what a load of BS - they made close to $90k for 9 months of work and retire 12 - 15 years before the general population with fully indexed pensions ...the public funds 3/4 of the cost of the pension - if a private sector employee wanted the same he or she would need to contribute 30% of gross income...and a bridge pension is provided to help them retire sooner...pretty soon every teacher in Ontario will be on the Sunshine List...and if we include benefits etc they already are on the list of $100,000 earners. The average wage in Ontario is $47,000 by comparison...for 49 weeks of work....
Teachers Taking "Sick Days" - Anyone want to defend this one?
- Thread starter TeasePlease
- Start date
So you are implying their sick time away from work is more dependant upon their contract than their health?I read in one of the recent articles that private sector averages 8.9 sick days per year while public sector averages 13.9.
Considering teachers now are limited to 10 sick days, what are the odds that they now average right around what the private sector does?
Correct.get over it, it's now summertime and there not paid for two months
So if they do not receive a pay cheque for two months their pay is front end loaded, however the average teacher still costs the province $83K in salary (benefits are an extra cost)Correct.
I need to give teachers and their supporters on this board credit.
They are quite masterful at misdirection and leaving misleading implications.
Untrustworthy comes to mind
A real concern considering they are entrusted with the well being of our children for 9 1/2 months a year
I can not answer all the comments, but this is my experience:the states do not have vouchers (except milwaukee)
it seems to me private are inclusive in the sense that race etc does not matter
the good private schools have standards so those who refuse to or cannot learn are not part of the body
but there will be schools for them, if not then public schools will have a gap to fill
waldorf , montessori are inclusive of everyone including the slow are they not?
they have few problem students because students are taught respect at the beginning (4 years old) is what i have been told
if inclusive means you must learn to associate with a trouble maker or be held back by a slow learner then i say fuck inclusiveness
but to me it means all races and religions are in most private schools (are some exceptions)
the reason we see all white private schools is because the whites have the money
which creates a two tier education
with vouchers everyone now has the money so the playing field is more level although the rich will always have some advantage
There is no point in going private for the sake of going private. Most consumers are simply not knowledgeable enough to make the right decision. When we have one of the best public systems in Ontario, why bother?
The only worthwhile private schools are the elite ones such as UCC. They are meant for the upper class and only accept a small number of “others” so as not to bring down the prestige of the school. If you are good enough to represent Canada in the International Math Olympiad and can not afford to attend, they will offer you scholarships to go there. They will even add a few darker faces for diversity, but they are not interested in most students, money or no money.
As parents, we can only influence our children’s performance on the periphery, as this article seems to suggest:
http://www.mercurynews.com/educatio...lley-even-high-achieving-schools-fail-latinos
We are given our innate ability and there is not a lot we can do to improve it. If you seriously want to improve your children’s chances in life, it helps to marry the right spouse. Most people do not have such long time horizon, I am afraid.
What I'm saying is simple.So you are implying their sick time away from work is more dependant upon their contract than their health?
Currently teachers would seem to be taking the about the average private sector number of sick days. The reports are saying teacher sick days are way up this year so that means before this contract, teachers were taking well below the average despite the high number of sick days they could have used.
Sorta
FAST
Define "YEAR"What I'm saying is simple.
Currently teachers would seem to be taking the about the average private sector number of sick days. The reports are saying teacher sick days are way up this year so that means before this contract, teachers were taking well below the average despite the high number of sick days they could have used.
FAST
yearDefine "YEAR"
FAST
/yi(ə)r/
Noun
The time taken by a planet to make one revolution around the sun. The length of the earth's year depends on the manner of calculation,...
The period of 365 days (or 366 days in leap years) starting from the first of January, used for reckoning time in ordinary affairs.
Open to interpretation
FAST
But that's NOT in "teachers" years right,...sorta like "dog" years,...or SP's age ???year
/yi(ə)r/
Noun
The time taken by a planet to make one revolution around the sun. The length of the earth's year depends on the manner of calculation,...
The period of 365 days (or 366 days in leap years) starting from the first of January, used for reckoning time in ordinary affairs.
FAST
Even if you want to pro-rate sick days, sick days used by teachers are still around the private sector average and until this year were below it.
Then they did not need 20 days, nor did they need to bank them, now did they?Even if you want to pro-rate sick days, sick days used by teachers are still around the private sector average and until this year were below it.
What has that costs the province since it was introduced ?
Are you willing to let someone out of a contract with you because it turned out to be more expensive than they thought?Then they did not need 20 days, nor did they need to bank them, now did they?
What has that costs the province since it was introduced ?
Are you willing to continue over compensating a group because some nitwit signed a bad contract 30 years ago?Are you willing to let someone out of a contract with you because it turned out to be more expensive than they thought?
What a ridiculous justification.
The province is running a deficit and piling up unmanageable debt
Do you understand what that means for you and the next generations?
My understanding was the contract was up for renewal, so all conditions were up for review
Actually the banking meant that there was little need for a long term disability program, an insurance cost that the province was footing the bill for. Even with teachers being very sick and using banked days, the average fell below the private sector average. Obviously the incentive of banking days and/or paying out for unused sick days encouraged teachers to go to work and therefore saved the province money.Then they did not need 20 days, nor did they need to bank them, now did they?
What has that costs the province since it was introduced ?
Civil servant unions economics
FAST
But you see John,...civil servant unions don't operate under the same economic laws as the rest of the working population, or reality for that matter.Are you willing to continue over compensating a group because some nitwit signed a bad contract 30 years ago?
What a ridiculous justification.
The province is running a deficit and piling up unmanageable debt
Do you understand what that means for you and the next generations?
My understanding was the contract was up for renewal, so all conditions were up for review
FAST
Again, if they do not appear to need it , why did they need to protest so loud and screw over the students in order to protect what they do not need?Actually the banking meant that there was little need for a long term disability program, an insurance cost that the province was footing the bill for. Even with teachers being very sick and using banked days, the average fell below the private sector average. Obviously the incentive of banking days and/or paying out for unused sick days encouraged teachers to go to work and therefore saved the province money.
You have some strange logic if you think saving the province money is even a remote agenda for teachers.
Slice, dice and twist any way you want
Anyone with an ounce of sense know this was a cash grab, plain and simple
I agreeBut you see John,...civil servant unions don't operate under the same economic laws as the rest of the working population, or reality for that matter.
FAST
Their agenda appears to be more motivated by winning vs. the govt (and the taxpayer) than fulfilling a service or accomplishing anything of value.
$83K , the summer off, a gold plated benefit package primarily funded by the taxpayer and they go ape shit when asked to concede what was an obvious excess.
The reason why they went ape shit is because they can not and will not accept the idea they have gone too far
exactly and the Liberals have catered to the 200,000 teachers at the expense of 15 million Ontarians while wages remained stagnent they went up 25%. Anyone in the private sector making that kind of money is subject to annual reviews, getting laid off, less benefits etc....there is a reason this is not sustainable - economics....but most of the teachers have never left school and have no grasp of the real world....and the Fiberals need those teachers to campaign for them, run radio ads and defeat Harris and their ilk.... the evils of teacher testing etc...it's all about the kids ;-0I agree
Their agenda appears to be more motivated by winning vs. the govt (and the taxpayer) than fulfilling a service or accomplishing anything of value.
$83K , the summer off, a gold plated benefit package primarily funded by the taxpayer and they go ape shit when asked to concede what was an obvious excess.
The reason why they went ape shit is because they can not and will not accept the idea they have gone too far
let me set you straight
This is an economic problem and not a human rights problem
absolutely wrong
the rights of a child to a quality education is a human rights and legal issue if there ever was one
anyways
what is wrong with the following idea
average cost of child in public school is 12k (according to you)
savings to the public schools if one child leaves is zero
however if thousands leave the system saves money
estimate this savings then
give this savings in vouchers to the child's parent if the child leaves the public school ( minus voucher administration costs )
prorate these vouchers to income
cost to the taxpayer for these vouchers is now zero
these vouchers will at least subsidize alternative education giving access to private schools to more working people
the taxpayer is the students parentIt was never the students money to begin with. It originated at the taxpayer
the vouchers go to them and they decide where the child goes
besides, the monies have been bequeathed to the child's education, so they are the child's as long as they are used for education
once again u r wrongYour example is akin to sending 100 buckets to Calgary to help with their flooding problem
because of their flexibility there are lots of ways private schools can be cheaper than public schools
in a lot of churchs there is a Montessori school in the basement
cost of school is rental of one room plus teacher
home schooling is even cheaper
etc, etc, etc
the rich are investing where there is maximum profitThe rich are the one making the investments you moron
Please explain the following and the impact of taxation:
ke=rf+B(rm-rf) and
WACC = E/V *ke + D/V* kd*(1-Tc)
Until you can do that you have no right to even consider taxing the rich, because you do not understand how investment decisions are made
sometimes this is good for the working man, sometimes not
I realize that the richmans' investment are needed
I also understand under todays economic rules there is small flexibility in taxing the rich
but
your equations r irrelevant
because
what I am suggesting is a paradigm shift in capitalism
allowing new equations to be drafted
if such a paradigm shift cannot be found we are heading for a cliff
there are many very bright economists who agree with me, such as Stiglitz, but you can only see your view
few are searching for such a paradigm shift because our ideas are controlled by the rich
Last edited:
after discussing with john larue (see above, he loves to call me an idiot) your considerate and respectful reply is a breath of fresh airThere is no point in going private for the sake of going private. Most consumers are simply not knowledgeable enough to make the right decision. When we have one of the best public systems in Ontario, why bother?
The only worthwhile private schools are the elite ones such as UCC.
the public schools is not a good educational system for everyone
GAYS ARE THE MOST GLARING EXAMPLE, which is why I use them as an example, but they r not the only one
my idea is, at the very least,
estimate the savings to the public schools when a child leaves then
give this savings in vouchers to the child's parent if the child leaves ( minus voucher administration costs )
prorate these vouchers to income
cost to the taxpayer for these vouchers is zero
and the public schools have lost no monies per student either
indeed
the public schools are better off because disgruntled students have left
they may also be able to force the vouchers on trouble making students and tell them to leave
does not every one win ?????
the rich will always be better off but with vouchers the playing field is more level even if you cannot go to Upper Canada College and have royalty as a classmate
Last edited:
