general revenue. Apparently they did that by forcing teachers to contribute to a pension plan, and then using the money to buy non-negotiable Government of Ontario bonds. As a result, Ontario was able to pay below market rates for borrowed money for many many years.

Not too long after they get around to establishing the independent Ontario Teacher Pension Plan (long after groups like the police have had theirs), there was the high tech boom and the Harris government. The high tech boom created an enormous surplus that has to be used, and Mr. Harris saw that as a golden opportunity to pull a Conrad Black. He apparently told the teachers that he wanted the 8+ billion in surplus, and that the teachers can have the next 8+ billion in surplus if and when it happens. He was threatening to legislate if he did not get his way. Interesting.

I think these tidbits go a long way in explaining the rocky relationship the teachers have had with the government. It shows why the teachers were contributing 9% or so of their salary into their pension while police were doing fine with 4 to 5 %. It shows why firefighters could retire with an 80 factor (even down to 75 for a while) when the teachers were on a 90 factor. If the government has been consistent and did exactly the same with the police, firefighters, doctors etc. as they did with the teachers, I can understand. The fact that they did not tells me it is simply a case of stomping on the weak and kowtowing to the strong. I don’t think it has anything to do with lowering the deficit at all, at least not until they are taking on the doctors in earnest. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, at least not until we become a Greece anyway.

 

[JohnLarue]

You call it excessive because you have already decided that teachers earn too much.

No I call it excessive because it is
It is well in excess of what the average taxpayer receives.
You can not have 1/3 of the population being supported by the other 2/3 and earning above the average
That is mathematically unsustainable

Banking saves the boards money in supply teachers. It's looks bad to people who don't bother looking into the actual economics so it's an easy target for McG. As it is, they'll still be required to pay out for teachers who accumulated sick days under previous contracts so the potential savings won't even be seen for 20 years when we've already gone through several economic cycles.

Bull shit
It is a excessive perk which adds zero value to a child's education
It only serves to reallocate wealth to teachers at the taxpayers expense.
Eliminate it and costs will go down

I do not know who you think you are fooling with this supply teacher nonsense, but banking enables a teacher to get a half year salary at retirement. Thats $40K per teacher
How does that save on supply teachers?
If anything it requires additional supply teachers to cover the last half year of some greedy teachers career

All that McG will have accomplished is piss of teachers and unions in a possibly unsuccessful attempt to gain a majority. Cutting sick days will not save a cent for this government. You won't find many against a pay freeze at this time so that would be money saved whether through legislation or if the government allowed collective bargaining. The net result of this legislation will only be seen until a future government and if the justification is poor economy, once the economy turns around there will be some pretty high demands just like after the decade of pay freezes under Rae and Harris.

You do not get it
The economy of Ont has changed drastically.
All those manufacturing job losses are permanent
The revenues the provincial govt took in in 2006 & 2007 will not be repeated in our life time (in real dollar terms)

So in addition to having a lower tax base, the province is going to be faced with a massive increase in demand for Health care services.

The province can no longer afford a) your cost
b) your attitude of entitlement

These are cold hard financial facts which any govt, red, blue or heaven forbid the orange fools will be faced with

You need to wake up

Finally just to be clear, it is not the cutting the number of sick days it is the banking of them for a big payout which is the issue
The number is excessive and should be reviewed as well, however, the banking has to go

 

[fun-guy]

Banking saves the boards money in supply teachers. It's looks bad to people who don't bother looking into the actual economics so it's an easy target for McG. As it is, they'll still be required to pay out for teachers who accumulated sick days under previous contracts so the potential savings won't even be seen for 20 years when we've already gone through several economic cycles.

Two points:

1. Banking sick days saves the boards money in supply teachers?????? Huh? Explain that. At some point it will cost the government more money than supply teachers. When teachers bank days they are getting paid their regular salary while working, but when they retire teachers will get paid their bank days, albeit half. The question is what are supply teachers paid vs. half the bank days paid. Regardless, banked sick days becomes a liability on the books and adds to the debt.


2. The government is not legal obliged to pay teachers who accumulated sick days under previous contracts once the current contract expires. When a contract expires, the slate is wiped clean and negotiations begin. History has shown that many of the items negotiated in previous contracts remain in the new contract but there is no legal requirement for that, strictly negotiations. The civic workers learned that the hard way with Ford.

 

[basketcase]

Two points:

1. Banking sick days saves the boards money in supply teachers?????? Huh? Explain that.

If a teacher is sick, a supply teacher is needed. The banked sick days give the teachers incentive to go to work. If a teacher saves 200 sick days, they save the board 200 days of supply teachers. For this they get half a years worth of pay. Half a years pay vs. a full year of supply teachers looks to me like a cost savings. We'd have to know the actual cost for supply teachers to be sure. If there is no banking, you can be sure that more teachers will take more sick days each year since they have no incentive not to.

2. The government is not legal obliged to pay teachers who accumulated sick days under previous contracts once the current contract expires.

You are wrong here (or at least misunderstanding). Benefits already earned under one contract can not be taken away, all that a new contract can change is what occurs in the future. Taking away previously earned sick days would be the same as taking away previously earned money. The government could freeze things where they are and not let those teachers bank any more days but those previously banked days are already earned and would be kept. The only other option would be to give other compensation for those saved days but that would cost the current government money and that won't happen.

 

[Bachus]

On a daily rate Occasional teachers cost more because they are hourly and not salaried workers. They are paid more because they do not get that same benefits that contract teachers do.

 

[JohnLarue]

If a teacher is sick, a supply teacher is needed. The banked sick days give the teachers incentive to go to work. If a teacher saves 200 sick days, they save the board 200 days of supply teachers. For this they get half a years worth of pay. Half a years pay vs. a full year of supply teachers looks to me like a cost savings. We'd have to know the actual cost for supply teachers to be sure. If there is no banking, you can be sure that more teachers will take more sick days each year since they have no incentive not to.



You are wrong here (or at least misunderstanding). Benefits already earned under one contract can not be taken away, all that a new contract can change is what occurs in the future. Taking away previously earned sick days would be the same as taking away previously earned money. The government could freeze things where they are and not let those teachers bank any more days but those previously banked days are already earned and would be kept. The only other option would be to give other compensation for those saved days but that would cost the current government money and that won't happen.

I certainly hope you do not teach math or any logic based subject.

Frank Castle was another mis-guided teacher who tried to justify the excessive salary by allocating back ALL of his taxes to his salary , explaining the net burden on the Province was far less than it really was

Any chance you and Frank Castle took teachers logic 101 together at teachers college?

1. You are so wrong on the supply teacher / sick day issue
A) if a teacher is sick and has his / her 20 days per year and zero banked. He / she should call in sick. Supply teacher need
B) If a teacher is sick and has / her 20 days per year and has 200 banked, he / she should call in sick. Supply teacher needed

The only difference is in scenario B the teacher has a very expensive bonus the province will need to pay.

Now if you get into the realm of behavioral issues where a teacher is incented to come to school when he / she is sick, then that person is not the right person for the job period as they are placing their financial gain ahead of the well being of hundreds of kids.

2. Re contract .

Taking away previously earned sick days would be the same as taking away previously earned money.

Again you are quite wrong as
a) You have not earned this perk, Jesus, there is that entitlement thing again (you teacher have to lose that attitude)
b) given the approaching financial crisis the govt can and will do what it needs to do


Getting back to the bigger picture.
You have not once commented on the financial crisis that the province will face
Will you just ignore this and hope you have enough seniority to avoid the layoffs?
Or will you even consider it might be wise to reduce the burden on the province (and by a whole lot more than just zero raise) and work toward a level of compensation which is sustainable.

I will bet you do not answer these specific questions

 

[basketcase]

I certainly hope you do not teach math or any logic based subject.

Actually I'm an engineer, not a teacher (and judging from the yearly bonuses I've received a reasonably competent one).

1. You are so wrong on the supply teacher / sick day issue
A) if a teacher is sick and has his / her 20 days per year and zero banked. He / she should call in sick. Supply teacher neeed
B) If a teacher is sick and has / her 20 days per year and has 200 banked, he / she should call in sick. Supply teacher needed

or C) a teacher that has 20 sick days and less than 200 banked. He / she may decide to suck it up. Supply teacher not needed.

Considering 200 sick days would be 10 years of teaching without absence, most teachers likely don't meet that requirement. I read a study a while ago on sick days of nurses in hospitals and there was a 50% difference in number of sick days between those who could bank and those who couldn't. If that carries over to teachers it means a 50% increase in occasional teacher costs.

I think it would be reasonable to have 10 sick days per year bankable and even with the payout. That would mean a teacher could only be sick for 3 days per year to earn that bonus.

2. Re contract .
Again you are quite wrong as
a) You have not earned this perk, Jesus, there is that entitlment thing again (you teacher have to lose that attitude)
b) given the approaching financial crisis the govt can and will do what it needs to do

You are flat out wrong. Any compensation earned under a previous contract can not be taken away. All that a new contract could do is change what goes on from the date a new contract takes effect. This has been commented on in the news about the deals that were agreed to. The news has made it quite clear that all sick days already banked are kept but no additional days could be banked. The news has also stated that teachers will still get a payout at 2012 rates for any of those currently banked sick days they still have upon retirement.

 

[JohnLarue]

Actually I'm an engineer, not a teacher (and judging from the yearly bonuses I've received a reasonably competent one).

Competence and compensation are not always related in a cause and affect relationship

or C) a teacher that has 20 sick days and less than 200 banked. He / she may decide to suck it up. Supply teacher not needed.

No, not an option
If this teacher is incented to put the health of students at risk to build up his banked days , then this teacher has to go
Any teacher who puts his financial incentives above the welfare of a student , is not the right person for this job.
Period. There is no counter arguments for this

I think it would be reasonable to have 10 sick days per year bankable and even with the payout. That would mean a teacher could only be sick for 3 days per year to earn that bonus.

It is unreasonable to bank sick days
If you are sick use one of your 20 days , if you do not use them they disappear at the end of the year.

You have inadvertently pointed out the crux of the issue
These are sick days, yet teachers view them as a bonus
Lets call a spade a spade here.
The province can no longer afford bonuses for teachers

You are flat out wrong. Any compensation earned under a previous contract can not be taken away. All that a new contract could do is change what goes on from the date a new contract takes effect. This has been commented on in the news about the deals that were agreed to. The news has made it quite clear that all sick days already banked are kept but no additional days could be banked. The news has also stated that teachers will still get a payout at 2012 rates for any of those currently banked sick days they still have upon retirement.

Please provide a reference
I think this is just your opinion of how it should be.

I noticed you avoided the hard question wrt reconciling the drop in Prov revenues vs. expected huge expected increases in health expenditure vs. teacher expectation to continue with excessive compensation until a Greek like tipping point occurs.
I knew you were to chicken shit & have no supportable response to these questions

 

[fun-guy]

If a teacher is sick, a supply teacher is needed. The banked sick days give the teachers incentive to go to work. If a teacher saves 200 sick days, they save the board 200 days of supply teachers. For this they get half a years worth of pay. Half a years pay vs. a full year of supply teachers looks to me like a cost savings. We'd have to know the actual cost for supply teachers to be sure. If there is no banking, you can be sure that more teachers will take more sick days each year since they have no incentive not to.

The problem with your theory is you're assuming all teachers think the same and want to bank sick days. There are many who would rather use the sick days, even if they're not sick, and not bank them at all. I can't say for sure about teachers, but a significant number of city workers did not bank sick days, they use them as they go, whether sick or not. In these situations there is no savings but rather higher expenses to use supply teachers.

You are wrong here (or at least misunderstanding). Benefits already earned under one contract can not be taken away, all that a new contract can change is what occurs in the future. Taking away previously earned sick days would be the same as taking away previously earned money. The government could freeze things where they are and not let those teachers bank any more days but those previously banked days are already earned and would be kept. The only other option would be to give other compensation for those saved days but that would cost the current government money and that won't happen.

I, and everyone else in the union, thought the same until our lawyer investigated it. Sick days is not like taking away previously earned money in the legal sense. It's a benefit and they can indeed be taken away, as they already have done by reducing dental coverage, drug coverage, orthotics, etc... I was in shock when the lawyer informed us. I highly suggest you get a lawyer to review it. Or quite simply, ask your union. Don't assume, have it checked out. I guarantee you the city workers were finally informed by the union, after denying it for months, that once a contract expires the slate is wiped clean. The government has the legal option to cancel any sick days, banked or not, and they also have the option to put teachers on a lower pay grid, all legal. Whether they would or not is a different question and up for negotiations.

 

[basketcase]

...
I knew you were to chicken shit & have no supportable response to these questions

This pretty much sums up your problem, you're too interested in being a crotchety old grump to actually consider what someone else says.

 

[basketcase]

The problem with your theory is you're assuming all teachers think the same and want to bank sick days. There are many who would rather use the sick days, even if they're not sick, and not bank them at all. I can't say for sure about teachers, but a significant number of city workers did not bank sick days, they use them as they go, whether sick or not. In these situations there is no savings but rather higher expenses to use supply teachers.

Happens in every work place that has sick days. Bankable sick days has been shown to reduce the number used. Of course some people will use more and some will use less but we're discussing the contracts of a few hundred thousand people, not one individual. As you said, city workers tend to use their sick days because they have no incentive to bank them. If the nursing study I read holds true for teachers, it would mean a 50% increase in supply teachers.

I, and everyone else in the union, thought the same until our lawyer investigated it. Sick days is not like taking away previously earned money in the legal sense. It's a benefit and they can indeed be taken away, as they already have done by reducing dental coverage, drug coverage, orthotics, etc... I was in shock when the lawyer informed us. I highly suggest you get a lawyer to review it. Or quite simply, ask your union. Don't assume, have it checked out. I guarantee you the city workers were finally informed by the union, after denying it for months, that once a contract expires the slate is wiped clean. The government has the legal option to cancel any sick days, banked or not, and they also have the option to put teachers on a lower pay grid, all legal. Whether they would or not is a different question and up for negotiations.

I don't have a union or the desire to pay a lawyer so all I currently have to go on is the news reporting that previously earned sick days will be kept as well as the payout on them. Considering the province has been going after cost savings (or the by-elections) and have pissed of the teachers already so I can see no reason why they wouldn't have stripped previously banked days if they could. As the news is reporting, there will be no noticeable savings on this for a decade or two.

 

[FAST]

Real and not so real

One important difference between the teachers world and the real world is,...if a teacher wants a day off, they take it, do some Xmas shopping or what ever, and return to the next day as nothing has happened.

I the real world, when none teachers take a day off, its..."glad your better...now catch up the work you didn't do yesterday".

FAST