Toronto Sun - Ontario teachers headed for court

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,626
3,194
113
This pretty much sums up your problem, you're too interested in being a crotchety old grump to actually consider what someone else says.
So you have no answer to the question and default to insults.
That pretty much sums up the value of your input

As for considering others input, I found fun-guys post enlightening
And not just because he proved your absolute on the removal of benefits position was totally incorrect, but he also spoke the truth, despite the fact it is a truth he may not personally like.

Again I will ask you politely to explain to all of us how you expect the provincial govt to continue compensating teachers in the manner they demand, yet also deal with declining revenues and escalating Health costs.

For an Engineer, who appears to know all (well not all apparently !) this should be a straight forward response.

However I suspect you lack the stones to objectively look at this problem and state the obvious solution
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,626
3,194
113
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.
That is not definative proof at all
It is an inference.

1. The province can eliminate these benefits. They write the laws after all
2. The savings would be instaneous if they were to eliminate them retroactivly
I suspect they would grandfather in existing banked days, but eliminate the banking going forward

3. you implied that it is not worth doing if the savings are a decade down the road, shows a genunine lack of respect for the youth of today who will inherit the massive debt you insist on accumulationg now.

Not what some would define as a forward thinker, are you?

4. You seem awfully concerned about pissing off teachers
Perhaps you may want to consider how pissed off the other 90 % of the taxpayers will be if they have to pay more taxes for Health Care, while teachers continue sitting on their dock all summer long and collect a 1/2 years salary at the end of the career
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
Just so you guys know banked sick days are not one for one.

At the end of the year the number of unused sick days is halved and that is banked for the purposes of amassing the 200 gratuity days.

There's a difference between banked gratuity days and banked sick days.

Banked sick days can be cashed in if you fall really ill and need to take extended time off.

Banked gratuity days can only be cashed in at retirement.

I think subs get paid close to 200 a day. So when a teacher is sich and has a sick day to spare it means that day cost 400.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
Basically what John Larue is saying is that teachers should earn an average salary if they want to be "supported" by tax payers.

I'm fine with pay freezes and hacking of benefits so long as it's uniform with cops, doctors, firefighters, politicians (who work short periods and get good pensions).

I'm also fine if this happens as a result of negotiations not passing a law.

I get that the bduget needs fixing but I think the government does a massively poor job with balancing the budget and there's no incentive for them to be responsible.

This situation to me is like replacing your light bulbs in your house with LEDs while ignoring insulation, efficient AC/stove/washer/dryer.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
Just so you guys know banked sick days are not one for one.

At the end of the year the number of unused sick days is halved and that is banked for the purposes of amassing the 200 gratuity days.

There's a difference between banked gratuity days and banked sick days.

Banked sick days can be cashed in if you fall really ill and need to take extended time off.

Banked gratuity days can only be cashed in at retirement.

I think subs get paid close to 200 a day. So when a teacher is sich and has a sick day to spare it means that day cost 400.
So the avg teacher probably works 30 years so to bank 200 gratuity days (not sick days) they need to average between 6 and 7 gratuity days which means each year then need to spend no more than 6 to 8 of their 20 sick days.

Most probably use around 6 to 8 days as 10+ will get you flagged for a meeting as to why you are away so often.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
To be honest I think there's a certain sexism going on in all this.

Careers like nursing and teaching seem to have a harder time at the negotioation table. While police, fire and drs seem to not have a problem.

I think politicians pick fights they think they can win.
 

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,275
3
38
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.
Is the nursing study the only study to prove this theory? Is it available so I can see it? I'd be very interested in reading it.


basketcase said:
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.
If you're not a union member or read a collective agreement then how would you know? From the media? That's a mistake. I've read the collective agreements for civil servants front to back, talked at length with union executives and lawyers, and can assure you the government can legally eliminate banked sick days. You're banking, pun intended, that the government will not exercise that option so they can get their pay freeze and other savings without really sticking it to the teachers.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,912
6,837
113
Is the nursing study the only study to prove this theory? Is it available so I can see it? I'd be very interested in reading it.
I'll try and find it. I read it a fair while ago so it might take some effort.




If you're not a union member or read a collective agreement then how would you know? From the media? That's a mistake. I've read the collective agreements for civil servants front to back, talked at length with union executives and lawyers, and can assure you the government can legally eliminate banked sick days. You're banking, pun intended, that the government will not exercise that option so they can get their pay freeze and other savings without really sticking it to the teachers.
You're potentially correct. All I have is common sense (which is often not in line with the law), media reports about the deal and the legislation, and the strong belief that the government is mainly interested in the elections, not the actual finances.


p.s. i find it interesting that as a union member you seem to be okay with government attacks on unions in general.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
I'll try and find it. I read it a fair while ago so it might take some effort.


You're potentially correct. All I have is common sense (which is often not in line with the law), media reports about the deal and the legislation, and the strong belief that the government is mainly interested in the elections, not the actual finances.


p.s. i find it interesting that as a union member you seem to be okay with government attacks on unions in general.
Absolutely, it's about politics and not finances. Otherwise, there would be a call for massive, broad sweeping changes and audits. But they probably don't want to shine too bright of a light on the topic of spending.

But how much teachers maek and what their benefits are, is beside the point.

I think the real issue here is whether or not this is a violation of labour laws. If not then why bother negotiating every so often with the various groups(civil servants)?

My prediction is that this gets over turned in the supreme court but by the time that happens elections will have happened... so the liberals will have gotten their wish "to appear tough on spending."

Yet again voters will have been fooled.
 
Last edited:

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,626
3,194
113
To be honest I think there's a certain sexism going on in all this.

Careers like nursing and teaching seem to have a harder time at the negotioation table. While police, fire and drs seem to not have a problem.

I think politicians pick fights they think they can win.
Politics is a real nasty game

However when you view the prov expenses from a high level the vast majority of $ are spent on two things
1. Health care
2. Education

The demand for Health care is going to increases at an alarming rate due to demographics, so while they will need to be vigilant in controlling costs in Health Care, ( I expect a battle royal with the doctors in the future) there will not be an opportunity to save $ in Health care

That leaves Education.
Unfortunately for Teachers they have negotiated a very good deal for themselves with perks, compensation and vacation time the average taxpayer will view as excessive.

It is not about attacking teachers it is about identifying where the savings will come from.
teachers have painted a big bulls-eye on their back with over the top benefits like Banking of sick days, working 9 1/2 months for a well- above average salary, but most offensive is the attitude of entitlement and the fact they appear oblivious to changing economic conditions
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,912
6,837
113
I get it. Having a strong health care system is important to little Johnny because it effects him right now. Education isn't important because who cares about a bunch of kids (and the future of our country - and our health care system; we can always import more doctors and nurses).

... the average taxpayer will view as excessive.
...
Considering they have education that the average tax payer finds excessive (minimum two degrees)....


I wonder why there is no complaint from John about the excessive pay of our Provincial politicians? $116,000 base pay plus bonuses for being appointed to a variety of positions (which almost all Liberals receive) to a possible of $165,000+ per year, add in the nice benefits package, a government payed retirement fund equal to 10% their annual income, and a significant payout if they've served 8 years, all for sitting in the legislature 56 days this year. For people to be receiving a benefits package like that while criticizing and making cuts to others is pretty slick, even for politicians.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,626
3,194
113
Absolutely, it's about politics and not finances. Otherwise, there would be a call for massive, broad sweeping changes and audits. But they probably don't want to shine too bright of a light on the topic of spending.

But how much teachers maek and what their benefits are, is beside the point.
It is all about the finances !!!
Do you not read the news or do you not understand what is occurring in Europe & the U.S. ???????

No way in the world, a liberal would single out Teachers unless he was forced to
And that is exactly what has happened. He has no choice.

How much Teachers make and their benefits is the point
As much as you want to believe otherwise this is the cold hard reality of the situation
As a group you have negotiated such a lucrative deal, it has painted a bullseye on your back


I think the real issue here is whether or not this is a violation of labour laws. If not then why bother negotiating every so often with the various groups(civil servants)?
That is a side show if the province runs into a financial crisis ( default), which it will if it can not save billions per year going forward

My prediction is that this gets over turned in the supreme court but by the time that happens elections will have happened... so the liberals will have gotten their wish "to appear tough on spending."
The financial markets will not wait so long
You can keep sticking your head in the sand , hoping this issue will go away.
It is not going anywhere.

Best strike a deal with the liberals as the PCs will be ruthless !!!

Yet again voters will have been fooled.
Frank you are fooling yourself , if you think this is political posturing.
Greek labor leaders said the same thing 5 years ago and look at them now
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,626
3,194
113
I get it. Having a strong health care system is important to little Johnny because it effects him right now. Education isn't important because who cares about a bunch of kids (and the future of our country - and our health care system; we can always import more doctors and nurses).
No you do not get it
In your world , you would denie seniors the access to an MIR, or wait an extra 6 weeks for exploratory surgury or increased their user fees so long as basketcases pet teachers get to bank sick days and spend the summer getting paid while up at the cottage !!!!

Thats is messed up
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
A lot more were they came from

I get it. Having a strong health care system is important to little Johnny because it effects him right now. Education isn't important because who cares about a bunch of kids (and the future of our country - and our health care system; we can always import more doctors and nurses).
Could someone please explain to me why asking teachers to freeze wages will effect the education system.

Are all of the teachers going to quit,..I don't think so,...feel not so entitled maybe, but no way in hell would any of them quit.

Actually,...maybe eventually there might be some money available to get our kids out of the disgraceful portables.

FAST
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
PIt is not about attacking teachers it is about identifying where the savings will come from.
teachers have painted a big bulls-eye on their back with over the top benefits like Banking of sick days, working 9 1/2 months for a well- above average salary, but most offensive is the attitude of entitlement and the fact they appear oblivious to changing economic conditions
Cops work similar amounts, get paid similar amounts and have similar benefits

Find me proof of this entitlement? That's just a perception how can you know what the majority of teachers are thinking? These statements show that you are looking to hang the bullseye and that you clearly have it out for teachers.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
No you do not get it
In your world , you would denie seniors the access to an MIR, or wait an extra 6 weeks for exploratory surgury or increased their user fees so long as basketcases pet teachers get to bank sick days and spend the summer getting paid while up at the cottage !!!!

Thats is messed up
No one said choose education over health.

Instead of cheering on the anti teacher movement why don't you talk more about other ways to save money? If it's all about finances let's talk about where else we can save money.

On another note, if you want to talk about head in the sand then lets talk about Canada's future if the education system continues to be chopped. Canada performs quite well internationally in standardized tests (top 10) and that's pretty good when you consider the top ten is rounded out typically by asian countries where the stereotype (whether true or false) is that the culture holds education to a higher degree. The US can't claim as good results and I think part (not all) of it is due to typically less spending on education than Canada.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
It's interesting that people forget about scandals involving Liberals and money. Why not start with blatant poor financial decisions by the government before working it's way down to civil servants.... ORNGE, Robocalls, 100s of millions of $ spent on relocating power plants that haven't been built yet and these are just off the top of my head (not all liberal problems just government misspending)..... heck even the cost of the state funeral for Jack Layton was over 300K where did that money come from? Poor handling of hte G20 and the costs to businesses and legal fallout.

The point here is that unlike education which is something you have to spend money on the afforementioned could all have been avoided. And again I'm not suggesting raises nor cuts just freeze.

Sad part about Canadian politics is that with 30 someodd percent of the votes you could win your seat.... assuming 3 big parties plus a few smaller parties taking a few votes.

Real leadership to me means accountability and there is none in politics.
 

Bachus

New member
Oct 2, 2005
75
0
0
I watched the agenda last night and one thing that pissed me off the most was the minster of Eds conviction that had they not done what they have done that the teachers would have received a 5.5 % raise.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of facts if not an out and out lie.
Turns out what she was talking about were all to the teachers with less than 10 years experience moving up the grid as they had a right to do and had planned their lives around.
This is not a raise.
A raise is when everyone gets an increase.
It is unfair to cause one part of the workers to take a disproportionate pay cut,the original government plan was for a total grid freeze and would affect only the teachers still on the grid. The current plan is for 3 unpaid PD days to allow our newest teachers only a partial grid freeze and will cost all teachers 1.5% which is a pay cut.

So the current plan is not a wage freeze but a pay cut of 1.5%

There was no raise that was going to come into effect only grid movement which is part of the terms of employment.
Without any chance to move up and or be compensated for further education where is the incentive to stay in teaching? As it stands now retention rates for new teachers are horrible with something like 75% having left after 5 years. We need good young teachers in the system but they will not stay or even apply if they feel that they can't make a fair go of it. The grid helps achieve this and it should stay.

It also saves the government money in the long run because they can get away with paying new teachers less than other teachers. If they were to remove the grid they would need to pay all teachers the same and I think that would cost substantially more.

I still don't think this is about money. If you want to go tough on teachers fine go for ti but don't hid behind lies and obfuscations to do it.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
241
63
I watched the agenda last night and one thing that pissed me off the most was the minster of Eds conviction that had they not done what they have done that the teachers would have received a 5.5 % raise.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of facts if not an out and out lie.
Turns out what she was talking about were all to the teachers with less than 10 years experience moving up the grid as they had a right to do and had planned their lives around.
This is not a raise.
A raise is when everyone gets an increase.
It is unfair to cause one part of the workers to take a disproportionate pay cut,the original government plan was for a total grid freeze and would affect only the teachers still on the grid. The current plan is for 3 unpaid PD days to allow our newest teachers only a partial grid freeze and will cost all teachers 1.5% which is a pay cut.

So the current plan is not a wage freeze but a pay cut of 1.5%

There was no raise that was going to come into effect only grid movement which is part of the terms of employment.
Without any chance to move up and or be compensated for further education where is the incentive to stay in teaching? As it stands now retention rates for new teachers are horrible with something like 75% having left after 5 years. We need good young teachers in the system but they will not stay or even apply if they feel that they can't make a fair go of it. The grid helps achieve this and it should stay.

It also saves the government money in the long run because they can get away with paying new teachers less than other teachers. If they were to remove the grid they would need to pay all teachers the same and I think that would cost substantially more.

I still don't think this is about money. If you want to go tough on teachers fine go for ti but don't hid behind lies and obfuscations to do it.
Well they also sold to the public that without doing what they did that a crisis in the form of a strike would happen.

Reality was that a strike vote had not even occurred and the results if "yes" to strike would not have resulted in a strike merely a bargaining tool/symbol of solidarity.

Furthermore, why the panic? Catholic teachers accepted a deal that included pay freeze (meaning movement on the grid but no raise for 2 years), 10 sick days down from 20 and gratuity days stopped (but what you had banked could still be cashed in at retirement). So why end negotiations with the public school teachers?

I saw someone quote a stat that 60% of teachers are maxed out anyways (not sure if that is true or not) but it makes sense that about that many have been teaching for 10 years or more.

If this is true who knows how many of them would say yes to a strike. They have less to gain and more to lose with a strike and are more likely to have expenses like care of elderly parents or kids in university to think about.

Not sure where you heard about the removal of the grid. I heard talks of extending it meaning more steps/years till maxing out.
 

LickingGravity

New member
Sep 9, 2010
962
0
0
I watched the agenda last night and one thing that pissed me off the most was the minster of Eds conviction that had they not done what they have done that the teachers would have received a 5.5 % raise.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of facts if not an out and out lie.
Turns out what she was talking about were all to the teachers with less than 10 years experience moving up the grid as they had a right to do and had planned their lives around.
This is not a raise.
A raise is when everyone gets an increase.
.
Actually to most people a raise is when you get more money for doing the same work. Moving up the grid qualifys unless they are teaching more hours.

I think the above underscores the problem with the public sector. Their sense of entitlement has become so pervasive that its a difficult thing now to control and they actually have lost sight of the rest of us.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts