BC Teachers have voted 87% to escalate the strike...

[RGA]

Which makes me wonder what drug the 13% who didn't were smoking.

Granted I am a teacher so perhaps biased but I am not a die hard union guy - I worked in Private sector as an accounting clerk for 7 years in a steel foundry - the only such foundry in the country that never turned union. So I've seen both sides. I even see some of the arguments the government wants being in the ballpark of reasonable.

However on the whole - this time around - they're a freaking disaster.

Here is a post by someone who has summed it up to a tee - and you won't get that from the usual in bed with the liberal party newspapers.

Why I'm Rattled at the Liberals...a teacher's perspective.
by Nick Pendergrass on Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 10:09am ·

This was going to be a status update but I have a bit too much to say. I am sickened and disappoined by how some media outlets depict my union's job action. Often, the only words I hear in the news reports are "wages" and "class size". Too often the reporting is so narrowly focused and repetitive it is hard to fully appreciate the scope of the issues. Here's what's really going on and why teachers are so upset.



1) The abolishment of seniority rights. Even the Roman army had seniority rights. Why this government wants to do away with seniority rights befuddles and scares me. Doing away with seniority exposes teachers to being hired and fired due to a "who you know" scenario and/or a popularity contest. Elimination of senority rights could also set more experienced/ educated teachers (who are at a higher pay scale) at a disadvantage, in favour of younger/less educated teachers (who are at a lower pay scale). Districts want to cut costs, correct?



2) Contract stripping. When two sides come to an agreement about an issue and sign a contract that contract should be upheld for the duration of that contract. This Liberal government ripped up our contract that we had with them in 2002. The part they ripped up eliminated provisions protecting class size, class composition, and services to students with special needs. The BCTF website states, "the 2002 legislation enabled the BC Liberals to cut $336 million annually from public education and so severely curtailed free collective bargaining rights that it could not sustain a challenge under the Charter of Rights. In April 2011, the BC Supreme Court found the bills to be unconstitutional and invalid". Yet, despite the Supreme Court ruling it's business as usual for George Abbott and the Liberals. It blows my mind how this can happen in a democratic society.



3) The One Strike and You're Out Policy. In this case a teacher could be dismissed from their job due to a poor performance review or for other incidents. Of course creepy teachers should be shown the door...no one is going to argue that, but a few bad lessons or what is deemed to be an inappropriate comment shouldn't be grounds for dismissal unless there is a fair process. All workers deserve the opportunity to learn from their experiences/ mistakes, with support and constructive feedback from their employers. A three strikes you’re out policy, implemented with partnership of administration, school board, and union seems more than fair, as it provides opportunity for employees to grow on a professional level in addition to maintaining accountability.



4) Bargaining in bad faith. How can the government come to a bargaining table with a net zero mandate from the get-go? How can the government only want to take away from our contract, yet add nothing?



5) Changing laws. Last week my union applied to the Labour Relations Board to conduct a strike. The LRB gave us the go-ahead to conduct a strike. Hours later, the Liberals drafted up a law to say that we are not allowed to go on strike. As a worker I feel my rights have been taken away from me. How is it that the students I teach have more rights than I do when they go to their jobs after school?



6) Bill 22---The Liberals will pass Bill 22 next week that imposes a new contract on teachers. Under this legislated contract there will be no class size or composition limits for grades 4-7. Whereby a teacher used to be consulted (that wasn't even perfect), now a superintendent can have the final say and put however many students they would like in a class.



7) "Mediation"---This Fiberal government says that a contract will be mediated. Bogus. It is a mediator they appoint and that mediator has been told that any additional money towards education is unavailable. Class size and composition and wages will not be discussed by the mediator. How can we call this mediation when one side lays out what can and can't be discussed beforehand? Instead of calling this a "cooling off period" how about calling it what it really is...a period of time in which the Liberals have taken away our right to strike, have imposed a contract, and have refused to engage in meaningful discussions about the core issues. Essentially the Liberals are saying, "Shut up, this is the contract WE have decided on and we'll talk to you in two years. And oh, by the way, if you teachers want to strike you will be fined $475 per day and your union will be fined over a million dollars per day". This is mediation? Really?



8) Money, money, money is all the media is covering. Yes, a fair and equitable wage is important to me. If your contract was up with your boss you would probably ask for a raise too. Considering other teachers earn more in other provinces and do the same or less amount of work it gets you thinking. Given these economic times, no one is expecting a bonanza but at the very least could we get a cost of living increase? Please?... No?...Ok, thought I'd ask.



To many of us, our wage could remain the same and life would go on happily for us. Quite frankly, as much as a wage increase would be nice, it is at the very bottom of my beef with the Liberals.



Teachers don't want to have to walk off the job, but given that every other avenue has been exhausted, what other option do we have? What would it say about us and our level of concern for our rights and the rights of students if we simply turned the other cheek and accepted this vicious assault on the education system?



As a teacher who works with students every day I KNOW that at this moment the Liberal government is not serious about improving conditions for students or for teachers. Don't believe their bogus interviews on tv about how they are worried that our job action will be detrimental to students. Abbott and the rest of the Liberals almost sound convincing in interviews. Their actions clearly demonstrate a complete disregard for students and teachers. So, if you see us on the streets next week please don't think it is about the money. Know that our job action is about protecting the rights of teachers and students so that we can both come to school each day equipped with what we need to be successful.

Another bit of info

Why you should support BC's teachers (http://act.bcfed.ca/whyyoushouldsupportbcteachers/)

[Luvin Da Blues]

This thread gets an

F-

The BCTF is so out of touch with today's reality if it wasn't sad it might be funny

[RGA]

Yes and with well reasoned arguments like yours the education system in your day certainly deserved an F-

[Hyfi]

Teachers should only be allowed to strike during the summer months when they can't F up a students education.

Don't like the pay and bennies, get another job and let the kids get an uninterupted education.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Yes and with well reasoned arguments like yours the education system in your day certainly deserved an F-

Congrats, you get a reddie for this immature post. Like we want someone like you teaching our children. :dita:

BTW, I could post many links refuting yours but why bother, this is an audio forum.

[Feanor]

I might have more to say later but right now I'm going to comment on the seniority thing.

In principle it would be nice to promote people on the basis of pure merit, but is this undermined by seniority or is it encouraged by seniority?? Older workers are usually experience and hard-working. But older workers often face discrimination on account of their age.

I worked in a non-unionized company and industry. For the last decade and especially the last 5 years of my employment I faced systematic discrimination. Of course it was unofficial. The company decided that they had a "graying" work and needed to advance people in their 30s or early 40s. This meant no wage increase, bonuses, and promotions for older workers. Furthermore older workers missed out on training and on good work assignments that they could have handle as well or better than younger employees.

Personally I didn't receive a wage increase in the last 10 years. Also, I became eligible to retire at full pension 5 years before I eventually retired. Great, but I couldn't afford to retire since I still had kids in school. So (1) the company not longer made contributions to my pension plan. Far worse, (2) though I had fully earned by my pension, the company would not pay my pension 'till I actually retired, (no "double dipping", eh? So I worked on in effect for half my salary. Sure, I might have retired and looked for another job, but I knew I wouldn't be easy to find one and I might end up working only part-time for less pay.

Any decent union contract would have protected me from this abuse.

[Feanor]

Congrats, you get a reddie for this immature post. Like we want someone like you teaching our children. :dita:

BTW, I could post many links refuting yours but why bother, this is an audio forum.
Reminder: this is the OT forum so feel free to present your refuting arguments, (if you've got any).

Actually I've got a couple myself.

Public service unions differ from unions serving private employers since while the latter strike against the company, the former strike against the community, and therefore they ought to expect restrictions on their bargaining rights.
In a time of global competition when private businees employees are facing shrinking wages & benefits, Government & public service and utility unions are tending to sustain theirs. A widening gap between been the former and the latter works against the efficient delivery of public services, is socially inequitable, and will be politically unsustainable in the medium term.

[Feanor]

Teachers should only be allowed to strike during the summer months when they can't F up a students education.

Don't like the pay and bennies, get another job and let the kids get an uninterupted education.
I tend to agree that public service unions ought to expect more bargaining restrictions than private sector unions. This is because when they strike, etc., they do so against the community, not just against their employer.

[bobsticks]

I might have more to say later but right now I'm going to comment on the seniority thing.

In principle it would be nice to promote people on the basis of pure merit, but is this undermined by seniority or is it encouraged by seniority?? Older workers are usually experience and hard-working. But older workers often face discrimination on account of their age.



It could also be argued that older workers are resistant to change, refusing to accept new methods of teaching and exhibiting an apprehension toward adopting technology.

The challenges in teaching are expanding exponentially as the human race's knowledge base expands. Older teacher's are generally ill equiped to--and, quite frankly, adopting of a rather curmudgeonly attitude towards--taking the time to connect the dots between a foundational education and application in the real world...

[ForeverAutumn]

I believe that Unions have their place in the workforce when they are used to truly protect people who need protecting; people such as unskilled labourers who are trained to do one thing and would have trouble finding another job, or people whose safety is at risk on a daily basis. The mining industry comes to mind. But I have no sympathy for trained professionals who are in unions…yes, teachers included.

I also believe that most unions have been given far too much power and are not reasonable in their negotiations.

I work for a not-for-profit. I don’t have job security. I don’t have a guaranteed wage increase. I don’t get paid for unused sick-days. If I screw up at my job, I can be fired. I can’t bank my salary for a year’s sabbatical. We don’t have a leave-of-absence policy. My husband hasn’t received a wage increase equal to cost-of-living in over five years.

I don’t understand how teachers can prepare their students for real world life when they are so drastically out of touch themselves.

If anyone needs a contract to protect education, it’s the students. Not the teachers. I am so sick of hearing teachers whine about how hard they have it.

[ForeverAutumn]

I might have more to say later but right now I'm going to comment on the seniority thing.

In principle it would be nice to promote people on the basis of pure merit, but is this undermined by seniority or is it encouraged by seniority?? Older workers are usually experience and hard-working. But older workers often face discrimination on account of their age.

This may be true in some situations, and Feanor I'm sorry that you experienced this. However, I have also seen people in non-union businesses promoted based on seniority even when they do not have the skills required to do the job.

I don't know how many people with zero management skills and experience I've seen promoted over the years just because they've been with a company for 20 years and someone in HR thinks they've earned their stripes.

[ForeverAutumn]

Reminder: this is the OT forum so feel free to present your refuting arguments, (if you've got any).

Actually I've got a couple myself.

Public service unions differ from unions serving private employers since while the latter strike against the company, the former strike against the community, and therefore they ought to expect restrictions on their bargaining rights.
In a time of global competition when private businees employees are facing shrinking wages & benefits, Government & public service and utility unions are tending to sustain theirs. A widening gap between been the former and the latter works against the efficient delivery of public services, is socially inequitable, and will be politically unsustainable in the medium term.


Great post. I completely agree.

[RGA]

Feanor

Even with the union older teachers face discrimination from young teachers. But the reality is people have to work and older employees need those protections because if you lose your job at 60 whose going to hire you? When I was laid off from accounting it was one of those D day deals where they called me in and said thanks but we bought Oracle so we can do the world wide accounting in a central office in Portland. Maybe 10 people in the office got laid off - but me I was 26 so big deal - but what about the inside sales woman who had worked there for 35 years and was 60? Sure she knows inside sales for a steel foundry making bull-dozer parts and buckets. It's not like there was tons of other places to go.

Further she didn't need a degree when she started working for the company so at 60 she has experience but no papers to back it up - and HR people are halfwits who tend to want to only cover their ass - so no paper no hire regardless of knowledge and experience.

I am not strictly speaking a union guy because unions become big political bodies with their own power structures in fighting and agendas. And the BCTF has these problems. It's the nature of the beast. Unfortunately you need to have a Beast to go up against a beast - The government is a T-Rex and you can't send in a Poodle.


The problem with education is that if you are a teacher - you are a teacher - you have one boss - you can't quit and work someplace else to be a teacher - because you're still going to work for the same boss. In accounting I can work at Esco or Microsoft or Seagate (I worked for all three). But a teacher works for the government.

So in a real way you need heightened protections. If I get fired at one accounting job I can go work someplace else as an accountant. Not so in education. The skills are transferable to other avenues but it's much more difficult when you're competing with specific degrees.

So seniority is rather critical - at 55 you're a history teacher. Great - if you get fired for nothing, like the Liberals want, then what do you do. Well your English is probably quite good so you think "I'll be an editor" but they're going to hire the 25 year old English major first. They're more up on current changes to referencing or even basic punctuations. I want a car, boat, and house when I win the lottery. Boat has a comma - in the old days it did not.

Still older teachers who are supposed to be better given the fact that they have much more experience typically get the easiest teaching assignments with the best classes. Now they certainly earned it - no one wants to teach a class full of future prostitutes, murderers, and rapists. You put your time in and you move your way up to Lit 12, Physics 12, Liberal Studies, Philosophy, etc.

Still the most experienced teachers should probably teach the tougher classes than throwing the newbies in to try and do something with them.

When I was in school in the mid 80s in Port Coquitlam our elementary school was quite deep. We had an external theater where the grade 7 kids would do the play - something like Oliver Twist while the grade 6 class would run the camera work. We had a dedicated drama teacher, a dedicated music teachers, a French teacher who spoke French and was from Quebec (complete with accent) and that followed in High School.

I taught in Port McNeill and Port Hardy (north Vancouver Island). There is no school play in elementary schools there - there is no French teacher - regular teachers (whether they know French or not teach it) - which is more than a little absurd - sure they try and trade off - I'll teach your PE if you teach my class French kind of thing but that doesn't always work (or happen).

High School - there is no band at either high school - there is a lovely music room from a time gone by - the school even has a music teacher - they have her teaching tourism and Planning. The music room is filled with workout equipment which is rusting.

The school tries to get money - so what do they do they take in a kid who stabbed a Special Ed worker - they government threatened to fire her because she refused to work with this kid again. SHE WAS STABBED. I mean WTF? But there is X dollars the school gets to have the kid in the school.

And it must be a huge amount of money because the school has two new full time employees to follow the kid around all day - they need two because one of them always has to have their eyes on him because if you turn your back he might bludgeon you to death with whatever he can get his hands on. He's an athletic 5'11-6.0'

People rant and rave about teachers and few of them have stepped into a current inner city school in the last 25 years. They have not seen what has happened. My friend (who is a counselor) and roommate tells me things (not names) of issues going on in the district and frankly it's something that I doubt could be dreamed up in Hollywood. And this is Canada - and BC which is a highly prized education system on the world stage.

But when you have kids coming to school where there lunch is piece of chocolate cake - you have a kid who takes a **** in the corner of a class because that's the way he is treated at home - like an animal - he doesn't know any different. To the girl who comes to school in pajamas because her mom left with some other guy and the husband had no interest in the kids and is now stuck with 5 of them. That same girl is also being victimized by an internet stalker, to the kid whose dad shot himself in the head a few weeks back, to First Nations kids who continuously get taunted for being Indian, to the girl who gains so much weight so her dad won't rape her, it's borderline absurd.

I mean you walk into the class and you're going to teach 25 high school kids where by the end of the semester - you night have 8 actually be competent enough to pass the course. And we're talking Social Studies 8 - it ain't rocket science - I mean English is your first language you should be able to read and answer some basic questions.

And then I have not even got to the special needs kids - LOL - I mean they don't even do a good job of recognizing who needs what. The government avoids it because they don't want to go over their limits. I subbed classes where there is clearly clearly something very wrong with some of them and there is no "special need" attached - eesh. I discuss it with the VP and he's like - yeah we know but there's no money or the parent refuses to get their kid checked.

The high school brought in video cameras for all the hallways - to stop vandalism and stealing of fire extinguishers. One female teacher was locked in a storage room whole the students held the door. I was physically intimidated on several occasions subbing for P.E. and Shop. One tried to spray some aerosol spray whole lighting it to get me. And I'm the sub the kids liked - GEEZ. Then again the regular PE teacher he was attacked by a student - the other PE teacher had to step in and choke the kid out. That PE teacher's wife is a special education worker - a 6'4 17 year old came up beside her and rubbed his dick on her arm.

She elbowed him in self defense - guess who gets in trouble? So in order for her not to lose her job she had to press charges of sexual assault.

Then there is the kid who is suspended 17 times in a year and they keep letting him back into the school.

I mean this goes on and on and on - and I was only in the district for 16 teaching months.

As bad as I make it out to be - BC's Education system is quite revered in Asia - There are Chinese schools in Mainland China that demand that teachers have a BC teaching degree - Other schools demand that it must be BC or Ontario - won't hire American teachers or Australians or Brits. In BC there is a practicum - in the States that can be bypassed for a Master's degree - in other words they can teach without anyone evaluating them physically teaching a class.

And then you have the parents - oh my that's a whole other rant.

I know a lot of teachers - none of them give a rat's bottom if they get a raise - sure it doesn't hurt to ask - I mean when I ask for a raise in the private sector other employees don't tell me I am being greedy and "consider the recession" (there is always a bloody recession). It doesn't get put in the paper - Richard was greedy he asked Microsoft for a cost of living increase the evil git.

Not getting the cost of living = a pay cut. I just don't understand how anyone can be against getting at least that amount, Union or no union. In accounting I got a 10% wage increase every single year for 7 years that I worked there - plus profit sharing.


lastly - back to seniority - Unions are leaky buckets - they are generally good for the majority - but they also protect some useless bums. And I know some of these teachers too. I would like better systems that didn't protect these lazy teachers - or just terrible ones. They get the fatter pay cheque and they get the easier classes and they still do the minimum. Unions protect them based on seniority - pretty much anyone in a union knows such people.

That is where employers need to have some power and Unions seem to block them from getting rid of these clowns. I mean a teacher who brought students back to his house to smoke pot - and he doesn't get fired? No he gets a course on "boundaries awareness" - WTF? People want teaching jobs and the union manages to save this clown's job - so yes there are problems.

But first let's do something about the extreme violent kid who stabs people - and let's not put him a school where if he gets loose could take out a bunch of classmates.

Let's add some discipline - and for the love of Pete let's have a class size and compliment where a kid can actually ask a question and not have to shout it back and forth because the three autistic kids are having a tantrum spaz screaming for 40 solid minutes and throwing desks at people. Pretty hard to teach when you have the kid singing to himself the morning cartoons, the girl who spins in her chair yelling no no no no no no - the kid with brain damage who doesn't get that stealing or biting other classmates is wrong. (and yes this is all one class - and yes it is real).

Hey I'm in Hong Kong - I get paid 50% more money than a BC teacher - and it's tax free - I work 5 more days but none of the above apply. They pay my flights and they give me $2000 Canadian per month as a living allowance (rent utilities).

It was either that or I would have joined the 50% of teachers who leave the profession in the first 5 years. So the angry people who say - don't like it get out - hey half of us do - and half of the other half are just biding their time. Which is too bad because a large percentage of the best and brightest opt for teaching even though they know it's the lowest paid of all the professions - they chose it to make a difference - I don't think they expected to be put in truly dire situations and then told "by the way you suck we don't like you, we want to make the schools worse - we're not going to fund silly things like the ARTS oh and here's a pay cut."

PS we're going to spend the money on the Olympics and a roof for BC Place. Or worse - some sort of new ferry from Departure Bay to Horseshoe Bay - I mean these politicians must be getting rich on these contracts somehow. Either ferries or new skytrain stations or highways to Kelowna so the rich people get to ski resort faster.

[RGA]

Feanor

Your points are well taken in that a teacher strike in essence puts people with kids out - they have to hire a babysitter or worse take time off work.

But education is not an essential service - not like Police or Medical or Fire Department. It's not life or death.

So my answer to this is why can't the government step in an keep the schools open and hire babysitters? After all most people think teachers are glorified babysitters. Teachers make much less money than a babysitter makes (per kid per hour) by the way.

So Government can hire the 15 year old girls/boys from Starbucks who have their babysitter papers and pay them $13 an hour and problem solved. Parents are not put out.

After all - during the strike they're not paying teachers - and the schools are empty. So the government has the place and they have the money. Heck - all the people who say "those who can't do teach" well all those people think it's dead easy job and teachers are overpaid - so let's let all those people do the job.

Let the lawyers, doctors, accountants, mechanics, machinists, Engineers, computer techs etc take a class of 25.

Oh wait - the salary is $43,000 and you're going to take 10% away for teaching pension, and two union dues - and taxes and CPP UI - hmm that rules our the doctors, mechanics, Engineers, Computer techs, Accountants, Lawyers, Nurses, ferry workers, accounts receivable clerks, most sales people, bartenders, and the servers at White Spot (like my friend who makes $60,000 a year showing people to their table and saying - "Welcome to White Spot."

Of course I have floated my own suggestion to BC Teachers regarding strikes.

You see the government can make it illegal to strike - they have - and they are going to fine teacher's $475 per day.

The solution to all unions working for a government who pulls out these tactics and ignores the court is to simply quite en mass. All teachers in BC walk in with a letter of resignation effective immediately.

Problem is solved - all those teachers refuse to pay all income tax, phone bills, credit card bills - bills of any kind from anyone. Going to arrest 40,000 people? With what army?

And what professional can you get to replace the teachers? All the other professionals make double the money and don't have to put up with they nuttery.

You can hire the non professionals - since it's an easy job and only for the people who "can't" so let's test it.

Remember no matter how mad you get - if you touch them your fired. Oh and if they falsely accuse you of anything - it's 100% their word over yours - so don't be too mean to the girls. Oh and PS they'll try to video you on their iphone and post it to youtube - out of context. 100% their word not yours.

don't give them homework - their parents will get mad for taking up their fun time. Oh and you also have to be a soccer coach, run the school newspaper, chess club, and make sure there is a dance every so often on a Friday Night. Don't tell them to wear appropriate clothes - their parents will come down screaming at you for not allowing their precious to be her/himself. And don't teach something that is about being tolerant to gays - whatever you do don't do that - tolerance is for edumacated people - panzies - gays are evil.

Oh an you can't teach anything with a witch or Harry Potter - the Jehovah Witness mom will be yelling at you - even though it's approved by the ministry - you have to dump your 10 hours of lesson planning because one kid has a religious freedom that must be adhered to - and no Christmas decorations - they don't like Christmas either and you have to cater to each and every one of them - so my advice is to make sure you have a full profile of each family first or you'll be wasting a lot of your time.

And remember that whatever contract you agree to and sign - doesn't mean anything so at anytime they can just step in and change it on you for any reason and for any conditions.

And don't give them detention - that's cruel - don't give them lines - that hurt's johnny's hand, don't yell - you lost control which means they won - they try to make you mad on purpose - just to have a laugh. Don't tell a girl to wear more clothes - they'll say "what you noticed my ass - you like it - do you want it - you want to suck on my tits" - eesh. Never say anything about their looks - I mean it.

Oddly you can probably get away with some swearing - since they say the Fword every 2 minutes - they don't notice if you occasionally drop one by accident.

It's kind of sucky to be in a union - I think it generates a lot of *****ing and complaining. I mean you'd think people could simply say this is the problem this is the solution - this is the money it takes let's figure out a way to get it done.

[Hyfi]

Not related to Teachers but I did work in a Machine Shop that did Automotive stamping dies that was a Union Shop. I was there for 3 months which was my probation period.

While there I witnessed many people doing nothing most of the time. Other old timers would hoard company tools and not let others use them. Luckily I had my own tools and didn not need much to do my job.

I was given a set of Cam Dies to build which punched the rivet holes in the wing window to fender pieces of at that time our new Mail Trucks. This was the first time I had worked with such large dies and crude equipment. I did things the way I normally would to make sure all my parts were in tolerance, perfectly square, and looked the way they should if made by a toolmaker with pride.

As I got close to finishing my part of the project, and my probation was near an end, the owner was walking around and came to me asking why I had machined certain things and so forth which made me thing I blew the quoted time. I explained why I did what I did and then asked if I went over the timeline.

The answer I got was that I was well under the time but I made my parts look "too good" and that if I kept it up all the customers would want the rest of their million dollar tools to look that good too.

I looked him right in the eye and as I closed my toolbox told him that if that was what they expected of me, then I would not be working there.

So what I am saying is that here was a large shop of UAW workers doing as little as they could and worked with no pride where the Union protected them, coddled them, and allowed them to do little or no work and what work they did looked like crap.

That was the last time I ever worked in a Union shop and if I can help it, I will never support a cult that protects bums and goes on strike. Teachers should NOT be allowed to strike and screw up children's education.

Thinking back, I had another Union experience that proves the same points.
I was in a small shop, building dies for General Motors. I was making about $13 an hour to build these high precision dies.

Now the die gets shipped to GM where a Union worker sits with his feet up, watching the press run in autofeed mode, which means he only had to change a coil when it ran out. Now this Union employee was making somewhere around $25 an hour with about 10x the bennies I was getting and guess what? He and all the rest of the Union went on strike because they were not making enough money and they were unhappy with the benefits. Give me a freakin break!

Unions were good when they were needed to help with the Child Labor issues 100 years ago. Today, they are the reason that Americans cannot afford to buy American Made products and Wal-Mart is the king.

[dean_martin]

Although I'm not sure that it's helpful in this thread, I want to make a general observation regarding union vs. non-union government jobs in the US. A government job, e.g., a teaching position in a public school, is a property right under the US Constitution. Accordingly, the person holding the government position or job cannot be deprived of it without due process of law which in most cases requires pre-termination notice and a hearing. (Problems relating to health and safety may allow for suspension or even termination prior to a hearing.)

Even in states without unions, public school teachers have property rights in their jobs.

I make this observation because I think some may believe that if teachers did not have unions, then they could be fired more easily. That's not always the case.

[Hyfi]

Although I'm not sure that it's helpful in this thread, I want to make a general observation regarding union vs. non-union government jobs in the US. A government job, e.g., a teaching position in a public school, is a property right under the US Constitution. Accordingly, the person holding the government position or job cannot be deprived of it without due process of law which in most cases requires pre-termination notice and a hearing. (Problems relating to health and safety may allow for suspension or even termination prior to a hearing.)

Even in states without unions, public school teachers have property rights in their jobs.

I make this observation because I think some may believe that if teachers did not have unions, then they could be fired more easily. That's not always the case.

Good points Dean. Also, most people that do their jobs well all the time to the best of their ability and do not abuse position or privileges, rarely need to worry about getting fired except for lack of work. I have never been fired but have been laid off due to lack of work 3 times in my life.

[ForeverAutumn]

1) The abolishment of seniority rights.

2) Contract stripping.

3) The One Strike and You're Out Policy.

4) Bargaining in bad faith.

5) Changing laws.

6) Bill 22

7) "Mediation"-

8) Money, money, money is all the media is covering.

What would it say about us and our level of concern for our rights and the rights of students if we simply turned the other cheek and accepted this vicious assault on the education system?

RGA, I finally had the time to read your post in more detail. The author finished his piece with a question, "What would it say about us... if we simply turned the other cheek and accepted this vicious assault on the education system?". But not one point that he makes has anything to do with the education system. He gripes about the contract and about how the gov't is treating teachers unfairly. But how is anything in those points making the education system better?

This is one of the issues that I have with the Teachers Union (and just to be clear, my issues are with the union. I have many friends and family who are teachers and I respect the position. It's not always easy dealing with other people's kids or the parents). But teachers complain about their own issues using the excuse, "it's for the betterment of the system". I'm calling BS. If I'm wrong, please help me understand.

[Feanor]

One thing you can believe, RGA. I never wanted to be a teacher.

[Feanor]

I might have more to say later but right now I'm going to comment on the seniority thing.

In principle it would be nice to promote people on the basis of pure merit, but is this undermined by seniority or is it encouraged by seniority?? Older workers are usually experience and hard-working. But older workers often face discrimination on account of their age.



It could also be argued that older workers are resistant to change, refusing to accept new methods of teaching and exhibiting an apprehension toward adopting technology.
...
Actually this alleged "apprehension" on the part of older workers has become part of the prejudice. I don't know about teaching, 'Sticks, but I can observe that in my profession older workers were no less adaptive or interested in change than the younger ones.

Personally as a business systems analyst I was continuously an agent of change and certainly had no fear of it. Business systems analyst is a job that resides between the users of systems and the technical architects and programmers who construct the systems. I noticed that, if anything, the older analysts are better agents of change because they tend to have a better understanding of the needs & desires of the systems user than younger analysts who are often obsessed with the technological aspects.

[Feanor]

This may be true in some situations, and Feanor I'm sorry that you experienced this. However, I have also seen people in non-union businesses promoted based on seniority even when they do not have the skills required to do the job.

I don't know how many people with zero management skills and experience I've seen promoted over the years just because they've been with a company for 20 years and someone in HR thinks they've earned their stripes.
It's been more than 30 years anywhere I've worked since seniority per se was the major factor in selection.

[Feanor]

Feanor

Your points are well taken in that a teacher strike in essence puts people with kids out - they have to hire a babysitter or worse take time off work.

But education is not an essential service - not like Police or Medical or Fire Department. It's not life or death.
...
Well I think it's an essential service if not quite life / death. Great ideal about boards of education hiring scab babysitters; it would solve one problem. Do you think the unions would go for it?

I've never been one to denigrate teachers or their profession -- and I've never wanted to be one, as I mentioned, because I know it's a tough and frequently thankless job.

[RGA]

Forever Autumn

Well I agree - I hear a lot of complaining and I don't hear a lot of solutions coming from teachers. Though you said you didn't read anything they had to say about making classes better - point 2 covers that.

The thing is that in the public debate those issues don't get addressed because the government wants to focus on RECESSION - RECESSION - and Look at the salary demands. Every teacher I know would take the zero provided they do something about funding the schools - smaller classes - more teachers, less special needs.

And again getting a pay cut by not receiving a cost of living increase is just stupid. The fact that people in other jobs take it - says more about them - they should not take it - they should unionize and stop letting the millionaire owners become billionaire owners. Since they can only make the money on the backs of their workforce.

The issues around contracts are just as important as what happens in a classroom. Contract stripping and canceling. Tell that to the NHL Player's union if the Canucks say - gee Luongo you suck we're going to not pay the rest of the contract - you're a free agent. Piss off.

[RGA]

Hyfi

Thanks - at least I know where you're coming from and I agree - it's the single biggest thing I hate about unions is the protectionism of lazy hacks. I think you're situation is far worse than what happens with teaching unions because these are educated people who put a lot of time and effort in during University - they're professionals - and that does mean something (less likely to be lazy gits). The guys in our foundry with a D- in every subject but their dad got them hired - well they're lazy and hard labor jobs is all they could ever do. Good employees like yourself - no doubt grow weary of them. So do employers. So they collect $80,000 a year pouring metal and they need the union because without it they'd be pumping gas.

The problem you note is easy to see though - you made a better product - the lazy buts make a worse one - easy to see.

It's not the case in education - we all went through school with the kids who got A's all the way - they had good, bad and great teachers but they got their A no matter what. Alternatively there are the kids who get F's no matter who the teacher is or how good they are. In other words, it's far more difficult to see who is a good teacher and who isn't. It's no based on a punch clock. Plenty of people put in more "hours" but if they're not effective hours then so what? The better teacher who thinks smarter not harder may in fact be doing a better job than the guy who stays until 8pm every night.

I remember my first practicum in a grade 7 class - the teacher who was sponsoring me was a bit frazzled - seemed to have a desk that was whirling dervish of papers books - the class was always "up" kids wandering around - talking - and quite ADHD as a class. I was thinking holy cow this is a disaster.

I was in every Friday to practice my lessons. Here's the thing - others felt that she had no discipline - the class was louder than others.

But I kept thinking - well gee the Principal hand picked this woman from another school - so there's something.

We had a sub in for a day - ruled the class with an iron fist. What a difference - the kids sat - they were quiet. To anyone walking by you'd say - wow there's a teacher. Only problem was they were also asleep - sure they had their eyes open with the glazed "what would it be like to live on mars with playboy models" kind of looks.

It's a fine balance between learning/fun/ and being able to read the class to know what and when certain lessons will fly and when they won't.

Then there are the showy teachers - they like lots of art and posters - they can cover over weak teaching by making the class look great for parents and administrators. I was faced with that teaching for a private school in Korea - it's all about the "surface" - make it look like there is learning going on. Meanwhile the teacher who is actually teaching math and reading comprehension and science - well the wall isn't covered with fancy prism art so he/she is the lazy teacher.

And take most of the issues the public dislikes:

1) Removing Christmas - teachers didn't support that nor were they the ones trying to get rid of it. I'm an Atheist 6.99/7 on the Dawkins scale - and I am quite fine with Christmas and would be much much happier if they left the bloody holiday alone. There's nothing wrong with kids believing in make-believe - their kids and the songs are great and it's colorful and it's FUN.

2) Integration - teachers were against it. Oh sure it's politically correct but the reality is it makes learning far more difficult. That grade 7 class - someone says something to the Autistic boy he rages injures someone. The principal comes in and talks to the class for 40 minutes about being sensitive to the boy because he's different and needs our support blah blah blah - which is all well and good - but this is grade 7 - the kids who have empathy got it from their parents - the kids who don't aren't going to get it from a teacher speech.

The entire class lost their math lesson that day and there were many such days like that day. Two days later some kids in the class - stole the autistic boy's bike and bent the frame. Didn't happen at school so no one can do anything about it. You tell the bullies parents - yes the dad who takes his son on a ride along to be the lookout when he is robbing houses.

Sure it's not the autistic boy's fault for being bullied - but because he can't deal with social situations his reactions are off the beam. So they taunt him more - bullies are like that. Future sociopaths.

Teacher's are not expert psychologists and counselors - I took training in special needs as part of my program - a course a few hours a week for a semester - great - but that isn't 10 years like a psychologist gets. There is only so many fields a person can be expert in. So government wants to save money from having a separate school with trained professionals to deal with the autistic boy (an otherwise B student academically) - throw him in the regular class with untrained teachers and have a special ed worker that has to cover several students in several classes.

All because of the government's Politically correct ideals (solely developed to save a buck):

1) teaches kids to get used to working with the mentally challenged
2)teaches them compassion for those less fortunate than themselves
3)helps the mentally challenged work as contributing members of society.

It all sounds so wonderful that you'd have to buy into it. But number 2 is bogus since you were brought up with compassion or you were not. If you have to learn empathy then you won't.

Number one is also bogus because in the real world companies don't hire the mentally challenged - at least not for jobs that people would have any long term interaction. And whatever rare extreme example to the contrary is just that a rare example - perhaps a greeter at Walmart or cleaners at McDonalds.

Number three is the only case you could make an argument but even here the learning capabilities are often very low to impossible. I helped a lovely grade 2 girl every week with her math - sweetest kid in the world but having her count to ten with blocks every week and every week could not do it. There is a limit to what they can learn - and I'm not really trained for kids with those issues. Yet the school had no one else so they did the best they could. She had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

But they sell integration because it's "cheaper" - let's get rid of the people who are trained and just dump them into regular classes and then put out the 1,2,3 list to sell it to society - see how NICE we are. Well I suppose it is nice but sometimes you have to be non PC and tell it like it is and use some tough love. That little girl will have many teachers after me and lots of experts and one day when she is 18 she may actually be able to count to 10 - MAYBE. But the teacher's time, class time, resource materials, will be immense.

Meanwhile there isno funding - ZERO, ZILCH, NADA for gifted kids. you get a budding Albert Einstein in your class and tough luck because there is no money for those kids - it is a "special need" but money for the best and brightest - forgettaboutit - it's being poured into the kid who might count to ten maybe in 10 years.

Physical disabilities is something entirely different - no problem with integration here because most bullies aren't going to pick on the kid in the wheelchair - they would if no one was looking mind you but generally they're smart enough to not go down that track.

3) year round schooling - people are mad at teachers because they get summers off - but teachers were not really for said system. Teachers were the ones who promoted the idea of year round schooling - how many parents would LOVE that?

See the system could still give teachers time off and parents could still have their kids go year round. It simply requires a 3 semester system. You have three 2 week vacation periods. At the end of each semester you have a 2 week break. But parents can still send their kids to school during those two weeks if they so choose.

An example would be 2 weeks at Christmas - many parents take that time, or would, to have a vacation. So you can pull little Johnny out of school. If you don't have a vacation you keep Johnny in school where parents can opt to make a series of selections for their kids.

WOW you as a parent also have a carrot to hold over your child. If you are good you can come with us on vacation - if not you have to go to school and study. Or if you are low income you can keep your kid in school and opt for the "fun two weeks of school package" (over the remedial school package) and your kid gets to go on various field trips, sports, art activities etc. (That might be ambitious since field trips have largely been gutted since I went to school - but in wealthier districts parents might be willing to pay a little into this if they don't have to pay for sitters for two months in the summer.)

Teachers would work a rotational system - 2 out of the 3 semesters might be one approach - for those holiday periods beginning teachers on their practicums would run most of it - and they don't get paid so it doesn't cost JOHN Q taxpayer a dime.

There are many ways to make this system better - class size is term that is somewhat problematic as well - if you teach Physics 12 with fully capable and mature students then it can largely be run like a University course - they're basically first year university students - if i could teach physics - I would have no problem with a class size of 80. Marking for math is fairly easy (certainly compared to the arts) and lesson planning the material is largely the same no matter how many students.

Class size when you have 5 special needs students and 3 that should be designated with 18 kids can be outright disastrous.

With 50% of teachers leaving it within the first 5 years the old saying holds true

Those who can't teach, do something else.

[ForeverAutumn]

Forever Autumn

Well I agree - I hear a lot of complaining and I don't hear a lot of solutions coming from teachers. Though you said you didn't read anything they had to say about making classes better - point 2 covers that.

Yes, you're right. I apologize. One point out of eight covers the actual education system. BTW, this is not a judgement on teachers, just on the guy who wrote the article which you seem to revere.


The thing is that in the public debate those issues don't get addressed because the government wants to focus on RECESSION - RECESSION - and Look at the salary demands. Every teacher I know would take the zero provided they do something about funding the schools - smaller classes - more teachers, less special needs.

I don't doubt that many teachers would do that. But I went onto the BCTF site and a huge part of the union's gripe is wages. That's why my beef is with unions, not the members per se. I find that often union members don't always agree with the unions actions.


And again getting a pay cut by not receiving a cost of living increase is just stupid. The fact that people in other jobs take it - says more about them - they should not take it - they should unionize and stop letting the millionaire owners become billionaire owners. Since they can only make the money on the backs of their workforce.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. While it would be ideal to be able to tell an employer who won't give COL increases to shove it, the reality is that many companies simply cannot afford it at the moment. That's what many unions seem to not realize, or choose to ignore. When a company is not profitable (such as my husband's company) the choice is often cut costs or close shop. Not providing salary increases and cutting benefits is a way of keeping the doors open. Employment without a pay increase is better than no employment at all. Unions don't stop this from happening, they hinder it IMO. Forcing a company into a contract that they can't afford, whether it's wages, benefits, or future pension payouts, only hurts the company and eventually leads to layoffs and job losses.

When it comes to public service unions, the increases that are being asked for come from tax dollars. Why should people pay higher taxes to increase someone else's salary, when their own salary is not increasing? There is no Man In A Marble Tower raking in his billions. The money is coming from working schmoes who often have lower salaries and fewer benefits than what the unions are asking them to pay for...for someone else's benefit.

If the Province can't afford the services that the teachers want then where are they supposed to get the money for wage increases? It's not logical or realistic.

[RGA]

Forever Autumn

I understand the point but then why does the government spend millions on BC Place's roof and the Olympics that I certainly did not get a vote on. Teachers pay taxes too and probably 95% or more of them would vote no thanks to both expenditures. Yet my money went to fund that crap.

The government has the money - they choose to allocate for grossly wasteful things because rich people benefit from them. A highway to Whistler - really? Oh sure it will generate a drop in the bucket gain for tourism but ask them for the direct link to improved road to increase tourism and I would not hold your breath.

The public sector has advantages over private sector in terms of job security and this has always been the case. If you want a steady safe job you do your best to get hired by the government.

That said I worked at Seagate software - where employees could by shares. They go public and the shipper/receiver guy got a cheque for $450,000 - any normal employee doing thgat job gets about $14 an hour. So in the private sector you play the high risk high reward game.

The risk is of course is the company that struggles like in your example who have to pinch their pennies on everything (which to be blunt is a sign to look for another job because they're likely going down the drain so I'd be making resumes up real fast).

After all - teachers are professionals they can go get another job - so too are the people who work at jobs where they can't give you 2% increase on your salary. Teachers make 50% of what they made in 1985 in terms of buying power - I think that's enough to ask of one sector. Alberta and Ontario make 30% more money - so whatever the problems with money stems from incompetent government finances and teachers should not have to pay for that (they already have).

And even having said that everyone knows that asking for a raise is a pipe dream - but I mean you gotta at least ask.

As the above said "Given these economic times, no one is expecting a bonanza but at the very least could we get a cost of living increase? Please?... No?...Ok, thought I'd ask."

In other words - he's fine with a no.

The thing you are not addressing though is yes only one point covers the school - but teachers need to first protect themselves and their profession oh and the law which the government broke.

The union busting mantra that all right wing governments want makes no sense in fields like Teaching for the simple reason that there are a certain number of professions that attract the "best and the brightest" and teaching is one of those - it is chosen because people want to do it for the right reasons and they can justify the choice by saying - ok I won't make as much as I would as a corporate lawyer for big tobacco but I can live with myself and at least there is some job security and better than average (but not great) benefits.

But if you take the (At least it has.....) away from the field now you no longer attract the best and the brightest.

So what would have to happen is the degree requirements would have to drop. Because no one will do a 5.5 years B.A./B.ed to work in a field with no job security at all, and for a $43,000 pay-cheque where you can be fired for any reason on the whim of a government official. Your show is untied - you're fired. You don't sleep with me - you're fired. Anyone read their Dickens anymore?

You have to attract the best people - you know educated people to educate kids. Seriously - if there is no carrot then you may as well work at McDonalds - at lest you get the food half price and managers make more than beginning teachers and requires no student loan debt. If you're any good you eventually become store manager and then area manager. I worked there - I know. Hey they even give you a company car.

Here's the thing - people don't make the hard choices - why can;t people say "shove it" - I did.

I like my little town of Nanaimo - I spent 5.5 years of University training and $50,000 in student loan debt to become a teacher because the GOVERNMENT of Canada said - we need teachers - in 5 years we're going to be short - that was 12 years ago. So I changed careers and said I'll do it.

Could not get work so I packed up my life and went overseas (Seoul for 2 years). Then I came back to Nanaimo again to see if there were openings - nope - went to China for a year at a Canadian school). Came back again - got a job subbing in North Vancouver Island - got myself $15,000 in more debt because the pay for subs while a nice daily rate on paper has some problems - such as three days of work.

As a sub you can't take another job during weekdays because you have to be available to sub. I typically worked 3-4 days a week - but in some districts subs work 3-4 days - A MONTH!

Lot's of luck living on that. So they take a job at night and weekends. So now the best and the brightest are working seven days a week and if they get a week long gig to sub they work 8-4 and then go to their night job from 6pm-2am - and then work weekends.

The thing is subs are being subs now for a decade - the average sub in Victoria BC earns $11,000 a year and wait to get a full time job is 10-17 years. So when you bloody well finally get the damn job you have the government tell you - "we're ripping up the contract we signed in good faith because we need the money to fund a roof for BC place for a sport no one watches" Oh and you can't strike (which basically means you have a union in name only).

Personally speaking I washed my hands of the whole stupid system and moved to Hong Kong where they understand that education is probably the most critical thing there is for a society. Which is why teachers here make 50% more money than in BC - with a lower cost of living, with no sales tax, and a flat 15% tax rate. If it wasn't for the humidity (although Ontario sucks for that too) and crowds it would be just about perfect. Very similar to Vancouver in many ways.

Once again BC teachers should stop whining and quit - all of them all at the same time. Lots of schools in mainland China - maple Leaf schools operate in Dalian - the cleanest city in China.

Send this to your BC teacher friends Maple Leaf Educational Systems ..: Canadian and Chinese Certification :.. (http://www.mapleleafschools.com/content/certification.html)

[Feanor]

...
All because of the government's Politically correct ideals (solely developed to save a buck):

1) teaches kids to get used to working with the mentally challenged
2)teaches them compassion for those less fortunate than themselves
3)helps the mentally challenged work as contributing members of society.
...
This is the sort of disingenuous sh!t you get from conservative politicians all the time.

[ForeverAutumn]

Hey RGA. B.C. is not alone.

Here's a message from Ontario's Premier, released this morning...

Print Article: Dalton McGuinty pitches wage freeze to teachers on YouTube - Toronto - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/03/02/toronto-dalton-mcguinty-teachers-youtube.html?cmp=rss)

YouTube video:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WYR2bMXxf6s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Poultrygeist]

South Carolina is a right to work state which is one reason BMW's, Michelin tires, and Boeing Dreamliners are built here. With all the unemployed teachers looking for jobs, heaven forbid educators going on strike.

[markw]

"The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money."

See this link (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions), the source of that little snippet, for a brief discussion of matters such as this.

[RGA]

Hey RGA. B.C. is not alone.

Here's a message from Ontario's Premier, released this morning...

Print Article: Dalton McGuinty pitches wage freeze to teachers on YouTube - Toronto - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/03/02/toronto-dalton-mcguinty-teachers-youtube.html?cmp=rss)

YouTube video:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WYR2bMXxf6s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The issue isn't salaries for Pete Sake - the issue is that government says "please take a wage freeze and we'll use the money to better education."

Teachers say ok fine - since teachers use thousands of their own money to help fund their classrooms anyway. Problem is the governments do absolute nothing to fund ANYTHING in school.

To American posters I am not sure how it works in the U.S. It may be different/better/worse/equal etc. But In BC each school district is responsible for funding themselves in the black.

A high school for instance has a dollar amount tied to each student - So if the school has 300 students the school gets X dollar amount for that school year. So if there are 400 students one year and 350 the next - they have to cut a massive amount of money - usually a teacher - or Special Ed worker. And the first to go are the non core subjects.

In SD 85 which is Vancouver Island North - Music was dumped, Drama was saved but stripped so that the students have to supply all the materials for sets (and gather donations for things like costumes - which is fair enough - since this does work - so why not save some money rather than buying it). Business was also dropped - no accounting courses, marketing, general business. dropped.

The problem of course is the schools up there are very low level - mainstream Math curriculum is beyond most of them. This is where basic business is an important course - first because it's the real world mathematics and secondly the math is far easier than Principles of Math 11 which involves a lot of trig/higher level algebra, quadratic equations, etc. Typically this isn't everyday life mathematics unless you're an engineer and 99% of the kids in that district will never be an engineer. Business or working in an office as an accounting clerk however isn't beyond their scope. So naturally it's the course that is dropped.

As mentioned earlier - it's also the reason the schools will take in borderline serial killer behavioral students because the school for some reason gets a windfall of cash to take them in. Schools that would like nothing more to expel students who should be expelled (even downright serious criminals) are kept in the school for fear of losing their funding.

I am not a parent myself but I would have an expectation that I am sending my kid to a school where they don't allow known and guilty offenders to roam the halls because the principal needs the cash. (Principals are not part of the union - they are government officials). Parents are never told this - but I would likely bet that every single high school in BC has at least one such student roaming the halls. Possible exceptions would be the very large schools where 1800 students is the norm - The schools have much more money to play with and while they have to hire more teachers - the building costs is not that much more since at least all the rooms are being used. So they can get rid of those toxic students - problem is they simply go to the schools that need the money.

The other issue is that school districts who have to run their own finances are not exactly "accountants" they're elected and as anyone knows - elections don't always involve the best people for the job but the most popular speaker or best looking or some other irrelevant factor.

Take the Minister's speech - wants teachers to take a zero - great so what is he going to do to improve the school's funding? Well all- day kindergarten is much more expensive and a lot more work for schools and teachers.

So you might say - hey they hire new teachers - no - they make the current kindergarten teachers work double - or they create a split class in grade 2/3 and bring in the leftover teacher to teach K. In other words - government places a massive demand on the school without funding it.

He gives the ra-ra speech about the system being revered - well yeah but he and his government has Zero to do with that. BC and Ontario teaching programs are revered around the world as being either the best or right near the top on a world stage - in spite of the government. These same politicians who gave themselves a 15% increase in pay no less! A beginning MP earns something like $147,000 for a dead easy job with a fat pension after a couple of terms. They make three times what a teacher makes - explain that to me please? Don't tell me it's a hard job - a bloody waitress got in and 21 year old kid green out of University got voted in (granted anti-conservative/Liberal votes) but still.

The vacation pay argument is fair enough - I believe that that is an honor system - if you're sick it's nice to have and should be there - but if you're not sick you should not profit on it either.

However I would amend it slightly - and suggest that while vacation days are bankable if you don't use them 1 sick day should be placed in a sick day pool - so that when you have the major incident - the teacher in a car accident for example who needs 6 months of sick days - they can draw from the pool to add to their own sick days so they're not out money. In other words the sick days would be shifted to an as needed basis instead of just an individual basis. The government would not be out any money and would still likely see a large net gain - I agree that there should be no payout when retired - but the days go into said pool or at least some reasonable percentage of days go into the pool.

Remember Ontario has the 1st or second most powerful union in the world. They make 30% more money that BC Teachers for the same job and same qualifications - yet BC has a higher cost of living.

Speaking personally I agree with the original guy who could care less if the pay increased at all - To me the increase is a respect issue or a "principle of the thing" kind of request - in that if you don't get cost of living you get a pay cut - and that is disgraceful when you give yourself a higher than C.o.L increase. But I can get passed it and so would most teachers - Ie - if this was a strike just about the raise it would have been voted down by a large number.

I actually made the point many times to teachers to dump the entire raise issue - the public and the media and the liberals will focus on the wage hike - but if you walk out and have NO salary increase demand of any kind now the government has no leg to stand on and teachers have all the support - they can say - we're going on strike to better the school and there's "no profit in it for me" - unfortunately I don't run the union.

[RGA]

"The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money."

See this link (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions), the source of that little snippet, for a brief discussion of matters such as this.

MarkW

We agree on something - I think it's really difficult thing to be in a Union where you have to negotiate with government as the employer. This is the first union I've been in and it seems like it's not even a union. Imagine you are a teacher in this union right now. What exactly do you do - well you pay two different union fees every paycheck whether you like it or not. And it's illegal to strike?? I don't really know what a union is if it can't strike.

In a non union job each year I went into the office and had a discussion with my boss over my job performance. Richard - here are the things I think you did well - this needs work. We've decided to give you a 10% wage increase - thanks for the hard work. Any questions?

In a union as a substitute teacher I don't get feedback from anyone. Why? Because the VP is deathly afraid of saying something about my teaching practice of professionalism - because if I run to my union leader - the fight will be on. That part of the union is just idiotic - your boss needs to be allowed to tell you what you need to do better or not - these are ex teachers who are supposedly veterans and new teachers make mistakes - probably a lot of them - sure we each self reflect and try to fix our own mistakes and we're trained to do this but you can't catch everything.

Principal reviews should occur once a year but they're artificial since kids are always on their best behavior when the principal is sitting in the back of the room. Lesson planning is arguably the easiest part of the job and with the Principal there they don't have much classroom management to evaluate.

In a regular job you can go ask for a raise anytime you want - if you do this as a teacher - you have to do it as a "Body" of individuals. You ask for a raise as an individual the boss is out one salary increase - as a Body they have to give a raise to 40,000 people. Moreover if you do ask - you end up on spiral forums with people calling you names - greedy unrealistic etc. But there is no other way to ask for a raise - the individual is the body and when the body asks - it's in the newspaper.

I'm not sure what the answer is - but I can look at Hong Kong - very weak union but the system works much better.

The Government decides (Remember Hong Kong was owned by the British and while it has been given over to China - China has largely left it alone - it is a special regional district and Chinese need a passport to get into Hong Kong). So HK is very much like London and British legalese.

It's really simple - teachers have a pay grid 14 to 33 and you move up the scale each year. You could start higher depending on your qualifications (and also stop at level 24 depending on qualifications). Each year the salary goes up by the cost of living plus a calculation of how the private sector did - if the PS did well public sector gets an increase (largely because the PS is taxed and there is of course more money for the public sector).

No one complains about salary here - it's high - a level 33 would be making around $8k US per month - foreign teachers like me would get that plus a $2k per month living allowance. No one can complain about salary - and no one does (well some might but they're smoking something).

And because everyone knows this is the system - this is how it works - then when you go into the profession you know what to expect and you can't complain because you knew what it was going to be like.

The problem with bargaining is that you could look at teaching and say - okay it doesn't pay that much but if offers these 9 points in it's favor - security class size limits, Special needs limits - ok I can handle that - let's do that as a career.

Then 6 years later you come out of school in big debt - now you're tied to the job because you're in debt and that's what you were trained for. But now the government looks at the 9 points and scraps 7 of them - back the truck up - if 6 years ago you looked at the job and saw only 2 points in it's favor you say n'ah I think I'll be a bus driver instead (incidentally bus drivers make 50% more money than teachers and require no degree) So they make 50% more money - can work 6 more years and don't have $50k of debt. Ie a bus driver would be $350,000 ahead of a teacher if the teacher could get a full time position as soon as they graduate.

Bus Drivers are also employed by the government and are not asked to take a pay cut. The difference is buses get people to work for the big businesses that need them there to help them make a profit. Education makes people smart - the last thing big business or government wants.

I think people deserve a duty of care. You tell a person to spend $50,000 on a degree and spend 6 years of their life on something - you have a contract with certain promises and then when the person fulfills their end of the bargain the guy holding the contract rips it up and says - ah HAH! Sucker - now I've got you indebted to me and here's how it's gonna be. Sure it's illegal - the BC union took the government to court - and the Union won!!

But the government can rewrite the laws - and they have - they simply overturn or ignore the court and change the law to reflect what they want to do.

Now again if you're the poor schmuck in the union you really have no choice but to support the union in the fight whether you like unions or not. Personally i think the BCTF is a weak willed poodle trying to fight a TREX. And the teachers will bark and bark and then they'll lose anyway simply because the BCTF unlike Ontario does not have a big business union to help them - in Ontario when the teachers go out on strike the Steel workers go with them - which shuts down the auto industry - the steel industry (which is Ontario's biggest industry I believe) and that basically means the entire province grinds to a halt.

Government is forced to listen because if they don't they'll be out on their ass next election.

In BC - they don't have "private sector" union support like in Ontario.

I suppose all these issues boil down to government - you notice that the union is always the one that comes under fire on threads like this - the "worker" is to blame. But no one addresses how the government is spending money. Is there transparency for the public to see.

For instance I don't see a simple 1-2 page break down of finances.

What we should all be allowed to see is a government document (province/Federal - State and Federal in the U.S.)

Total income tax generated
Total sales tax from all sources

Total expenses - Mayors, Prime Minister, President - all Cabinet and elected officials (you can get this in Canada - if you work in the public sector your salary can be viewed by the public). Since government workers are working on tax payer dollars and in a sense are employed by the people - that only makes sense

Then all expenses by those people - including union workers (all union business and income should be open as well)

All government projects - should be listed and how much money went to each one. I would take it a step further and with politicians I would want all their personal finances brought to public as well - how much did they pay for their house, car, furniture - all bank accounts - for a $147K a year you can lose some privacy in the deal) then I know you bought a house with your income level and didn't mysteriously come up with an extra million someplace.

Don't like it don't go into politics.

This goes back to one of our famous Prime Minister's who wasted a million dollars on a picture of a Red Dot - and flew all over the world dating movie stars - on the taxpayer dime while fingering us in the meantime - we're still paying off his lala land policies. Bilingualism don't even go there. The education system in BC spends an incredible amount of money to do a half assed job of teaching French to people who do not need it and other than working for the government will likely never need it - and even if they did need - it they won't learn it in school because it's grossly underfunded to do the job properly. If you're going to do something do it well or don't bloody well bother.

BC government is planning to spend something like 3 billion on a bridge that already works fine enough - they could spend a tenth of that on teacher demands and the remaining amount on improved public transport while generating more jobs for people.

So for the same money we get:
More workers working
Better environment (more public transport)
More money for education, medical, police, fire etc

Or we get a roof on a stadium that houses 15 or so games in a year for the CFL a pretty dead sport - and adding a lane to a bridge and making a highway to a ski resort nicer.

"Give me the highway contract and I'll give you a million bucks to your Swiss account" - in the US it's a donation to the campaign fund (which probably still goes to the Swiss account)

I know you don't like China - but due to their world wide "saving face" embarrassment - at least when they catch the crooks - they put a bullet in them. Here - they give them a golden parachute.

[RGA]

CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada had a pay cut this year .. he ONLY received $10.60 million

Is it just me that sees a problem here?

[Feanor]

"The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money."

See this link (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions), the source of that little snippet, for a brief discussion of matters such as this.
Is PROFIT the measure of everything? It's absurd to imply that public education is valueless because it doesn't earn profit.

I'm enough of a capitalist that I believe that wage and salary levels ought to be established by supply & demand, not on based on a share of company's profit. In the end workers feel the same way: if the owners and managers can't run the organization properly, why should they be asked to take make sacrifices when they have worked as hard as the employee at the hugely profitable firm?

But I'll agree to the extent that public service unions are often greedy. They have often "won" wages, benefits, and protections much higher than people of comparable skills in private business. This comes from the monopoly situation of there employers, i.e. governments. It's worth noting that were private firms enjoy a monopoly or minimum competition, unions "win" similar excessive remuneration -- this was the situation in the US auto industry for decades.

[Feanor]

"The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money."

See this link (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions), the source of that little snippet, for a brief discussion of matters such as this.
OR, markw, would you be in favor of privatizing all education and, perhaps or not, giving people vouchers? This would lead to the dumbing of America really fast. Care to dispute?

On the other hand I agree that there are problems public service employees' collective bargaining, (as already discussed). Of course, (as also already discussed), the same problem can arise in case of private industries under conditions of constrained competition, viz. the auto industry in the '50s.

[ForeverAutumn]

RGA, I agree with your points about the gov't being responsible for bettering the education system. And I totally agree that teaching is not an easy job and the teaches should be paid a fair wage. However, where is the money to better the education system supposed to come from if the bottom line is that THE MONEY IS NOT THERE? Would lower class sizes improve the quality of education? Sure probably. Is the ability to bank 200 sick days and get paid for them a reasonable wage? Not by a long shot! That's insane and is costing tax payers billions of dollars. The union should never have been allowed to negotiate that kind of benefit in the first place. What is the purpose? They have a rich Long-Term Disability plan so what is the need for 200 sick days?

If the teachers union gives up the 200 sick days to release the billions this is costing, for the benefit of the system, then maybe I'll be able to look at them differently. Until then, I maintain my position that they are using the betterment of the system as an excuse for their own agenda.

[markw]

Is PROFIT the measure of everything? It's absurd to imply that public education is valueless because it doesn't earn profit.I love how you try to put words in my mouth. Please point out where I implied that education is valueless.

So, what are you saying in these following snippits? I don't see anything that really supports unions in them, do you?


But I'll agree to the extent that public service unions are often greedy. They have often "won" wages, benefits, and protections much higher than people of comparable skills in private business. This comes from the monopoly situation of there employers, i.e. governments. It's worth noting that were private firms enjoy a monopoly or minimum competition, unions "win" similar excessive remuneration -- this was the situation in the US auto industry for decades.As was pointed out in the article, once laws are passed that made unions a vital part of the bargaining process by forcing them to be dealt with, all good-conscience negotiations died and extortion takes it's place. Once a company is "forced" by law to use union labor forevermore, the company, and eventually the surrounding area, automatically loses. Look at Boeing. Look at your own problems with Caterpillar in London, Ontario. Are you familiar with that area and whats going on there?


On the other hand I agree that there are problems public service employees' collective bargaining, (as already discussed). Of course, (as also already discussed), the same problem can arise in case of private industries under conditions of constrained competition, viz. the auto industry in the '50s.So, you see where unions sounded the death knell for the host by demanding more from them than they can give, What else is there to say? And,yes, it's just lovely that the government bailed out two major auto makers who were forced to sign contracts that guaranteed benefits decades after their financial viability diminished to virtually nil. So, now the tax payers are on the hook for them.

But, on the bright side, many foreign auto makers, and other companies, are opening plants in right-to-work states and turning out quality products made by many happily employed people who enjoy a good standard of living..

So, I guess, yes, in a profit-driven company, profit IS everything, or at least breaking even is of utmost importance to it''s shareholders. They can raise prices to what the market will support or will cut corners to make do with what they can afford as long as they satisfy their shareholders. Public unions simply think taxes can be raised with no limits which iscontradictiory since te taxpayinfg public ARE it's shareholders.

.Now, while the greying of the work force is an issue from which few are immune, might I suggest that a lot of your problems were more than likely self-created by your undeniable sense of superiority and entitlement? If your contributions were really that great, I'm sure they would have found a way to preserve your services. The fact that they stopped putting money in your education or giving you raises for the ten years prior should have given you a clue that maybe, just maybe, you ain't really all that after all. That, and they could get more work for less money from a more recent college graduate who already has an education ready for today's challenges, which is the responsibility of a company to it's shareholders.

[Hyfi]

CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada had a pay cut this year .. he ONLY received $10.60 million

Is it just me that sees a problem here?

I changed it a while back, but my signature for a while said "Capitalism = Legal yet Immoral"

I have no problem with an owner getting rich if he shares it with the employees. But to pay people pittance so he can make 10 mill, is a little over the top of what Capitalism was supposed to mean.

[Feanor]

...
.Now, while the greying of the work force is an issue from which few are immune, might I suggest that a lot of your problems were more than likely self-created by your undeniable sense of superiority and entitlement? If your contributions were really that great, I'm sure they would have found a way to preserve your services. The fact that they stopped putting money in your education or giving you raises for the ten years prior should have given you a clue that maybe, just maybe, you ain't really all that after all. That, and they could get more work for less money from a more recent college graduate who already has an education ready for today's challenges, which is the responsibility of a company to it's shareholders.
Gracious as ever, Mark. As Bobsticks would say, "Thank you, thank you very little!"

I don't have to justify my value to the company to you. Nevertheless I'll mention that I survived several major and quite a few minor downsizing and corporate reorganizations; if they hadn't valued my contributions, they had lots of opportunity to get rid of me. The treatment I received wasn't specifically directed at me, but at older workers in general.

[markw]

Gracious as ever, Mark. As Bobsticks would say, "Thank you, thank you very little!"

I don't have to justify my value to the company to you. Nevertheless I'll mention that I survived several major and quite a few minor downsizing and corporate reorganizations; if they hadn't valued my contributions, they had lots of opportunity to get rid of me. The treatment I received wasn't specifically directed at me, but at older workers in general.Hey, you're the one that called me out to play by putting words in my mouth.

No, you don't have to justify your work to me. Remember, unions are known for holding back production to meet the lowest common denominator and keeping the most useless employed long after their usefulness has gone. That's where we are now.

But, since it seems that you feel that you needed a union to protect you like a factory worker, perhaps you should have justified it to your company when you saw it coming. Apparantly, your company couldn't see it in your work and didn't share your opinion on your invaluable contributions. Remember, they are profit-driven and if they felt you added to that, you most likely would still be there. This isn't Logan's Run and there was no law saying they HAD to let you go.

[RGA]

RGA, I agree with your points about the gov't being responsible for bettering the education system. And I totally agree that teaching is not an easy job and the teaches should be paid a fair wage. However, where is the money to better the education system supposed to come from if the bottom line is that THE MONEY IS NOT THERE? Would lower class sizes improve the quality of education? Sure probably. Is the ability to bank 200 sick days and get paid for them a reasonable wage? Not by a long shot! That's insane and is costing tax payers billions of dollars. The union should never have been allowed to negotiate that kind of benefit in the first place. What is the purpose? They have a rich Long-Term Disability plan so what is the need for 200 sick days?

If the teachers union gives up the 200 sick days to release the billions this is costing, for the benefit of the system, then maybe I'll be able to look at them differently. Until then, I maintain my position that they are using the betterment of the system as an excuse for their own agenda.

I totally agree on this point - I am not up on union / government negotiations but to be fair - the government agreed to this in hte first place.

Here is what I would suspect happened. During negotiations the government decided it was not going to give the teacher's a raise because it looks bad in the press and to their voters.

So they say "we'll let you have a pay out of 200 days on your banked sick days when you retire" which in effect is giving you your salary increase."

This unloads the burden for the current government by offloading (backloading) the payout to a later date and perhaps also to a later government which will have to come up with the boomers all retiring around the same time.

The government thinking on it is pretty clear and it serves as a motivator for teachers not to be calling in sick. After all if a teacher is sick they are paying the teacher's salary and they're also paying a sub's salary - so they're paying double.

In a normal job if you are sick the work piles up until you get back but if a teacher is sick they have to have a replacement.

So in education and for these particular civil servants I can sort of understand why the government would agree to paying the sick days out.

Otherwise teachers would be taking a lot more stress day leaves and using their sick days - which here in HK is 18 days per year and bankable.

I guess I am saying - I don't know if the minister is going to win that one - The teachers may agree to it - but you can bet they'll be "sick" much more often and so I suppose I'm not sure the government would save money. As a Substitute in Canada it would be great we could actually get more work - which in a roundabout sort of way might help the economy.

It's not always the union and teachers who are wasting money however.

Take me as an example. As a Sub with 1 year experience I get $212 a day (less 10% teacher pension, CPP, UI, Tax, BCTF union dues and VINTA union dues (2 union dues WTF right?)

All subs make that rate (slightly lower/higher depending what region they live in - northern allowances etc)

If I get 4 consecutive days the pay would be ~$260. So it's nice to get 4 days in a row or more because each day is at the higher rate.

However, teachers at the max scale can retire early and go back on the sub list. Which infuriates me to no end.

If they get their 4 days they will revert to their seniority scale of pay which borders on $500 a day.

In theory they should be called in only as a last resort - with the major flu back a few years there were something like 60% of the staff out at the same time - ok I get it you need to call in the 70 year old retirees and they're nice enough to come in so fine pay them their max rate.

But when they're buddy buddy with the VP (not in the union but government) who calls his retired teacher friend in to work for 3 consecutive weeks while the cheaper guys like me and several other Subs in the district as cheap don't even get phoned then there is a SERIOUS problem and to me that pisses over $200 a day in tax payer money right down the drain. And then government wonders why it has no money for education.

But this happens all the time. I have an English degree and taught it for a year - semester starts and the teacher is sick (out of a month). The teacher requests the former English teacher (retired) - so that woman got paid $500 per day every day for 5 weeks. I would have cost half. That's say $5500 the district paid extra just by having that English teacher in over me for one month - one school one instance - it goes on all over the province.

Sure the union negotiated the rates and battled for it - but at the same time why are school districts who are certainly not part of the union pissing the money away?

This is subbing - sure lots of retired subs are also against it - one fellow tells the VPs - only phone me if you've asked all the new subs - only call me as a last resort. But not everyone is like that.

I don't know who is to blame for the above - the VP in my opinion. The other School VP is excellent he always calls the new teachers first - 1 because we need to learn the job, 2) because we always say yes no matter what - retired teachers want the money and they also want to pick the easiest class - no Shop no PE, no Foods, no grade 7, 8, 9 no kindergarten, grade 1.

So that VP gets annoyed with them - cause you have to prod them and they're still going to make $500 a day.

The whole system needs a major overhaul - but I don't trust the government to do it (teachers are government though). It only makes sense for educators to be involved in what is best for education as fire fighters decide what is best for putting out fires, and doctors decide what is best for patients.

Educators know that what is best is class sizes should be no bigger than 15 and 12 being ideal - South Korea private schools ensure that - which is why the 9 year old girls I was teaching a mere 3 hours a day could write better than 80% of the grade SEVEN (13year olds) students I taught in Canada! Not to mention were more civilized human beings on all fronts - But In Canada with 27 and half the class spent with the clown or the autistic kid - well education becomes "here do this work - hope you can figure it out on your own." Worse for subs who just take them out to the playground because they can't destroy the classroom.

[Feanor]

Hey, you're the one that called me out to play by putting words in my mouth.
...
Oh sorry, it was just my crazy, wild interpretation of what you said.


...
Remember, unions are known for holding back production to meet the lowest common denominator and keeping the most useless employed long after their usefulness has gone. That's where we are now.
...
Yes it's true, unions have had that effect too often.


...
No, you don't have to justify your work to me. ...
But, since it seems that you feel that you needed a union to protect you like a factory worker, perhaps you should have justified it to your company when you saw it coming. Apparantly, your company couldn't see it in your work and didn't share your opinion on your invaluable contributions. Remember, they are profit-driven and if they felt you added to that, you most likely would still be there. This isn't Logan's Run and there was no law saying they HAD to let you go.
What's true is that companies are exist to make a profit, and to that extent I don't actually "blame" the company I worked for -- they were only doing what they believed was to that end. And I think I think it was a policy that worked -- the policy was to exploit older workers.

Apparently you prefer to believe that their treatment of me was a personal matter, not a general policy. You are wrong. And apparently you prefer to believe that abuse of bargaining is all on the side of unions and that companies don't systematically exploit vulnerable workers -- You're wrong about that too.

Exploitation of vulnerable workers is exactly why unions came into being in the first place. It is no coincidence that the decline of unions in North American last 40 years has seen the decline of middle class incomes in the same time period. It is acknowledged that higher union wage raised the wages & salaries of non-unionized workers too.

Many years ago, J.K. Galbraith wrote the book, The New Industrial State, in which he discussed, (among other things), a three-way balance between private business, government, and unions: this balance had been lost with the power shifting relentlessly to private business. The consequence has been the decline of the middle class in American -- this trend will continue because there is no political insight or will to check it.

[Feanor]

Hey RGA. B.C. is not alone.

Here's a message from Ontario's Premier, released this morning...

Print Article: Dalton McGuinty pitches wage freeze to teachers on YouTube - Toronto - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/03/02/toronto-dalton-mcguinty-teachers-youtube.html?cmp=rss)

...
The McGuinty governement's requests are extremely reasonable, IMO, under the circumstance of Ontario's debt & deficit and circumstances in the current economy.

There's no getting away with the fact that public service unions have exploited their ability to the "strike against the public", (as I've put it). But this "union greed" as generally been complemented by govenment's ability & willingness to simply pass on the costs to the taxpayers. Now we have a government that has less of the ability & willingness, and it is saying, "Enough already!". (Bloody heck! Am I sounding like Markw? Crap!)

But it isn't just governments who were willing, when they could, to pass on costs to their consumers. It's been true from time to time of private business too, especially in times of constrained competition, e.g. the North American auto industry in the '50s. The consequence was the same -- wages & benefits for their workers far in excess of workers in more competitive industries. The time for redress comes around.

[Ajani]

One of the arguments I find truly puzzling is the notion that teachers should teach solely because they love it and money shouldn't matter. Yet for professions where laziness or incompetence can mean the difference between life and death, such as law and medicine, we don't expect them to work solely because it is a calling. Many persons choose to become lawyers or doctors because of the income generating potential and the prestige associated with those professions.

I don't see how we can all claim to value teachers, yet the moment they ask for a cost of living increase, we tell them to find a new career.

I see 2 courses of action:

1) raise taxes and improve the education system, including teachers' wages (perhaps linked to some kind of performance based measures).

2) cut taxes and let all schools become private. Then, if you can afford it, you send your kid to a good school. If you can't afford it, well, you're stuck with whatever education is available at cheaper schools.

[Feanor]

One of the arguments I find truly puzzling is the notion that teachers should teach solely because they love it and money shouldn't matter. Yet for professions where laziness or incompetence can mean the difference between life and death, such as law and medicine, we don't expect them to work solely because it is a calling. Many persons choose to become lawyers or doctors because of the income generating potential and the prestige associated with those professions.

I don't see how we can all claim to value teachers, yet the moment they ask for a cost of living increase, we tell them to find a new career.

I see 2 courses of action:

1) raise taxes and improve the education system, including teachers' wages (perhaps linked to some kind of performance based measures).

2) cut taxes and let all schools become private. Then, if you can afford it, you send your kid to a good school. If you can't afford it, well, you're stuck with whatever education is available at cheaper schools.
Ah, Ajani, but you're a teacher, No?

However my earlier remarks can be construed, I do strongly believe in public education and I do believe that it's underfunded if anything. (It's our countries' future, afterall.)

A private school system, even combined with a voucher-styke funding, would hasten the decline of our North American economies and societies.

[ForeverAutumn]

One of the arguments I find truly puzzling is the notion that teachers should teach solely because they love it and money shouldn't matter. Yet for professions where laziness or incompetence can mean the difference between life and death, such as law and medicine, we don't expect them to work solely because it is a calling. Many persons choose to become lawyers or doctors because of the income generating potential and the prestige associated with those professions.

I don't see how we can all claim to value teachers, yet the moment they ask for a cost of living increase, we tell them to find a new career.

That's a valid point. I don't think that money shouldn't matter. I think that money does matter...and should matter. It certainly matters to me. As much as I enjoy my job, I wouldn't do it for free. Nor do I think that asking for a COL increase is unreasonable. But the increase should be based on the affordability to pay it. I can't speak for BC because I don't know the Province's situation. In Ontario, the gov't is running at a deficit. If my company is in the red, I'm not likely to get a pay increase. I don't see why public service workers should be any different. There's no money. That's the reality. Blame the guy who you elected based on his platform of no tax increases.

Secondly, it's the teachers union who say that they teach for the love of it; that they are fighting for a better system, smaller classes, etc. Then in the same sentence they ask for higher salaries. Well, if there's no money for smaller class sizes, music and creative arts programs, after school programs, etc. then where is the money for salary increases supposed to come from?

I wonder if you gave the union the choice between smaller class sizes or 5 years of guaranteed COL increases, which one they would choose.

[Ajani]

Ah, Ajani, but you're a teacher, No?

However my earlier remarks can be construed, I do strongly believe in public education and I do believe that it's underfunded if anything. (It's our countries' future, afterall.)

A private school system, even combined with a voucher-styke funding, would hasten the decline of our North American economies and societies.

I lecture at a university, so I don't face the same problems as most teachers. My job requirements and pay are more about research than teaching. While you won't get rich from lecturing, you can make a very respectable middle class salary - unlike teaching in high school.

[bobsticks]

But education is not an essential service - not like Police or Medical or Fire Department. It's not life or death...

Tell that to kids in East St. Louis or Baltimore or Compton or inner city Detroit or in Swishy's neighborhood...

[bobsticks]

Actually, I'm done being flippant about what is clearly a hot topic and one that certainly has impactful implications...and I recognize that both sides may have some merit.

If I may pose a question to my Canadian bretheren, are there any underlying budgetary constraints that would have predicated the government's behavior? Y'all have such a seemingly stable economy up there I confess to rarely following things economic Canuckian except for lumber...

[markw]

Oh sorry, it was just my crazy, wild interpretation of what you said.Yeah, you're nutz as bridge mix. So, you don't like what George Meany says, so you put words in my mouth and pick a fight with me. Not once, but twice from the same post. Poor baby. How could I not think otherwise?

Or, perhaps you were just simply itching for a fight to begin with. Congratulations, you got it.


Yes it's true, unions have had that effect too often. And yet, we have only your word that you were a contributinfg member of the team. Maybe it's like I said in my first post that you simply over-value your contrubutions. From your confrontational attitude in this forum, I gotta say, I wouldn't be too inclined to keep you on if the opportunity arose to dump you, or even work with you in the first place. Perhaps others that worked with you share my opinion. You might want to investigate that.


What's true is that companies are exist to make a profit, and to that extent I don't actually "blame" the company I worked for -- they were only doing what they believed was to that end. And I think I think it was a policy that worked -- the policy was to exploit older workers.

Apparently you prefer to believe that their treatment of me was a personal matter, not a general policy. You are wrong. And apparently you prefer to believe that abuse of bargaining is all on the side of unions and that companies don't systematically exploit vulnerable workers -- You're wrong about that too.

Exploitation of vulnerable workers is exactly why unions came into being in the first place. It is no coincidence that the decline of unions in North American last 40 years has seen the decline of middle class incomes in the same time period. It is acknowledged that higher union wage raised the wages & salaries of non-unionized workers too.

Many years ago, J.K. Galbraith wrote the book, The New Industrial State, in which he discussed, (among other things), a three-way balance between private business, government, and unions: this balance had been lost with the power shifting relentlessly to private business. The consequence has been the decline of the middle class in American -- this trend will continue because there is no political insight or will to check it.All the books in the world notwithstanding, nobody forced you into your profession. It didn't have union protection when you entered it and it didn't get it while you were there. If you really felt you needed the protection of a union then perhaps you should have taken haven in one of those protected jobs.

...but you didn't. You chose to go for the big bucks of a non-union job and all the risks that implied. So, buck up, put on your big girl panties, and accept the fact that you've got to live with the consequences of your choices and quitcher*****in, old man.

[Feanor]

What a charmer you are, Mark. Talk about my confrontational attitude: what a hypocrite!

[Feanor]

Actually, I'm done being flippant about what is clearly a hot topic and one that certainly has impactful implications...and I recognize that both sides may have some merit.

If I may pose a question to my Canadian bretheren, are there any underlying budgetary constraints that would have predicated the government's behavior? Y'all have such a seemingly stable economy up there I confess to rarely following things economic Canuckian except for lumber...
'Sticks, see FA's reference to the Ontario teachers' situation. Ontario has a severe budget deficit. To address this partially the Liberal Party government has asked the teachers to accept a two year salary freeze and forgo accumulation of sick days -- not too onerous I'd say.

Canada's is a primarily a resource and export based economy, so our stability depends largely on the world commodity markets -- oil, potash, nickel, copper, grains, and yes, lumber. Since the oil price is high, the Canadian dollar is high against the US dollar, but this could change quickly. Canada's manufacturing sector is significant none the less with export of automobiles & auto parts (to the US) and aircraft and aircraft parts & electronics.

[markw]

What a charmer you are, Mark. Talk about my confrontational attitude: what a hypocrite!You got it.

Life is comprised of choices and we must all live with the consequences of those we make It's too bad you can't accept yours like a man.

Now, had you just kept yer trap shut when you had nothing of value to say, this would have not been necessary.

[ForeverAutumn]

And yet, we have only your word that you were a contributinfg member of the team.

So why not take him at his word since you can't prove otherwise?

[bobsticks]

'Sticks, see FA's reference to the Ontario teachers' situation. Ontario has a severe budget deficit. To address this partially the Liberal Party government has asked the teachers to accept a two year salary freeze and forgo accumulation of sick days -- not too onerous I'd say.

Not too onerous at all...mayhap a lesson learned from our own auto industry's inability to reign in it's unions when times got tough.


Canada's is a primarily a resource and export based economy, so our stability depends largely on the world commodity markets -- oil, potash, nickel, copper, grains, and yes, lumber. Since the oil price is high, the Canadian dollar is high against the US dollar, but this could change quickly. Canada's manufacturing sector is significant none the less with export of automobiles & auto parts (to the US) and aircraft and aircraft parts & electronics.

I'd always assumed this. Thanks for the confirmation. I guess I was asking for specifics relative to the fact that, like most Americans, I only pay attention to news anymore that has to do with me, money, or my money...the rest is just too depressing.

[markw]

So why not take him at his word since you can't prove otherwise?Normally I wouldn't give a hoot except he started this crap by putting his words in my mouth. If that's any indication of the way he conducted business, I have my doubts about his veracity.

happy now sweetie? :)

[Feanor]

So why not take him at his word since you can't prove otherwise?
It seems MarkW's favourite mode is personal attack. It's an old strategy: if you can't refute the other person's idea, then you attack them personally. It's call the "Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)" fallacy.

MarkW says I "put words in his mouth"; he posted ...



The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money.


To this I responded ...

Is PROFIT the measure of everything? It's absurd to imply that public education is valueless because it doesn't earn profit.
...
Maybe I drew a different implication from the Meaney quote than he did, but that's not the same as "putting words in his mouth".

[markw]

It seems MarkW's favourite mode is personal attack. It's an old strategy: if you can't refute the other person's idea, then you attack them personally. It's call the "Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)" fallacy.

MarkW says I "put words in his mouth"; he posted ...


To this I responded ...

Maybe I drew a different implication from the Meaney quote than he did, but that's not the same as "putting words in his mouth".You didn't like what he said and you attacked me. What'syour point?

Yeah, I agree with what he said but that doesn't mean I think education is without value, which was your opening atttack.

So, go fluck yourself.

[ForeverAutumn]

Feanor disagreed with you. It was hardly an attack. In fact, if you go back to that post he agreed with part of your point.



So, go fluck yourself.

This is an attack. Please don't make me put this thread in the Steel Cage. Moving threads there seems to be a thread killer and there is some good discussion going on here. Most people are being very reasonable. Please don't ruin it.

Okay sweetie?

[ForeverAutumn]

I only pay attention to news anymore that has to do with me, money, or my money...the rest is just too depressing.

LOL! For me it's paying attention to my money these days that I find depressing.

[Ajani]

You didn't like what he said and you attacked me. What'syour point?

Yeah, I agree with what he said but that doesn't mean I think education is without value, which was your opening atttack.

So, go fluck yourself.

OK. What was the point of the quote from Meaney?

To be honest, I thought you were saying something similar to what Feanor interpreted:

Essentially that unions are about getting share of profit for workers, hence government workers shouldn't be unionized as they don't earn profit. Which seems rather unfair to goverment workers.

[markw]

OK. What was the point of the quote from Meaney?

To be honest, I thought you were saying something similar to what Feanor interpreted:

Essentially that unions are about getting share of profit for workers, hence government workers shouldn't be unionized as they don't earn profit. Which seems rather unfair to goverment workers.I thin Meany hit the nail on the head.

In the "real" world where remuneration is (or should be) looked upon as the workers fair share of the profits. Back in "the day" unions served the explicit purpose of making sure their people got a fair shake. As time went on, they upped the ante to the point that, even in times of distress, they demanded more of the companies than they could afford. They, in effect, became the whip-holders.

Look at the UAW pensions, negotiated in the halyceon days when the actually made good cars and turned a profit. Unfortunately, they negotiated too far into the future and left no wiggle room to cope with changing economic times. Pensions negotiated when they were funded by generous profits dried up and, when the companys actually ran at a loss, the negotiated pension payments, from glory days decades earlier,.kicked them to the ground to the point of bankruptcy. The fact that the gubment had to bail them out and take over part ownership does not thrill me, and many others, since we're on the hook for that union greed of the past.

As for public employees, they feel they are isolated from the economic strife that plagues the taxpayer. Instead of beint at the nercy of the market, they feel that their problem can be solved simply by raising taxes. They (we) can only afford to pay so many taxes and, at some point, the public worker unions have to fact the fact that the money simply ain't there. I don't know where you are, but here in Joisey the teachers union, not necessarially the teachers themselves, have put us in a dire situation and our current governer is in a major struggle to reighn in their theatrics but, when one is feeding at the trough, they tend to want to keep the goodies flowing

Basically, money doesn't grow on trees. The taxpayers had to bail out the auto companies from their overwhelming extorted promises to the unions. .Who do you expec to bail out the taxpayers from extorted promises from the public workers unions?

If you're curious, google "Abbot Districts" in New Jersey.

Remember, there's a lot of jobs opening up in right-to-work states and, around here at least, a lot of teachers right out of school just looking for a job.

[markw]

Is PROFIT the measure of everything? It's absurd to imply that public education is valueless because it doesn't earn profit.Imply, my hairy tuchus.

To me, this qualified as an attack and putting words in my mouth. Perhaps from certain others here I might see otherwise, but from him, I see it as an attack.

But, then again, I don't really expect you to see it that way.

[Ajani]

I thin Meany hit the nail on the head.

In the "real" world where remuneration is (or should be) looked upon as the workers fair share of the profits. Back in "the day" unions served the explicit purpose of making sure their people got a fair shake. As time went on, they upped the ante to the point that, even in times of distress, they demanded more of the companies than they could afford. They, in effect, became the whip-holders.

Look at the UAW pensions, negotiated in the halyceon days when the actually made good cars and turned a profit. Unfortunately, they negotiated too far into the future and left no wiggle room to cope with changing economic times. Pensions negotiated when they were funded by generous profits dried up and, when the companys actually ran at a loss, the negotiated pension payments, from glory days decades earlier,.kicked them to the ground to the point of bankruptcy. The fact that the gubment had to bail them out and take over part ownership does not thrill me, and many others, since we're on the hook for that union greed of the past.

As for public employees, they feel they are isolated from the economic strife that plagues the taxpayer. Instead of beint at the nercy of the market, they feel that their problem can be solved simply by raising taxes. They (we) can only afford to pay so many taxes and, at some point, the public worker unions have to fact the fact that the money simply ain't there. I don't know where you are, but here in Joisey the teachers union, not necessarially the teachers themselves, have put us in a dire situation and our current governer is in a major struggle to reighn in their theatrics but, when one is feeding at the trough, they tend to want to keep the goodies flowing

Basically, money doesn't grow on trees. The taxpayers had to bail out the auto companies from their overwhelming extorted promises to the unions. .Who do you expec to bail out the taxpayers from extorted promises from the public workers unions?

If you're curious, google "Abbot Districts" in New Jersey.

Remember, there's a lot of jobs opening up in right-to-work states and, around here at least, a lot of teachers right out of school just looking for a job.

Fair enough. I have no problem with the notion that everyone has to tighten their belts during hard economic times. As long as during times of prosperity persons are not still claiming that taxes can't be raised to pay government workers. If we expect them to suffer with us in the bad times, then they should get a share of the prosperity in the good times.

[RGA]

I still say the sick day issue is an odd one.

Unlike virtually all other government jobs if a teacher is sick - they pay the sick day and the replacement teacher - if you don't give them the 200 sick days at retirement - they will simply call in sick 200 days before retirement - at 64 most people can convince a doctor they have some sort of ailment - I guess i don't see how this saves money - granted a sub is $250 a day is cheaper than the sick day of $500 - so I suppose it would save a bit.

Forever Autumn - I'd take a $10,000 a year pay-cut (at all levels on the salary scale) and a Zero for the next 5 years (or however long it takes for the economy to rebound - with only a COL increase when it does) if you can get class sizes to 15 and separated classrooms from behavior students and bring back Music, Drama, and Business courses to the schools. I'd take a $15,000 paycut if the government would pay off the student loans. That added 5,000 over a 20 year career would be double my student loan so taxpayers would see a net gain of $50grand. But I would have more money in my pocket as a beginning teacher which would take a lot of stress off of being hugely in debt and doing a job that is twice as stressful for newbies as it is for veterans. That might actually keep people in the profession longer to boot. With 15 in class they would actually learn something - take out the thugs and we could discuss 20.

[ForeverAutumn]

Forever Autumn - I'd take a $10,000 a year pay-cut (at all levels on the salary scale) and a Zero for the next 5 years (or however long it takes for the economy to rebound - with only a COL increase when it does) if you can get class sizes to 15 and separated classrooms from behavior students and bring back Music, Drama, and Business courses to the schools. I'd take a $15,000 paycut if the government would pay off the student loans. That added 5,000 over a 20 year career would be double my student loan so taxpayers would see a net gain of $50grand. But I would have more money in my pocket as a beginning teacher which would take a lot of stress off of being hugely in debt and doing a job that is twice as stressful for newbies as it is for veterans. That might actually keep people in the profession longer to boot. With 15 in class they would actually learn something - take out the thugs and we could discuss 20.

That's very commendable RGA. And I don't doubt that there are many teachers who feel the same way. That's why I've said before, it's the union that I have a beef with, not the individual teachers. I believe that most teachers have the best interest of the kids at heart.


Fair enough. I have no problem with the notion that everyone has to tighten their belts during hard economic times. As long as during times of prosperity persons are not still claiming that taxes can't be raised to pay government workers. If we expect them to suffer with us in the bad times, then they should get a share of the prosperity in the good times.

I'd be cool with that. People deserve COL wage increases at the very least. But not at my expense when the Province is running at such a high deficit that my taxes are probably going up because of the spending that has already occured.

[RGA]

As an aside

I think the other problem is with the governments people elect.

In every case since I've been alive right wing parties have accumulated the most debt by a landslide and put us in these deficits in the first place. Then there is no money for social services (but plenty of money to pay CEO's a billion a year).

And yet people seem to keep voting for right wing governments.

They never get that we got out out of the depression through spending - even the U.S. a country dead set against socialism - uses socialism tactics and lefty spend spend spend that got them out of the Great D.

The way to get out of it is put people into good paying jobs so they can in turn buy the things companies are selling. But if everyone is broke and the job market is hanging by a thread - no one spends - then companies fail more people are out of work and the cycle continues.

So playing Devil's advocate to my own post - teacher's have half the buying power they had in the mid 80s which means they can only spend half as much which means the companies out there are getting half the sales (or lower ticket item sales - which means less profit no matter how you look at it).

Well anyway - the BC teachers are going to lose (that's my wager) unless they manage some serious out of the box thinking - the "en masse" resignation type deal to get around strike fines. While there are many subs out there they are part of the union so they would not be able to replace regulars with subs. They could hire non teachers - but they all have to be cleared with criminal record checks - and at the high schools would need a BA in the field - which might be easy for English and History (and elementary school) but not Physics/Chemistry(none of them would take the pay cut).

Further if everyone quits the union disbands - gone is the attractive teacher pension, seniority rights. So the new people replacing the teachers would have none of the benefits leftover.

The mischievous side of me has a sardonic kick thinking about my scenario playing out just to see what the government would or could do about it.

I mean if they did it - who would the government get to teach?

Seriously the "educated" in society who didn't choose teaching in the first place certainly won't choose it if the benefits are worse - and Bill 22 makes them worse.

The other people who think Teaching is a cake-walk - high pay, lots of vacation, glorified baby-sitting - well I wonder why they are not teaching????

I mean they make it out to be the best easiest job in the world so why on earth would they not be teachers? There's a question. :skep:

Man - if accounting didn't bore me to tears I would probably should have just stuck it out but my lord I wanted to blow my brains out after the trying to find out why my debit column was off by .03 on half a million dollars and having to go back through the whole month to find one error - BANG! Just thinking of it :crazy:

[RGA]

Staffroom Confidential: What is this strike about? A moving letter from a Saanich teacher (http://staffroomconfidential.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-this-strike-about-moving-letter.html)

[GMichael]

I have been reading along with this thread and keeping my two cents to myself, but I read something in RGA's last link that I must comment on. The statement was, "Today at Claremont there is 3/4 of a librarian."

WTF?! Where is the other 25 percent of this librarian?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. You can go back to your conversation now. I'll shut up.

[Feanor]

Staffroom Confidential: What is this strike about? A moving letter from a Saanich teacher (http://staffroomconfidential.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-this-strike-about-moving-letter.html)
Since I strongly believe in public education and believe that educational advantage is essential to sustain and advance North American society and economy, I am very sympathetic to the author of the article and BC teachers.

Yet from another perspective I wonder about the motivation of teachers versus other workers in other business and government occupations.

First, as a (still relatively) young & single person, it's easy for you to buy the purity of the "It is all for the students" line of argument. Those who have family responsibilities and are anticipating retirement might assign a different weight to the union action.

On the a philosophical level there is the issue of who ought to determine educational policy and priorities. Should it be the teachers, the administrators & policy advisors, the politicians and ultimately the voters. Ultimately it will be the elected politicians, and if they don't like it, teachers can suck it up or leave the profession. You may liken the politicians to the pigs in Animal Farm but I'm afraid that's democracy in action.

More broadly what about the power of rank & file employees to determine the policy of any organization? In non-governmental organizations it is the board of directors who make the decisions, not the employees, and with the good reason that it is they who establish the goals of the organization, not the employees. And there is inherent conflict between the personal goals of employees and the goal of the organization -- this gets us back to the "purity" of the motivation of the BC teachers.

To be sure, employees might know perfectly well that the decisions of management are a mistake -- even it terms of the goals of directors, (e.g. maximizing profit). In some European countries in larger organizations, employees elect a certain portion of directors. I think this is a great idea, but don't see it happening in the public sector, much less in the private sector in North America.

[Hyfi]

I have been reading along with this thread and keeping my two cents to myself, but I read something in RGA's last link that I must comment on. The statement was, "Today at Claremont there is 3/4 of a librarian."

WTF?! Where is the other 25 percent of this librarian?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. You can go back to your conversation now. I'll shut up.

Isn't a Union Requirement to only give 75% and not 100%?

[RGA]

The 3/4 librarian is simple - (and quite a lot bigger percentage than the schools I taught at).

What they do is they simply don't operate the library as often.The school districts have the librarians driving to different schools on different days - they're starting to do that with counselors as well. So a school will open their library 2 days a week and the classroom teacher has to run it the rest of the time. Yup more work for the classroom teacher - they have to be librarians too.

I think it is more of an example of numbers - one for every 500 and now one for every 1500. Interestingly, Librarians are actually more important now than they ever have been because kids rely on wiki and other horrible reference links for their "facts" but that's a whole paper.


Feanor

I thought you hated the word philosophical - so don't bring up that level :D

The main difference in private sector or public policy is that the people in charge KNOW the intricacies of their charge. The owners of a company know what is best for their companies and they hire people with knowledge to get the task done.

The owner of the company doesn't tell the accountant how to be an accountant - the accountant knows accounting FAR better than the owner (in most instances) - the owner leads the ship and hires people to execute the given task. Accountants are only one part of a business - you need to rely on sales, purchasing, marketing etc. Combined each gets what the owner or board of directors wants.

Education doesn't really work like that in the same way. Teachers are somewhat independent - they are in charge of the classroom and they're largely in charge of what is taught and how it's taught. Each province has a set of prescribed learning outcomes (PLO) as stated by the ministry:

The prescribed learning outcomes set the learning standards for the provincial K to 12 education system and form the prescribed curriculum for British Columbia. They are statements of what students are expected to know and do at the end of an indicated grade or course.

Schools have the responsibility to ensure that all prescribed learning outcomes in each IRP are met; however, schools have flexibility in determining how delivery of the prescribed learning outcomes can best take place. It is expected that student achievement will vary in relation to the prescribed learning outcomes. Evaluation, reporting, and student placement with respect to these outcomes are dependent on the professional judgment and experience of teachers, guided by provincial policy.



There really is no comparable job to teaching and it comes down to the people on the ground doing the job to know what can and can't be achieved.

An analogy would be a a companies accounting department. You give them computers, photocopiers, paper, pens, calculators, filing cabinets desks, stamps, chairs etc and you tell get them sorted out and you say GO. You're the accounting staff do that thing you do so well. And you have a staff of 10 each doing 3000 accounts. Which is about max load for each

Then a new owner comes in (government) and says I can save money - he fires 5 of the ten - doubling the workload of the remaining 5 and asks them to take a 10% pay cut. But don't worry he says - in return I'll buy you nicer chairs and make your job easier with the Uniblab 5000 computer so your job will be easier and you can do right by the customers - your work environment will be much better.

Then the next owner comes in and tears up the last contract - err uniblab - and buys the cheapest most uncomfortable chairs and no longer supplies pens pencils papers or computers - you have to come up with that on your own (hence teachers buying classroom supplies and food for their students). Oh and we want you take another pay cut and we'll get rid of another 2 people so now the three remaining can dived that work amongst themselves.

Cost to the bottom baby.

Teachers work under the mandate of the elected government and the PLOs - you can read them for ever grade and subject taught in the BC school system - here Curriculum (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/welcome.php)

But take the funding and look at French. I know the teacher in BC who developed the French IRPs for BC. He's now a University professor and holds two PHDs and was on his way to a third. He's a smart guy.

Teachers in one grade are to evaluate students on their French conversation ability. Sounds good to me - conversational French is important in practical terms in Canada. In later grades they evaluate reading and writing as well.

So says I "If I am the classroom teacher and I don't speak French then how do I grade them on their French conversation ability" - To which he simply shrugged and said that this is what the expectations are as set out by the government - they don't fund it so it doesn't get done.

Of course it doesn't get done - not properly - because there are very few French speaking elementary school teachers. And the one's they did have are now doing what the librarians are doing - driving around to different schools to be the French teacher on Tuesday in one place and on Friday a different school. Assuming there is one available.

The issue is then that some schools get it properly and some schools don't - it applies to many other subjects as well.

Parents should treat schools like Universities - which school offers my kid what subjects and where do they excel? This is a steadily declining road and it's getting worse and worse and worse. The people at the top never walk into the classrooms - it would be like a company owner with one plant and he never walks into the plant to see the working conditions.

Anyway - I think Bill 22 represents something wider reaching than just the teachers that Canadians should have some concern

Constitutional and international law at risk under Bill 22 (http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Constitutional+international+risk+under+Bill/6256343/story.html)

[markw]

I have been reading along with this thread and keeping my two cents to myself, but I read something in RGA's last link that I must comment on. The statement was, "Today at Claremont there is 3/4 of a librarian."

WTF?! Where is the other 25 percent of this librarian?She used to wok at the IHOP. He name is Eileen.

[GMichael]

She used to wok at the IHOP. He name is Eileen.

Maybe I should have mentioned that I was joking too. RGA explained the 3/4 to me.:mad2:
Rich, man, I'm not THAT dumb.:cryin:

The above is a joke.:D

[Feanor]

...
Feanor

I thought you hated the word philosophical - so don't bring up that level :D

The main difference in private sector or public policy is that the people in charge KNOW the intricacies of their charge. The owners of a company know what is best for their companies and they hire people with knowledge to get the task done.

The owner of the company doesn't tell the accountant how to be an accountant - the accountant knows accounting FAR better than the owner (in most instances) - the owner leads the ship and hires people to execute the given task. Accountants are only one part of a business - you need to rely on sales, purchasing, marketing etc. Combined each gets what the owner or board of directors wants.

Education doesn't really work like that in the same way. Teachers are somewhat independent - they are in charge of the classroom and they're largely in charge of what is taught and how it's taught. Each province has a set of prescribed learning outcomes (PLO) as stated by the ministry:

The prescribed learning outcomes set the learning standards for the provincial K to 12 education system and form the prescribed curriculum for British Columbia. They are statements of what students are expected to know and do at the end of an indicated grade or course.

Schools have the responsibility to ensure that all prescribed learning outcomes in each IRP are met; however, schools have flexibility in determining how delivery of the prescribed learning outcomes can best take place. It is expected that student achievement will vary in relation to the prescribed learning outcomes. Evaluation, reporting, and student placement with respect to these outcomes are dependent on the professional judgment and experience of teachers, guided by provincial policy.
...
Teachers work under the mandate of the elected government and the PLOs - you can read them for ever grade and subject taught in the BC school system - here Curriculum (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/welcome.php)
...
"The owner [or CEO] of the company doesn't tell the accountant how to be an accountant", say what? Better ask Enron about that.

I think you over estimate the independence of teachers and under estimate that of in other fields working in private business. Many professionals, work with significant independence in private business within the constraint of policy, rules, and budgets. The really isn't much different that teachers working under the BC outcomes & learning standards you referring to.

Methinks, in some degree, you are arrogating to teacher practitioners greater prerogatives than they have, or should presume to have.

[RGA]

Video: Jim Sinclair and Darryl Walker on Voice of BC - Support BC's Teachers:Stand Up for BC (http://www.standupforbc.com/video_jim_sinclair_and_darryl_walker_on_voice_of_b c)

[Feanor]

She used to wok at the IHOP. He name is Eileen.
International House of Prayer (http://www.ihop.org/)?!?

[RGA]

Yes there is a deep recession - people are struggling and have been for the last 5 years.

Teachers are greedy for hoping for a Cost of Living increase - whoch might be a 1-2% raise on a salary between $40,000 to $78,000 salary.

BC Liberal right wingers and their supporters want to tighten the belt.

But wait - let's have a look at BC Liberal politicians and their freinds - funny - seems to me I now know where all the money went and why there is no money. Spending $6,000 a month on lunches? $432,000 in five years on his lunch expenses - just saying.

Northern Insights / Perceptivity: Adventures in not net zero land (http://northerninsights.blogspot.ca/2012/03/adventures-in-not-net-zero-land.html?m=1)

When the people finally revolt against their government and we borrow guns from our friends to the south - we have a a nice starting hit list. :devil:

[ForeverAutumn]

Here's another example of why I'll never understand the union way of thinking. Albeit slightly off topic (sorry RGA).

The Toronto Mayor was elected on a platform of cutting unnecessary spending. Last year there was huge public backlash when he suggested that some library branches might be closed or have hours cut. Because of the public outcry, he backed down and cut spending elsewhere.

As of 5:00 yesterday, the union that represents library staff (and only library staff) went on strike. The big issue on the table is job security for part-time employees. The city would have been more than happy to close branches last year...but didn't. Does the union really think that this is the time for a strike? This is how the city's goodwill is repaid? More importantly, this is how the CITIZENS who opposed the library closures are repaid? All 98 branches are closed until further notice.

What a bunch of dumbasses.

[Feanor]

Here's another example of why I'll never understand the union way of thinking. Albeit slightly off topic (sorry RGA).

The Toronto Mayor was elected on a platform of cutting unnecessary spending. Last year there was huge public backlash when he suggested that some library branches might be closed or have hours cut. Because of the public outcry, he backed down and cut spending elsewhere.

As of 5:00 yesterday, the union that represents library staff (and only library staff) went on strike. The big issue on the table is job security for part-time employees. The city would have been more than happy to close branches last year...but didn't. Does the union really think that this is the time for a strike? This is how the city's goodwill is repaid? More importantly, this is how the CITIZENS who opposed the library closures are repaid? All 98 branches are closed until further notice.

What a bunch of dumbasses.
It seems unions due stupid things with regularity. The classic case is the unions condemnation of the Bob Rae and his NDP government in Ontario.

What happened was at the onset of the recession in 1990-1 the Rae government vowed to sustain spending despite declining revenues, however the next year Rae, et al., decided the deficits were unsustainable and changed course towards austerity. Rae proposed a "Social Contract" which included a plea to unions to accept wage freezes and a 10 unpaid vacation for workers.

This caused a monumental outcry by all the big unions in Ontario, who proclaimed the Social Contract "the worse legislation ever", etc. As consequence of the union outrage (together with right-wing condemnation of the deficit), the NDP was crushed in the following election. That election brought the Mike Harris and his extremist Conservative Party to power -- the Conservatives didn't freeze wages, instead they just fired the weary asses of those same union members who had helped elect them.

[ForeverAutumn]

That election brought the Mike Harris and his extremist Conservative Party to power -- the Conservatives didn't freeze wages, instead they just fired the weary asses of those same union members who had helped elect them.

I loved Mike Harris. The only leader we've had who had the balls to do what needed to be done. But this isn't the place for that conversation. :)

[RGA]

Here's something I would like explained

How does an individual making less money each year help the economy?

Please explain.

See here is my problem with the "times are tough let's give pay-cuts to all public sector workers" view. Private Businesses workers ***** and complain that public sector make too much or are overpaid. Good. Fair enough I suppose.

So they have X dollars to spend each year. Cost of living goes up Milk, bread, cereal, rent, electricity, gas, clothes, other food, etc. The necessities.

So now Fred the Librarian and Dorris the teacher take zero for a decade and now make 50% less money (in buying power) than they made in 1985.

So now Dorris decides not to buy the nice perfume that Sally who works for "Perfume's R-Us" because Dorris needs the money to feed her kid instead.

Sally who rants that Dorris makes too much money is working for a company that used to turn a nice profit (in the 80s) but is struggling due to a lack of sales. "They want a raise the greedy bastards - while I'm working at Perfumes -R-Us and we had to take pay cuts because business is down." "I'm sorry" says Dorris but I can no longer afford to buy frivolous items that I could 20 years ago because well I make half what I did 20 years ago - and if it's between food and perfume - I have to take food.

Sally who has also taken the pay cut doesn't get the fact that if everyone is broke no one can purchase those things the company she works for sells. And so those companies decide to lower costs by finding cheaper labor - and where is cheaper labor - not in her town, city or country. So Sally gets axed because the company can open in China and hire 10 Sally's combined who cost less because they don't demand things like pensions, safety standards, breaks, vacation pay, sick leave, or 8 hour working days - or overtime pay, maternity leave. (all of which only exist because of unions). No one seems to have problems with the benefits they have that they never fought for though.

So now in BC you will have 40,000 people who make less than they made last year and will not opt for that Yamaha receiver - or that Blu-Ray TV series - and then some poor sap in the Blu-Ray plant will be downsized because they aren't selling as many this year - and then Best Buy will drop a couple of sales people because less people are buying their receivers and Yamaha will downsize (downsize - by either not giving COL increases or just axing them) and then all three of them will fill out the form to collect Unemployment insurance which creates further costs for the government which in turn wastes a big pile of money that could have gone into the education system in the first damn place so that none of the dominoes would have went down.

You spend your way out of recessions - and that means you put people to work and give them wages large enough to buy the crap that companies make so that the people working at those companies have a job so they can, in turn, buy the crap their companies make.

Putting everyone into the poorhouse is hardly a brilliant stimulus idea for the economy. Having everyone collecting EI - or worse turning to crime to eat is hardly brilliant for society either.

The TV Series "Breaking Bad" is a bit of brilliance on this social climate in the U.S. (more their health care system) but it's not far off Canada. High School teacher gets cancer and can't afford medical bills so he decides, since he is a brilliant chemist and chemistry teacher, to make Crystal Meth and get into the drug trade so he can keep his family from going broke from his medical expenses. Basically takes the premise to the extreme.

But if the goal Forever Autumn you seem to hold is to impoverish the middle class - be warned that without the middle class what you have left is "the poor." Hell I made $42,000 a year in the mid 1990s as an uneducated private sector accounting clerk that pushed papers on a desk. And they paid for my night school University courses and textbooks. 2011 a starting teacher in BC makes $42,000 and has to pay their 5.5 university (at far higher like 100% higher) prices than in the mid 1990s on their own dime. A McDonald's manager also made $40,000 back then.

It simply can not be that a job with the responsibility associated with teaching (and the various dangers to health and career), as well as the huge expense associated with entering the profession coupled with the 6 years not in the work force to attain the training combined with the 10 years of living at the poverty line waiting to be a teacher (as a sub) - that 15 years later with a decreased value of the dollar can pay what I and many others in the private sector made from the start without any of those associated costs.

Meanwhile the politicians make $250,000 a year give themselves $432,000 in lunch expenses and $150,000+ life time pensions after a few years of service. But yeah the Librarians and teaching unions are the big problem. They're smart enough to know that people need money to make the economy work.

[Luvin Da Blues]

I used to blame the parents for today's kids sense of entitlement, now I see where they actually get it from.

Leave your 'Social Justice' propaganda at the door please.

[bobsticks]

How does an individual making less money each year help the economy?...

It doesn't. How does that serve as a justification for an increase in teachers' salaries?

[ForeverAutumn]

So now in BC you will have 40,000 people who make less than they made last year

Yep. Welcome to reality.


You spend your way out of recessions You also spend your way into deficits. Which is what has happened in Ontario. Sure our Premier has built new hospitals and schools and created jobs by doing so. But he's also built the biggest deficit the Province has ever seen. So what happens now? My taxes go up to pay for it all. Which means that my net income comes down. Which means that I'm spending less. So remind me again how this is helping?


Putting everyone into the poorhouse is hardly a brilliant stimulus idea for the economy.

I couldn't agree more. So why should my taxes go up and put me in the poorhouse while teachers get a guaranteed pay increase? You're not keeping me out of the poorhouse by giving in to the public service unions. We're going in circles here RGA. So I'm done being diplomatic. Quite frankly, **** the unions. I want to know what's in it for me, because they're certainly in it for them.


The TV Series "Breaking Bad" is a bit of brilliance on this social climate in the U.S. (more their health care system) but it's not far off Canada. High School teacher gets cancer and can't afford medical bills so he decides, since he is a brilliant chemist and chemistry teacher, to make Crystal Meth and get into the drug trade so he can keep his family from going broke from his medical expenses. Basically takes the premise to the extreme.

This has more to do with the lack of a universal healthcare system in the US than it does with the demands of public service unions. It's a different topic altogether. I work in the life and health insurance industry. Most cancer drugs that aren't covered by Provincial health care also aren't going to be covered by your insurance company (group benefits) and there is nothing that your union can do about it. My best advice to you if you are concerned about this, is to look into purchasing a private Critical Illness Insurance plan. PM me if you want more details or just google Critical Illness Insurance.


But if the goal Forever Autumn you seem to hold is to impoverish the middle class - be warned that without the middle class what you have left is "the poor."

When did I ever say that I want to impoverish the middle class? I'm the middle class and it feels like the unions want to impoverish me.

I said in a previous post that I'm all for cost of living increases for public service workers in a good economy. What I'm opposed to is having taxes go up to fund someone else's COL increases when the economy is bad. You mentioned having people on EI, well maybe if that money has to be spent, it would be better spent on creating jobs instead of pandering to those who already have jobs and are too self-absorbed to be grateful for them.



Hell I made $42,000 a year in the mid 1990s as an uneducated private sector accounting clerk that pushed papers on a desk. And they paid for my night school University courses and textbooks. 2011 a starting teacher in BC makes $42,000 and has to pay their 5.5 university (at far higher like 100% higher) prices than in the mid 1990s on their own dime. A McDonald's manager also made $40,000 back then.

If you want to be an accountant then be an accountant. If you want to be a teacher then be a teacher. But for god's sake stop whining about it. If things are so bad then go back to accounting. You are lucky enough to live in countries where you have the freedom to make your own choices. You make them, you live with them.

I'm done with this conversation. I've stated my point. You've stated yours. We're never going to agree, and I have better things to do than continue to go around in circles with you.

I hope you get what you want, just not at my expense.

[Feanor]

Here's something I would like explained

How does an individual making less money each year help the economy?

Please explain.

See here is my problem with the "times are tough let's give pay-cuts to all public sector workers" view. Private Businesses workers ***** and complain that public sector make too much or are overpaid. Good. Fair enough I suppose.

...
I the first place I believe that J.M. Keynes was right that the economy prospers when "demand" (people's ability & willingness to buy stuff) exceeds supply.

Contrary to what most Right-leaning people believe, high taxes for business and regulations aren't the problem today for our NA economies. It's the lack of demand, Stupid.

The matter of relative pay levels of private business versus public sector employees. 50 years ago when I was young, people have the impression that civil servants were underpaid, but were also under worked, and had secure jobs, good benefits, and great pensions.

Rightly or wrongly, the above impression has only changed in that public sector works are no longer seen as underpaid. The fact that private sector real wages and job security has fallen like a rock in the last decade and more while the public sector has not, might have something to do with that. (I allow that teachers, as a specific group, might not be the best case in point.)

[ForeverAutumn]

I used to blame the parents for today's kids sense of entitlement, now I see where they actually get it from.

LMAO! :thumbsup:

[Feanor]

...
So why should my taxes go up and put me in the poorhouse while teachers get a guaranteed pay increase? You're not keeping me out of the poorhouse by giving in to the public service unions. We're going in circles here RGA. So I'm done being diplomatic. Quite frankly, **** the unions. I want to know what's in it for me, because they're certainly in it for them....
The part I agree with here is that while private sector wages and job security crash, public sector wages and workers' protections are stable or improve. This isn't sustainable economically, socially, or politically. (Sorry, RGA, if teachers don't happen to be the best case in point.)

Also I observe that it's in the public sector that unions have remained strong -- and demanding. Yeah, maybe too bad unions have declined so much in the private sector, but this has mostly to do with the shift from a manufacturing to a service economy.

I agree with RGA that stimulus is the best way to fight recession. By definition this requires deficits, however to keep deficits reasonable, we need to tax the rich. During recession, the rich tend to save their cash, to wit, corporations like Apple sitting on $100 billion in cash), very rich individuals, and also the relatively rich, say the top 20% of families. (ForeverAutumn, I suspect you a bejesus long way from the poorhouse vs. a lot of people. Sorry about you DINK status.)

[bobsticks]

I agree with RGA that stimulus is the best way to fight recession. By definition this requires deficits, however to keep deficits reasonable, we need to tax the rich. During recession, the rich tend to save their cash, to wit, corporations like Apple sitting on $100 billion in cash), very rich individuals, and also the relatively rich, say the top 20% of families..

No...

[Feanor]

No...
You would say that, 'Sticks. Is there a principled reason?

[ForeverAutumn]

(ForeverAutumn, I suspect you a bejesus long way from the poorhouse vs. a lot of people. Sorry about you DINK status.)

I'm not going to discuss my personal finances on a public forum. It doesn't affect my philosophy on this topic.

[bobsticks]

Sure. Because enriching a government and stimulating an economy are two totally separate things. There's no historical precedent to believe that taxing the rich even further will stimulate an economy. None.

There's very little to suggest that in the age of deficit spending that it would be efficacious in reducing debt.

By the way, Apple is coming off a good deal of that cash in the form of dividends to its shareholders.

Here's an idea: how about the government spends less?

[ForeverAutumn]

Here's an idea: how about the government spends less?

I think you're missing the point. That would be bad for the public service unions. :nonod:







:D

[bobsticks]

I think you're missing the point. That would be bad for the public service unions. :nonod: :D

Lol, yeah, I think I've zigged when I should've zagged. This thread started with RGA's plaintiff cry for an increase in teacher salaries and moved to the inevitable "tax the rich" position and some bizarre trickle-down proposition that sounds like the campaign slogan from a developmentally challenged candidate for a Scandinavian parliamentary position.

Are we in some janky part of the moon phase?

[GMichael]

Gee. The economy is bad and everyone is pointing their fingers across the table at others. As soon as we have a good economy, all those same people will be taking credit for it. Hmmmm....
:thumbsup:

[bobsticks]

As soon as we have a good economy, all those same people will be taking credit for it. Hmmmm....
:thumbsup:

You're going to be waiting quite a while for that moment of zen...

[GMichael]

You're going to be waiting quite a while for that moment of zen...

At the rate we've been going, I may never see it in my lifetime. One can hope though.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Changes

[RGA]

It doesn't. How does that serve as a justification for an increase in teachers' salaries?

No Cost of living increase is a pay-cut. A pay cut makes the economy worse. A cost of living increase is basically "not a pay cut."

Folks - this is first year logic.

[RGA]

I don't buy the taxation argument. When I say spend your way out of a recession - it means you put MORE people to work - they make money while before they made no money. If you do it right then you now have say 100,000 more people working and now those people are gee - paying taxes. I don't see why the tax rate needs to go up for everyone else.

Those people are now buying the crap that you sell - makes YOUR company more money - YOUR company can then give YOU, Forever Autumn, a RAISE - so yeah your tax may go up but your salary should ALSO go up. Now if you don't get a raise when your company is making more money then you should bloody well form a union and FORCE them to give you a raise - see that's how it works - one domino hits the other domino - there is some lag time involved but that's about it.

The top 1% are not creating jobs - it's BS and has been since the moronic Reaganomics - Republicans have increased the deficit in the United States for decades far far outstripping what the Democrats (the so called spenders) have done - this is FACT. And one simply needs to look at the past history of regimes in the United States for the track record.

They don't create jobs - that notion was true in the industrial revolution and in some ways it is true today in countries that are in their industrial revolution.

The idea is so basic. When Nike doesn't have to pay tax they use the savings to open a new plant and put people to work. Great let's give the rich the tax break they will create jobs. Sure they can use the money for overhead and paychecks - great idea. And in 1950 it was fine - because it put Americans and Canadians to work.

But that isn't so today. Today Nike gets the tax break and opens the plant in China(or spends it on Michael Jordan to advertise). As bad as that sounds slave wage labor is still better than no job to the Chinese girl in China. I lived in Wenzhou, China the shoe capital and armpit of the globe. So I saw first hand what is going on.

No jobs were created in America and Canada however - so Forever Autumn's tax dollars that go to subsidize Nike and the auto-makers who get the bailouts (funny how Americans like socialism to protect their corporations but not their people), have zilch coming back to the people. So the Chinese worker gets a job, the heads of Nike get millions in salary and to ask BobSticks and ForeverAutumn - what do I get out of it - what do you get out of it? Grossly overpriced shoes since the workers in China sure as hell can't buy them.


There is an old saying - "Companies get the unions they deserve." The idea of a union is to protect yourself from highly unethical treatment by a dictator. Employees band together and stick up for eachother and say "no you will not fire Marcy for not sucking your ...." and if you try it all of us are walking out. To which by the way the company can tell them all to F-off.

Remember people - companies can say NO to unions - they can close the operation down - fire everyone and put a new sign on the window - companies ACCEPT unions. They have a CHOICE to say F-you. They have a CHOICE to accept a union demand and a CHOICE to reject a union demand. Some unions no doubt do dumb things and have pushed their luck to driving companies out of business.

I never really get all the complaints and backlash over the teacher union - since the only way they ever get anything they want is the generosity of the government politicians that you elect - especially in B.C. This instance illustrates it to a tee. Teachers can hoot and holler and ask and beg and whine and cry and appeal - and yet they LOST. The BCTF isn't a real union so why end it?

I mean the vitriol against the union that can't strike - can't get anything they want - (zero) - and saved the taxpayers 3 days of pay - I mean I don't know about the right wingers on the board but putting myself in your shoes isn't the BCTF EXACTLY the kind of union YOU want. A completely and utterly powerless to do virtually anything kind of Union.

You let the teachers think they have some rights with their little club - but at the end of the day you can do whatever you want.

And it's a democracy - when election time comes around it will be decided by the people if the Liberals made the right choice or the wrong choice.

PS my money is that the Liberals win by a landslide.

Feanor

I know what you mean by public perception of government workers - I confess I had the same view. I worked for a Steel Foundry, Seagate Software, a Fire Caulking company, NCompass Labs (which was purchased by Microsoft). All private companies.

I then did a 6 month stint for BC Housing. All were accounting clerk jobs. By far I did more work for BC Housing. The workloads were stupifying. The rules of employee conduct were long - it was a highly stressed out place to work - and I hated going there. It paid well - A few dollars more per hour than the private sector jobs. But after that stint (then under the NDP) I ended up voting Liberal.

I thought the place was a sham. The boss was a complete waste of air and she was flying in helicopters from Vancouver to Victoria for meetings. I asked her why they didn't just use the teleconferencing feature on the phone with 3 speakers. I mean it is a HUGE waste of taxpayer dollars to fly this woman over every week or two. Or at least take the damn ferry like everyone else.

They had a middle manager who I swear was the dumbest couldn't get a job in the real world in a million years must have blown someone to get the job fem-Nazi I have ever had the misfortune to breathe the same air.

Mind you some of the controls were airtight and much tighter than any of the private sector places but still - it was so bad I wanted the liberals to come in clear out dead-wood. Did they? no they got rid of the people doing their job on the front line and kept the dimwit fem-Nazi. Man that brings back a whole new artery clogging memory so I shall stop now.

The problem with the government is they have complex rules that needed to be extremely tightly followed in triplicate and the standards of accounting were far higher than a public sector accounting jobs which were somewhat wishy washy and frankly could easily have people funnel money out if they knew what they were doing.

So you got paid more but any slight mistake no matter how minor they would be up your butt about it. In the private sector the same thing would have been virtually nothing. a couple bucks and hour isn't worth the stress in my opinion. I found it like that in virtually every department too - way overworked and people were all always on edge. I only stayed the 6 months because I signed a 6 month contract and I do what I say - but after the first week I was thinking "oh no what I have done."

[Feanor]

The flip side of the public sector as waste argument is the notion, that the private sector is necessarily highly efficient. The myth is that competition & the free market is highly effective at rewarding good decisions & efficiency, and punishing the opposite. This isn't true, especially in the short & medium term.

Businesses large & small make bad decisions all the time. And money is routinely wasted in a multitude ways. However for the most part companies survive provided their balance sheets are reasonably sound.

The '50 and early '60 were prime time for corporate waste. The economy was buoyant and companies could make good profits despite high wages & benefits for employees. Of course unionized employees had the advantage but there was trickle to non-unionized workers too. A prime example was the North American auto industry where owners and management figured it was more profitable to pay the workers than risk production disruption and forego profits that would result from lost sales.

But global competition began to take hold and company decided they would share less with workers. This is microeconomics at work and it make perfect sense to the individual company. What is missed by companies -- and more importantly, by governments -- is the macroeconomic perspective -- if workers have lower incomes they have less money to spend on the products of companies.

[bobsticks]

No Cost of living increase is a pay-cut. A pay cut makes the economy worse. A cost of living increase is basically "not a pay cut."

Folks - this is first year logic.

I generally appreciate anyone's attempt at being snide but your logic is operating in a vacuum.

You're seemingly arguing that "X" amount of dollars in the hands of the 65,000 teachers of British Columbia will be spent better than that same "X" value of dollars in the hands of BC's 4.7 million population---when, in fact, it's most likely that the same "X" dollars would have been invested in consumer goods and services, albeit different ones.

You're going to have a difficult time getting anyone above Grade 4 in either of our countries to believe that 1 dollar in the hands of an individual has a greater value (potential purchasing power value) than 1 dollar in the hands of a different individual.

Your argument was, and should remain, that teachers provide an invaluable service and face ever increasingly difficult obstacles and a pay increase is based on merit. You can't play economic shell games and expect the taxpayer to come off the paper

[GMichael]

Republicans have increased the deficit in the United States for decades far far outstripping what the Democrats (the so called spenders) have done - this is FACT. ."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Publicly_Held_Federal_Debt_1790-2009.png

[bobsticks]

The flip side of the public sector as waste argument is the notion, that the private sector is necessarily highly efficient. The myth is that competition & the free market is highly effective at rewarding good decisions & efficiency, and punishing the opposite. This isn't true, especially in the short & medium term...

This is true. Poor decision making and ineffective performance is far too common within the private sector. The difference is that there are consequences.

In the public sector, poor decision making and performance, failure to adhere to budgets and behavior in disaccordance with one's departmental mission statement are usually rewarded with promotion.

In the private sector, poor performance such as decision making that results in the disasterous, y'know, calamitous financial collapse of multiple areas of the market result in an immediate invitation to join the Obama Administration.

[RGA]

The debt over the last while

[GMichael]

The debt over the last while

Government Spending Chart: United States 1900-2016 - Federal State Local Data (http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_1900_2016USb_H0t)

[RGA]

I generally appreciate anyone's attempt at being snide but your logic is operating in a vacuum.

You're seemingly arguing that "X" amount of dollars in the hands of the 65,000 teachers of British Columbia will be spent better than that same "X" value of dollars in the hands of BC's 4.7 million population---when, in fact, it's most likely that the same "X" dollars would have been invested in consumer goods and services, albeit different ones.

You're going to have a difficult time getting anyone above Grade 4 in either of our countries to believe that 1 dollar in the hands of an individual has a greater value (potential purchasing power value) than 1 dollar in the hands of a different individual.

Your argument was, and should remain, that teachers provide an invaluable service and face ever increasingly difficult obstacles and a pay increase is based on merit. You can't play economic shell games and expect the taxpayer to come off the paper

No what I am saying is the system used to work because it was a closed system - with a global market things fall apart because employees in Canada in the private sector have to compete with the wages employees make in cost to the bottom countries like China.

It's not an either or situation (or it shouldn't be). We all get that public servants are paid by tax dollars. Hopefully we all get that tax dollars being spent on services make sense - Essential services are supposedly services that the public deems as absolute critical to the survival of society. BC Liberals call Education an Essential service (I'm a teacher and I disagree with that notion since no one is dying if you can't go to school) but anyway.

If you take a really simple example 10 people make $50,000 each. Each of them pays $5000 in tax. That tax for sake of argument goes to pay for one teacher - $42,000 and the remaining $8k goes to various benefits package. That teacher pays $5k in tax as well.

Now everyone was all fine and happy enough to go along with that - even the folks who don't have kids and don't really want to be paying tax for someone else's brat. They can sort of understand that have good kids means less of a chance they'll key his Porsche or mug him.

But corporations and it always comes down to them, are purely and only interested in the bottom line. Why pay someone a $50k salary when I can get the same job done for $5k. Back in the 60s you needed a staff of 50. Computers came in and now you need a staff of 5. A one time outlay and maintenance and you can get rid of 45 people. I worked for the steel foundry - they had locations around the globe - but when they bought Oracle I and most others became expendable. They could now do the world's accounting in one office.

It's not all the companies fault - they're bulldozer business basically had one major competitor - Caterpillar. They were far bigger than ESCO but ESCO had the rep for better quality which leads to less downtime which is important. But the Chinese came in offering he same things for half the price - you now have to cut cut cut.

My concern is the snowball that this is creating. So now private sector employees are not getting raises - or losing their jobs because the top 1% have decided that a billion a year isn't enough they want Ten billion a year. The best way to get that is to get rid of the most expensive associated cost of making product - LABOR. Labor is an enormous cost in civilized countries because it's not the wage - it's all the benefits associated with such employees. Opening shop in China dramatically reduces all costs but especially labor.

All those jobs begin to disappear so what is left are part time positions. Companies hiring more part time can avoid benefits - more-so in the States but it's in Canada now as well. Taxes go up - but people are making far less money.

So don't think I don't get it - I was the guy saying teachers should not have been asking for a pay increase and that I would not have. I sort of see some teachers saying the excuse of no money has been used now for 2 decades. I mean they're 30% behind Ontario in salary precisely because the union agreed with government and basically said we'll take the cut to help out the province.

My fear is that it's not just public sector not getting a CoL increase it's almost everyone not getting one.The drive that corporations have on cost to the bottom idealogy is that in order to do that you have to dump the employees making any real money. If you do that you have people who can't afford anything because they lost their $50k job so now they're working a hair over min wage at Starbucks.

I don't know how to fix that - but it sure isn't by lowering the buying power of large amounts of the population. 40,000 isn't as much as 4.6 million but again it snowballs. A little bit here a little bit there and it snowballs. The right wing government in BC has made the financial system in BC worse since they've been running the show. I was no fan of the corrupt sleazy clowns in the NDP either mind you which is why i voted Liberal back in the day.

I think the issue is fairly clear from the Liberal standpoint - they want to cut costs - they've chosen to cut costs to education. There is a surplus of teachers so why not push them hard?

And then they can decide how to respond - I saw the education system in BC and hey I got out. I'd thank God if there was one for that small mercy.

It's really the teacher's business now how to proceed. Personally, if I could not be here teaching in HK and I was still in Canada I would be changing careers "again." I agree with the folks who say "don't like it then leave"

I really wanted the teachers to choose an "en masse" resignation day. On May 1st all teachers in BC will tender their resignation. And all teachers in all other provinces support by not moving into the vacancies.

I just want to see what would happen - call me curious with these mental exercises.

Then all the teachers should open private schools - class sizes of 15 with two teachers per class (the way it ought to be) and no special needs allowed - no thugs or violent offenders allowed). Both teachers make a salary of $100,000 full benefits. Then only the parents with money can send their kids to the schools.

But hey why not do that? Personally I like that system better - it's far more profitable to gear your service to the rich. Doctors do it in the States - no money you don't get the best doctor or service. Can't pay - then get lost.

Universities operate that way - you want to learn some **** then you pay. Indeed, I like the idea - why the hell should I, RGA, pay tax because some putz I don't know pumped out some special needs baby because she was on crack at the time.

Why am I paying for other people forgetting to put on a condom? Then I have to pay tax for some teacher? Puhleeze.

I'm only saying this semi-sarcastically because I am confident in my teaching and would be quite happy to fight for rich clients in a complete pay per educate system. Less teachers working but much higher pay.

Right now private schools pay teachers less than public school teachers but that is only because public school is competition - remove the competition and you teach to the rich. 1 in 11 British Columbians has a net worth of a million dollars or more. So they can afford it.

The great thing is that then no tax dollars need to be spent on education at all. Parent pay the whole shot - the building, teachers books, copyrights.

Perfect.

And really we only want the poor to be working as janitors anyway right. They get in the way of the rich kids and frankly make my job as a teacher a nightmare. Give me the rich kids any day - I had the rich kids in Wenzhou - really nice not at all snotty and it was wonderful - they were raised well - work hard and learn and the ones who were weak at least made the attempt. Canadian kids with their self entitlements and "rights" and emotional status taking precedence over academics - bah - raising a bunch of sniveler babies.

I can make $50 - $75 Cad an hour tutoring here in Hong Kong on top of my job. Cater to the rich.

The poor can have baby-sitters or we'll fill a bunch of rooms with video games to let them kill time. For a good number of them it's not like they're going anywhere anyway so why waste time slowing it all down for the blunt instruments.

[GMichael]

From here: How Much Does A Teacher Really Make? | Points and Figures (http://pointsandfigures.com/2010/10/05/how-much-does-a-teacher-really-make/)

It is very difficult to compare a teaching salary to a private sector employee for a number of reasons. Teachers have virtually no risk of getting laid off. If they perform poorly or spectacularly, they receive the same pay. They don’t work nearly as many hours as private sector employees, nor as many days. They are guaranteed a defined benefit pension when they retire.

[bobsticks]

I don't know how to fix that - but it sure isn't by lowering the buying power of large amounts of the population. 40,000 isn't as much as 4.6 million but again it snowballs.

The point is that for the 40,000 to have an increase in buying power the rest of the population have to have a decrease of buying power, ultimately yielding a zero net gain.



No what I am saying is the system used to work because it was a closed system - with a global market things fall apart because employees in Canada in the private sector have to compete with the wages employees make in cost to the bottom countries like China...

With the exception of the point raised at the top of this post I agree with everything you typed in post #107. The problem is that it's an argument for the implementation of tariffs and a reduction of corporate taxes, not an argument supporting COL raises for teachers (which is what you were implying in post #99).

[Feanor]

...
In the public sector, poor decision making and performance, failure to adhere to budgets and behavior in disaccordance with one's departmental mission statement are usually rewarded with promotion. ...
Several examples would make your case stronger. Yeah, it happens but it isn't an inevitable result of public sector administration.


...
In the private sector, poor performance such as decision making that results in the disasterous, y'know, calamitous financial collapse of multiple areas of the market result in an immediate invitation to join the Obama Administration.
Again, several examples would be more persuasive than bald assertion.

My original suggestion was that poor decisions in the private sector do not inevitably result in immediate or even long term calamity. The fact is that corporations can limp along for decades with suboptimal management and might only be called to account when external pressures, such as global competition come into play. A distinguishing factor of private businesses is that most often they aren't subject to the intense political scrutiny as government departments.

[Feanor]

The debt over the last while
Why what deeya know. It's Republican administrations that have most increase the debt.

Two things may be said:

It might have been more a good thing than a bad thing. In the '80s the US (and linked economies) were saved from recession by Reagan's profligate spending mainly on defence. Contrary to the common rhetoric, it wasn't Reagan tax cuts and deregulation that saved the economy. Likewise it's scary to contemplate how much sooner and harder recession might have it without the George W's spending wasted on foreign wars. Thank you, John Maynard Keynes.
The Republican Party (and the Conservative Party in Canada) have never been about fiscal responsibility in any valid sense. They are about low taxes especially for corporations and the rich -- and if they have to borrow to lower taxes, the record shows that they will do it big time. Joe Sixpack's perception of Republicans as the more fiscally responsible is grossly out of touch with reality.

[bobsticks]

Several examples would make your case stronger. Yeah, it happens but it isn't an inevitable result of public sector administration.


Again, several examples would be more persuasive than bald assertion.

My original suggestion was that poor decisions in the private sector do not inevitably result in immediate or even long term calamity. The fact is that corporations can limp along for decades with suboptimal management and might only be called to account when external pressures, such as global competition come into play. A distinguishing factor of private businesses is that most often they aren't subject to the intense political scrutiny as government departments.

Evidently you missed what I thought was rather biting sarcasm in that post.

[Feanor]

Evidently you missed what I thought was rather biting sarcasm in that post.
I guess that's so. :aureola:

[bobsticks]

Why what deeya know. It's Republican administrations that have most increase the debt.

Two things may be said:

It might have been more a good thing than a bad thing. In the '80s the US (and linked economies) were saved from recession by Reagan's profligate spending mainly on defence. Contrary to the common rhetoric, it wasn't Reagan tax cuts and deregulation that saved the economy. Likewise it's scary to contemplate how much sooner and harder recession might have it without the George W's spending wasted on foreign wars. Thank you, John Maynard Keynes.

It could be argued that Keynes theories were never truly adopted and the post-Keynesian "monetarism" is an outcome of assumption.




The Republican Party (and the Conservative Party in Canada) have never been about fiscal responsibility in any valid sense. They are about low taxes especially for corporations and the rich -- and if they have to borrow to lower taxes, the record shows that they will do it big time. Joe Sixpack's perception of Republicans as the more fiscally responsible is grossly out of touch with reality.


Let's not forget the American electorate's vexing habit of voting in an Executive of one party and a Congress of the other. Neither is blameless and to indicate that one is more culpable than the other is largely fallacious.

[RGA]

From here: How Much Does A Teacher Really Make? | Points and Figures (http://pointsandfigures.com/2010/10/05/how-much-does-a-teacher-really-make/)

It is very difficult to compare a teaching salary to a private sector employee for a number of reasons. Teachers have virtually no risk of getting laid off. If they perform poorly or spectacularly, they receive the same pay. They don’t work nearly as many hours as private sector employees, nor as many days. They are guaranteed a defined benefit pension when they retire.

Sorry but I stopped reading after this:

"teachers work around 176 days, 300 minutes, or 5 hours, per day.

It's not a punch clock job where you sign in right at 9am and that's when you start your duties and get off for 1 hour of lunch and then work from 1pm to 3pm and walk out the door.

And teachers in BC can expect to be laid off every year for at least the first 7 years of teaching (and it's closer to 10 years). This happens because there is a new budget and new student enrollment each year which means each year those with the least seniority get dumped. It is likely you will get re-hired but not likely you will be re-hired to teach the same subjects or at the same school.

Teachers in BC pay for their own pensions by the way - so while it is a good pension it's good because teachers pay 10% of their salary to make it a good pension - not because tax payers are funding it to the hilt.

The estimate average hours per week teachers put in is closer to 60. We do not have secretaries that prepare are lessons and mark and write report cards do extra curriculars, take kids on weekend trips which teachers usually prop up with their own money to make it happen.

My roommate is a P.E. teacher he paid the $1750 for the team's Rugby jerseys because otherwise they wouldn't be able to have a team because people in the community are too poor and the school sure as hell can't afford it. No else knows he did that - the principal asked him how he got the jerseys and his answer was simply "it's been taken care of."

I don't see why John the Lawyer with 3 kids ($250k a year) and Martha the Accountant ($150k) with three kids can't run the school soccer team at 6pm weeknights. Oh wait their job for the day is over.

Try being an English Drama teacher in a high school running a school play/musical sometime. Come back to me with the 5 hours a day comment. 3 classes English 11/12 and a school play and teaching drama. 30 kids per class each writing 3-5 page essays. And presumably the kids know what to do before they walk in because in that 5 hours who wrote the lesson for the teacher? They can both write the lesson plan and teach and mark at the same time.


Now I will also take issue with another part of what he was on about. It is true that some subjects and some grade levels are more time consuming for teachers - he seems to want to track down everyone's movements. But this is true in any field anywhere - some people are far more dedicated than others and put in more time - on the flip side there are more efficient workers who get their job done quickly and it is equally a good job - whether they leave at 6pm or 5pm that is not really a way to tell who is doing a better job.

Language subjects typically have a lot more marking involved. Though math can have marking typically tests can be multiple choice and a scantron used - marking such tests is a 5 minute affair. Prep however is more involved because kids tend to struggle with math so you need to come up with multiple approaches and explanations for the same lesson. Generally that isn't required for English. However any reading writing intensive course does tend to require a lot of lecture/and repetition. It takes more work to hunt down and find interesting materials because if kids aren't interested they tune out.

P.E. always seems like the cake-walk job but it has pitfalls - it's generally an elective which the thugs take - so you get more classroom management issues to deal with. Marking is much easier because it's performance and effort based - usually more effort than performance. But it also exposes teachers to more brawling and fights they have to deal with and sexual harassment issues in coed classes. There are more reports to fill out if Suzy banged her finger because if she goes home and drops dead the school will be sued and the teacher canned. Or those forms parents sign for field trips that state things like "the school will not be held responsible for XYZ that happens to your child" - those actually have no teeth - the school is responsible and that form is meant to make people think they have no rights to sue. Anything happens on a field trip is the teacher's fault. Which kind of is the reason there are so few field trips anymore. Further P.E teachers have less marking so they run all the extr-curricular activities - sports after school and at lunch times (which they give up to do it).

Science teachers - well they're in demand so in a sense you are paying for their expertise. Biology and Chem is a high prep subject in terms of the labs, safety, clean-up. Marking is easier than English - fact based one line answers typically are. Then it's going through what the individual keeps doing incorrectly as well as what the class as a whole is struggling with. Going through the class to see which answers everyone is getting wrong and readdressing that in the next class. The attempt is to have it marked ASAP so not too much time lags to the point where everyone has moved on.

Then factor in the IEP meetings - that is done off school hours - meet the parents - have the psychologist/counselor in hour goes by forms filled out. Teachers have to create systems to help when the kid is going to fly off the rails.

Parent teacher nights - yeah the parent comes in once for 15 minutes but usually the teacher has to be there from 4-8 or longer for the whole week to accommodate working parents.

Then report cards - Elementary is far more difficult because words have to stroke the parents ego and make Johnny the serial killer look like johnny the boy with an overactive personality and impressive imagination who must try not to bite people.

The wage in BC is around $42,000 and after 11-12 years (full time positions) reaches $78,000.

Personally I am fine with that and most teachers have no issue with that. That salary is over 10 months not 12. That's a bit moot though since not everyone can get a job for 2 months - or at least not one that pays anything. My friend fishes during the two months and makes more than his teaching salary in those two months. But not everyone knows how to fish or can handle the sea. One teacher does roofing and he also makes more money in the summer than he does teaching.

Teachers can also tutor - I tutored and made about $30 an hour. I can make $50 - $75 in Hong Kong.

Frankly though this is all stuff people accept when they go into the teaching profession - it's a profession not a job. It's not so much that anyone minds doing this - it's when some putz says it's a 5 hour job when it's more like a 10 hour job that is annoying. I would rather put ten hours in at something I like than 8 hours in at something I hate - which is why I left accounting. But the "it's only five hours" and "you get a great pension" and "you get summer's off" is laughable.

[Feanor]

It could be argued that Keynes theories were never truly adopted and the post-Keynesian "monetarism" is an outcome of assumption.
...
Indeed, Keynes theories were never fully adopted or more precisely never properly adopted.

As you know, Keynes himself firmly believed in the capitalist system but he also believed that it needed a little help from time to time, especially when the economy was working below capacity. He demonstrated that at such times governments ought to boost demand using deficit spending. Unfortunately governments in various countries misinterpreted (or misrepresented) his principles to mean that deficit spending could be employed continuously to cause the economy to grow and tax revenues to automatically keep up. This doesn't work but then it isn't what Keynes recommended.

The "monetarism" of the Milton Friedman and the Chicago School was always simplistic and has never worked to prevent recession. It works best, or maybe only, to control inflation in a moderately buoyant economy. Low interest rates under Greenspan an subsequently Bernanke created a financial bubble that presaged the '08 financial crash; it also create unsustainable consumer borrowing that failed to prevent the post-bubble recession. Since then low interested rates have done very little to foster the recovery. Why? because making money available cheap doesn't help much if people are unwilling to spend; (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink).

[RGA]

My problem with economics is that there seems to be very little agreement with what actually works to fix problems when they arise. History is what should be looked at. Did it work the last 3 times?

"The point is that for the 40,000 to have an increase in buying power the rest of the population have to have a decrease of buying power, ultimately yielding a zero net gain."

Forgive me but I took economics in 1992 and I'm incredibly rusty but as I recall there is X amount of pie and it gets divided up. So an awful lot of poverty has to exist in the world to make a millionaire a millionaire.

I have no problem with capitalism - ultra socialist countries have issues (Canada isn't one of them) because it demotivates people to work. I remember my Uncle working at a plant in Britain and he refused to work overtime - why? Because the tax rate was idiotic - something like every dollar you made in overtime was taxed at 90% - so why bother going in.

If the government has a cradle to grave system for you then why bother to go to work? Indeed, my last girlfriend was nearly deaf and because of this disability the government gives her $900 a month in which to live - it's the same if you have M.S. Good luck living on $900 a month.

Anyway, the dumb thing about this system is that you can sort of understand the money - it is a lot tougher to get a job if you're deaf because most jobs require hearing. And hearing aids are expensive yadda yadda.

But she wanted to work - the silly thing though is if she works and gets $500 they take $500 AWAY from her monthly allowance - So she would only get $400. So she can actually go to work and contribute to society and make $900 or she can sit home and make $900.

Where is the incentive? basically getting punished to work.

When I was laid off my job I got the full rate of employment insurance. I was called by a temp agency to do accounting work for $12 an hour. I did the calculation and looked at the after tax dollars and my travel expenses and said - no I think I'll just collect EI since the $100 more a month would not be worth it. I told the temp agency that - big mouth that I have - they called back and offered $15 an hour. Funny how these companies have the money and cry poverty but they do in fact have more than they claim.


Take the teacher union - I have serious problems with unions in that once you're safely in and past the low seniority layoffs then you're set for life. You have to do something completely illegal to get fired. That irks me because there are much better teachers out there working at Starbucks while some lazy arse is coasting through his profession. Or he's burned out and has given up. The burn-outs unfortunately are 50+ and have no way to get any other job and it's a high tier stress job so it would be nice for government to have systems in place to get these people out and into other careers.

That to me is the point of government or social safety nets. They serve as a TEMPORARY safety net not cradle to grave security.

Employment insurance - well you pay into it while you work so when you need it it's there great - you can only get it if you work X number of hours that meets a threshold. I'm for all of that.

I would like to see a flat income tax. This tax rises on income but in HK it seems so much better than the west - and easier to follow.

I pay 15% tax - bill comes in at the end of the year - you made X amount - you must pay this amount Y. There is no need to hire outfits or buy computer programs at Best Buy to figure out deductions or if you get money back - you don't get money back because it's not taken from your paycheck - you simply get a bill. Sure there are some deductions apparently - I have not seen the forms yet but it's all apparently much easier.

There is no sales tax on anything.

If you are poor you don't pay the tax and housing is subsidized for the poor. This is partly because the wages for the poor stink and their hours are very long.

The pension scheme is easy as well - you pay 5% of your paycheque - the government pays 5%. When you turn 65 you get the lump sum amount - you live on that amount for the rest of your life - so be careful.

Still people complain that the poor get housing subsidies - but the housing is much worse and at least the people do work - they get paid badly which is why they're poor - they're not poor because they're lazy. The fact is some people simply are not all that smart and simply can't do jobs that pay well. But at least the effort is there. I can't see the right wing hard ass Republican types having a problem with that - what I suspect they have a problem with is the do nothing moochers. Umm so do I.

And I suspect they don't like union protectionism - neither do I. As a Substitute teacher it bothered me because I know I could do a better job and would put more effort in than many of the teachers I saw. Frankly I want to see more competition in such a field - those teachers probably could be a lot better too but without any fear of losing their top of the scale pay or any fear of losing their job human nature sets in and they rest on their laurels. A little more checking up and holding them accountable I am for. Although the policies in the US are just dumb - looking at test scores - jeez. But there are ways to do it that make sense.

But then I am the teacher that would like to see all schools in Canada go to uniforms and I want a video camera in every classroom. I want to see my teaching and I want to see what I am doing well and not doing well. It protects students from the pedophiles (who won't go into teaching in the first place if they know they can't get away with anything) - and it also protects teachers from false accusations by students who are trying to blackmail for a pass (or just get their kicks out of it). No downside that such cameras are now dirt cheap. It also helps parents see what their kid is like when not in their view. It is a "public" school system after all so I am not sure I buy the privacy rights arguments - in any case the kids faces can be blocked out - and only certain people could be allowed access (ie not the teacher).

My concern with Bill 22 is mainly about the class size and legitimate protections. The government now will pay teachers extra for going over class limits - the teacher unions said no we don't want more money to take more students - because it isn't about the money. Strange isn't it - they want a C.O.L but not cash for kids.

Personally I want less than what a babysitter makes(now typically $10 and hour).

How about we give teachers half - $5 and hour - per kid per hour based on the 5 hour day and I'll throw in the lessons for free. Class size average say 25 to 30 kids - sounds reasonable to me.

[Feanor]

...
I have no problem with capitalism - ultra socialist countries have issues (Canada isn't one of them) because it demotivates people to work. I remember my Uncle working at a plant in Britain and he refused to work overtime - why? Because the tax rate was idiotic - something like every dollar you made in overtime was taxed at 90% - so why bother going in. ...
IMO, the aspect of "demotivation" in case of substantially socialist, or planned, economies is greatly exaggerated. The bigger problem is technical one: that state planning is an inefficient method of resource allocation versus a free market. And in particular, price determination by supply & demand, vs. "fiat" priceing, is necessary of efficient allocation.

[RGA]

Maybe something will get done if rich people (people who earn $100k a year) actually find some generosity

MDs propose tax increases for wealthiest Canadians, starting at $100,000 - Yahoo! News Canada (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/mds-propose-tax-increases-wealthiest-canadians-starting-100-040307538.html)

[bobsticks]

Re: Post #117--- you do realize that more words does not a logical argument make...



Maybe something will get done if rich people (people who earn $100k a year) actually find some generosity

MDs propose tax increases for wealthiest Canadians, starting at $100,000 - Yahoo! News Canada (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/mds-propose-tax-increases-wealthiest-canadians-starting-100-040307538.html)

I find it slightly disturbing that you consider $100k per annum "rich".

[GMichael]

Sorry but I stopped reading after this:

"teachers work around 176 days, 300 minutes, or 5 hours, per day.

It's not a punch clock job where you sign in right at 9am and that's when you start your duties and get off for 1 hour of lunch and then work from 1pm to 3pm and walk out the door.

And teachers in BC can expect to be laid off every year for at least the first 7 years of teaching (and it's closer to 10 years). This happens because there is a new budget and new student enrollment each year which means each year those with the least seniority get dumped. It is likely you will get re-hired but not likely you will be re-hired to teach the same subjects or at the same school.

Teachers in BC pay for their own pensions by the way - so while it is a good pension it's good because teachers pay 10% of their salary to make it a good pension - not because tax payers are funding it to the hilt.

The estimate average hours per week teachers put in is closer to 60. We do not have secretaries that prepare are lessons and mark and write report cards do extra curriculars, take kids on weekend trips which teachers usually prop up with their own money to make it happen.

My roommate is a P.E. teacher he paid the $1750 for the team's Rugby jerseys because otherwise they wouldn't be able to have a team because people in the community are too poor and the school sure as hell can't afford it. No else knows he did that - the principal asked him how he got the jerseys and his answer was simply "it's been taken care of."

I don't see why John the Lawyer with 3 kids ($250k a year) and Martha the Accountant ($150k) with three kids can't run the school soccer team at 6pm weeknights. Oh wait their job for the day is over.

Try being an English Drama teacher in a high school running a school play/musical sometime. Come back to me with the 5 hours a day comment. 3 classes English 11/12 and a school play and teaching drama. 30 kids per class each writing 3-5 page essays. And presumably the kids know what to do before they walk in because in that 5 hours who wrote the lesson for the teacher? They can both write the lesson plan and teach and mark at the same time.


Now I will also take issue with another part of what he was on about. It is true that some subjects and some grade levels are more time consuming for teachers - he seems to want to track down everyone's movements. But this is true in any field anywhere - some people are far more dedicated than others and put in more time - on the flip side there are more efficient workers who get their job done quickly and it is equally a good job - whether they leave at 6pm or 5pm that is not really a way to tell who is doing a better job.

Language subjects typically have a lot more marking involved. Though math can have marking typically tests can be multiple choice and a scantron used - marking such tests is a 5 minute affair. Prep however is more involved because kids tend to struggle with math so you need to come up with multiple approaches and explanations for the same lesson. Generally that isn't required for English. However any reading writing intensive course does tend to require a lot of lecture/and repetition. It takes more work to hunt down and find interesting materials because if kids aren't interested they tune out.

P.E. always seems like the cake-walk job but it has pitfalls - it's generally an elective which the thugs take - so you get more classroom management issues to deal with. Marking is much easier because it's performance and effort based - usually more effort than performance. But it also exposes teachers to more brawling and fights they have to deal with and sexual harassment issues in coed classes. There are more reports to fill out if Suzy banged her finger because if she goes home and drops dead the school will be sued and the teacher canned. Or those forms parents sign for field trips that state things like "the school will not be held responsible for XYZ that happens to your child" - those actually have no teeth - the school is responsible and that form is meant to make people think they have no rights to sue. Anything happens on a field trip is the teacher's fault. Which kind of is the reason there are so few field trips anymore. Further P.E teachers have less marking so they run all the extr-curricular activities - sports after school and at lunch times (which they give up to do it).

Science teachers - well they're in demand so in a sense you are paying for their expertise. Biology and Chem is a high prep subject in terms of the labs, safety, clean-up. Marking is easier than English - fact based one line answers typically are. Then it's going through what the individual keeps doing incorrectly as well as what the class as a whole is struggling with. Going through the class to see which answers everyone is getting wrong and readdressing that in the next class. The attempt is to have it marked ASAP so not too much time lags to the point where everyone has moved on.

Then factor in the IEP meetings - that is done off school hours - meet the parents - have the psychologist/counselor in hour goes by forms filled out. Teachers have to create systems to help when the kid is going to fly off the rails.

Parent teacher nights - yeah the parent comes in once for 15 minutes but usually the teacher has to be there from 4-8 or longer for the whole week to accommodate working parents.

Then report cards - Elementary is far more difficult because words have to stroke the parents ego and make Johnny the serial killer look like johnny the boy with an overactive personality and impressive imagination who must try not to bite people.

The wage in BC is around $42,000 and after 11-12 years (full time positions) reaches $78,000.

Personally I am fine with that and most teachers have no issue with that. That salary is over 10 months not 12. That's a bit moot though since not everyone can get a job for 2 months - or at least not one that pays anything. My friend fishes during the two months and makes more than his teaching salary in those two months. But not everyone knows how to fish or can handle the sea. One teacher does roofing and he also makes more money in the summer than he does teaching.

Teachers can also tutor - I tutored and made about $30 an hour. I can make $50 - $75 in Hong Kong.

Frankly though this is all stuff people accept when they go into the teaching profession - it's a profession not a job. It's not so much that anyone minds doing this - it's when some putz says it's a 5 hour job when it's more like a 10 hour job that is annoying. I would rather put ten hours in at something I like than 8 hours in at something I hate - which is why I left accounting. But the "it's only five hours" and "you get a great pension" and "you get summer's off" is laughable.

Sorry. I stopped reading after I saw that you had stopped reading. Later on it goes on to say that teachers do bring home work and grade papers on breakes ect. By the way, I bring home work too after a 50 hour work week. I also work through lunch and rarely take a break.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Re: Post #117--- you do realize that more words does not a logical argument make...




I find it slightly disturbing that you consider $100k per annum "rich".

What's the problem, up here in the Ruperts Land it doesn't cost much to maintain an igloo or a dog sled team. Seal meat is gettin' a bit expensive tho. $100k is plenty (unless you are a teacher I 'spose).

[GMichael]

RGA, you keep using that $40k figure. That's a lowball number that does not reflect the average salary.

[RGA]

Re: Post #117--- you do realize that more words does not a logical argument make...

I find it slightly disturbing that you consider $100k per annum "rich".

I find it quite disturbing that you do not. Since 99% of the population (in wealthy countries) make less than $100,000 a year - (indeed most make less than $50,000, I'd say the 1% that's left is rich.

If $100k is middle class - then $50k is poor. What is $20k (the Poverty line) the really poor?

$40-$80k is lower to upper middle class IMO. Above that is rich (entry level rich but rich) The fact that the idiots spend more than they earn and get themselves in massive debt by buying $800,000 homes and 2 cars and Audio Note level 5 gear may be a reason they don't feel very rich - but I can tell you if I made $100,000K a year I would be living the life of Reilly. Cause - I would not buy stuff way beyond my means.

I agonize over spending $150 on a watch that may last 20 years. The $100k earners drop 8 large on a Rolex and then say that $100k isn't rich. Puhleeze.

A distinction needs to be made about individual and family income here as well. I am talking about single person income.

Canada Income range % of families

Quintile 1 up to $40,000 21.1% Poor & near poor
Quintile 2 $40 – $60,000 17.9% Lower-middle
Quintile 3 $60 – $85,000 20.4% Middle income
Quintile 4 $85 – $125,000 21.4% Upper-middle income
Quintile 5 over $125,000 19.2% High income or well-off

I would call the lower middle dirt poor - a family would seriously struggle at $40-$60k if they had children and they would have no ability to save. At the $60k end they might be OK but at $40k it would be ridiculous.

[RGA]

RGA, you keep using that $40k figure. That's a lowball number that does not reflect the average salary.

The average salary doesn't reflect substitute teachers.

An average salary is only relevant in a career you start at age say 25-30 to retirement. The average wage in BC is around $60k out of those people who have full time teaching position. It doesn't factor in a teacher in substitute teacher in Victoria (who may have more qualifications/degree than full time boomer teachers) who earn an average of $11,000 per year nor that it takes an average of 13-17 years to get a full time position in that district.

In any career what you need to look at is HOW LONG they earn what they earn not the fact that from age 55-60 they make $78,000. And average wages across the country can't be factored in since a teacher in Alberta or Ontario make 30% more money to do the exact same job (both with a lower cost of living so it's even more than 30% in terms of buying power).

An average salary calculation needs a formula something like this:

Total Salary Earned in the Profession (Divided by) number of years worked in that profession.

Answer: $_______

Subtract: All associated costs to work in the profession (University) - 5.5 years away from the work force (calculation of the provincial average for workers not requiring a university degree or $20,800 for Minimum wage based on $10 an hour 8 hours a day for the year.

Answer $_________

Back in the 80s you could walk out at 25 with your teacher certificate and you would get a job immediately and then work for 40 years. A lot of those years at the top of the pay grid. Hence why everyone back then with a decent job owns a house and a nice car can retire early and live well.

Today - it's far harder to get into the teaching program and the degree requirements are far stiffer. And the costs have risen at least 10 fold. Now you come out 25 and it's 35 by the time you get a full time job(maybe otherwise you'll be making at best minimum wage) - 10 years you were not getting a nice paying job - some exceptions - Science teachers, French teachers, Calculus/Physics and counselors but that requires a masters degree at least 2 years and you have to be working as a teacher in order to get the certification because it demands in school practice.

So now you're 35 and you finally get your first full time job $43,000. If a $100k isn't rich(ie middle class) then $43k has to be poor. Indeed, I've lived on that and it's not by any stretch good - not when 10% is immediately taken off the top for teaching pension (which may be great at 65 but doesn't help me now. Oh and the union fees for a union that can't strike and has no power whatsoever - have to pay it. Also, have to pay the annual $120 for the teaching card to keep it up to date. Last year it was $90 - what will it be next year?

If we just go by the simple average of $60k I agree it looks very fine indeed. But that isn't the same kind of average than looking at say the guys who worked in the steel foundry where I was working. They can start at 18 and earn $50k. No education required since they trained them. With salary bumps and overtime it was very easy to earn $120k per year. Over their career they would easily earn double or triple what a teacher would make.

And it's a dangerous job - but chances are you're not going to get stabbed or your car keyed.





.

[Feanor]

Nothing you talk about here makes me feel that BC teachers' pay is out of line -- if Alberta's and Ontario's are 30% higher, their's would be ample.

My son started as a software developer in Saskatchewan, having almost completed is MSc in Comp.Sci. at $40k. That was 3 years ago. He has since completed his MSc and how earns about $70k. His upward potential as a mainstream developer isn't much over $100k and that would likely take him another 7-10 years.

It is pointless to compare teacher's pay with foundry workers or other skilled workers in physical occupations: they latter earn more, albeit this is the reason manufacturing is moving to China. Again, there is a lot of complaint here in London, ON, about the number city police earning over $100k. They and firefighters start at $50k and quickly go to $$70k in Ontario. EMS crews start at $70k. My daughter, a recent dental hygiene grad, earns ~$36/hr working "supply". Get over your uber-educated, white collar sense of entitlement!

[GMichael]

Don't get me wrong RGA. I certainty feel that teachers are a very important part of our society and deserve a fair salary. I just want to compare apples to apples, or at least apples to pairs. The rest of us work hard and feel underpaid too.

Our company had a bad year last year, and we let go of several employees. They were not doing a bad job. We just couldn't afford them anymore. The ones who are left did not receive any increases. Very few make over $30k/yr. Many come in early and work late. The girl who has been working for me over 12 years does a great job and deserves much more than she makes. We just don't have the money to give her. We're lucky to keep our doors open as it is.

When the good years come (if they come) she will not get extra increases to make up for the years that she didn't get an increase. Companies don't work that way.

So, do teachers deserve a raise? Maybe. But no more so than many of the rest of us.

[RGA]

GM

I think this is the big issue - lots of people should be making more - the problem is at the center of everything is corporations moving to cost to the bottom strategies - it forces competitors to lower prices in order to compete and it cripples companies. They either go out of business or they're forced to do the same thing and move offshore.

It's a snowball - less people working less tax to pay for teachers. Of course teachers could probably swallow that if the government crying poverty wasn't giving themselves 50% increases. The link earlier I posted their salary increased but consider the numnutz who spent $432,000 on LUNCHES! That's ten new full time teachers.

I also want to point out that the average teaching salaries are highly elevated due to northern districts which include Northern allowances as part of the pay. SO if you live in the middle of nowhere where it snows everyday and you have to have food flown in and a 12 pack of Coca Cola is $23.99 then we need to look a little closer at the numbers.

Here is Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge - basically 45 minute drive from downtown Vancouver and their salaries

June 30, 2010
Step Cat 4 Cat 5

Left is years of service.


0 $ 42,802 $ 45,909
1 $ 44,872 $ 48,537
2 $ 46,943 $ 51,165
3 $ 49,014 $ 53,793
4 $ 51,084 $ 56,421
5 $ 53,155 $ 59,048
6 $ 55,226 $ 61,676
7 $ 57,296 $ 64,304
8 $ 59,367 $ 66,932
9 $ 61,437 $ 69,560
10 $ 65,414 $ 74,353 ($81,488 with Master's degree)

The numbers on the right are more up to date because you must be a category 5 teacher. The numbers on the left are for older teachers who do not hold a B.A. They are typically older primary/elementary teachers.

The salaries are not bad - but I suppose the issue is how and what do you compare it to. There is no comparison in the private sector - an accounting clerk you can compare to an accounting clerk. Teacher - well a teacher manages a classroom so would it be prudent to say that a teacher would be the equivalent of manager positions in the private sector. But also has to do a lot of book keeping so not the kind of manager on a shop floor like at a McDonalds but a manager of an office.

I think that would be a somewhat reasonable comparison. So rather than comparing the teacher to the accounting clerk and secretary they must be compared to people who hold 5-8year degrees. The HR manager - the the CFO, the Sales Manager The marketing manager or perhaps in the business world the corporate trainer since they train employees which is kind of like teaching.

So GM - if the girl working for you for 12 years holds a 5+ year degree then I have sympathy for her - but otherwise it's not a fair comparison. Lots of people make less than $30,000. I made $21,492 last year as a sub and I worked a lot. I was living in Port McNeill - there was no Starbucks or anyplace I could get part time work. I ended up living in a room with two teacher roommates - I was paying $300 a month to live in a small room (although we did have the rest of the house to enjoy). I ended up using my line of credit to bail me out after serious car troubles (needed a good car to be a sub as schools are very far apart - driving from mcNeill to Hardy in the snow - the Corolla couldn't handle it - had to put in a new used engine - The point is I was hemorrhaging money and living week to week wondering if I would get called that day or not. Do I work 5 days or only 1. The average was around 2.5 days.

I can tell you I hate not working - I felt like a bum. I have worked since I was 14 and that 2 day BS is frustrating.

I have no wife or kid to support and on that $22k and paying a mere $300 and not buying any stereos or DVDs or going to movies (there are no theaters up there) I saved nothing!. Because of the $22k $4k immediately went to teacher pension. So I really only made $19,500k - less the taxes and CPP I don't know what was left but it's less than minimum wage. Min wage works out to $20,800. And BC raised the min wage in November I believe. With a car to operate and paying $650 a month in student loans for the next 12 years. - well perhaps you can see why I was in trouble.

That teacher pension is a killer - It's great when you retire - no question about it but it sure as hell makes it hard when you're living in the moment because in the moment it's below min-wage.

The VP of one school was kind enough to not leave me hanging and said that based on seniority and cuts that I would have to be doing that for at least 3 years. At 37 that just makes no sense to me - especially the "At least" part. And this is in a pisshole town nobody would want to live in - vacation? yes - fish? yes, see the bears? yes - but live? Not unless you're a redneck. Town of 3000 people.

So when you talk to me I say $43,000 is quite fine - it's double what I made so damn right I'm happy with a teacher salary.

I think dual incomes certainly help - with the tax breaks you get for being married also helps.

I suspect the only way to fix this whole money problem thing is to start by reigning in world corporations - we simply can't have the excessive capitalism that is going on - there needs to be a check and a balance. I'd like to see the Soft salary cap that is in baseball implemented in business. You can make X dollars and after that number you are taxed at a 100% clip so you earn a dollar and you give a dollar. The world doesn't need billionaires.

There is no reason why a teacher makes $60,000 and a doctor makes $600,000 or a an Accountant makes $100,000 and a Lawyer makes $4,000,000 or BC Liberals make $250,000 when they made $120,000 4 years ago.

[RGA]

Interesting Education dispute ignores Generation Squeeze (http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/business/story.html?id=6328576)

[Luvin Da Blues]

Teachers Unions explained

Teachers Unions explained - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxc6kzH-uI&feature=related)

[RGA]

Thanks

I posted that to my facebook. I think it's important for us teachers to get a real dose of reality from the other side of the fence.

Most teachers tend to hang out with other teachers. Most people in University (in BC and not in the business side) tend to be left leaning - History, Arts, English, Education, etc. So there is this academic like minded bubble that we live in and we aren't really cognisant of those living outside the bubble.

The video has some truths and some problems but I looked at the likes and dislikes - at the time I read the video it was 85% likes. Around 350,000 viewers.

I think as educators it is our job to make a better attempt. I am in HK so I am not up on the union advertising to get support for teachers but I have a feeling they make the heartstring appeal - and frankly many taxpayers with no children don't give a rat's behind whether schools operate or not or how much they get (the less the better). So those don't fly - at least not with anyone that matters.

We or the union (which I have to say we because I'm in it whether I want to be or not) need to address it point by point - hell we do it in the classroom when we teach. The province and or society as a whole is the classroom.

Take some issues with the private/public schools. I don't think it takes much to simply do a comparison of how different the schools can be. A teacher acquaintance of mine teaches at a private school. Class size 9. 8 girls. (lucky boy).

The school has no special needs and no behavioural issues - if you do something bad you can get booted out. The other parents would pull their kids - so you lose one source of profit to protect the other 8 sources of profit. I think any rational thinking person can see that if you are put in a class with 9 kids (bright) from wealthy families (you can afford private school), that the teaching job is quite easy.

I taught in such a school in South Korea - private schools all the parents were plastic surgeons, doctors, lawyers. I only had 8 kids. It was easy - I mean I tell you I could leave the class to go take a pee and not worry that the computer screens would be smashed - in public school in Canada, America or England - ha - no chance.

So play teacher for a moment. You walk into your class with 9 grade 7 kids (age 13/14) and they're smart kids with rich parents. You decide to do a unit on Alice in Wonderland or because they're bright you take Romeo and Juliet (normally done in grade 10 in Canada). Girls are generally more on board with language arts - they tend to actually like reading. So you can bring in the movie - you can take the class to a play - money is no object because parents will be glad to fork over the $250 US for the field trip over the Queen Elizabeth theater in Vancouver to watch the performance (that will pay for the bus and ferry) - and they'll pay for the teacher as well. Plays like those from Shakespeare are meant to be seen and performed. The period of time in which they were written - the history - it's fascinating stuff that is fascinating if you have a reasonably bright audience with a little bit of background and worldly knowledge.

The 9 kids probably already have a bunch of that in grades 2 through 6 because parents actually take their kids places and teach them stuff - they're not relying on Two and Half Men, Jerry Springer, or Barney

As a teacher you don't have to spend any time on IEPs or attending meetings on why Johnny stabs people or dealing with ways to help the FAS kid to not take his pants off and show is parts to everyone. Or the thug in the room that makes smarmy comments or just the usual "Shakespeare sucks - why do we need this stuff anyway?" speaking in the slow drawl of a future employee that takes orders from the mouth of a clown. And rather than 9 there are 30. In that group sadly there are still probably 10 who are quite bright - or would have been much further ahead if they had had parents with money that could have put them in private schools - so rather than doing Romeo and Juliet in grade 10 they would have already covered that 3 years prior. Those 9 private school kids in grade 10 would be writing essays as to whether Shakespeare was a misogynist or why Romeo and Juliet is arguably one of his worst plays, or the ramifications of how art shapes his society or ours. In other words the stuff that truly challenges kids - and indeed makes teaching fun so that we may challenged by students who are way smarter than us.

The video doesn't take any of that into consideration - no just look at the test scores and it's clear who the better teacher is. Seriously - no one can possibly think that way.

Which leads me to problem 2 - evaluation of a teacher. Well the problem with unions is they tend to protect bad teachers. That is the theory but teaching unions are not the same as assembly line unions. You can clearly tell that employee 1 builds 20 widgets in an hour while employee 2 builds 50. Employee 1 is slow and hurts widget production.

Teaching is in part a performance art. Some teachers may be loved by students, the community, staff, and principals but may in fact be mediocre teachers. Another teacher may in fact generate higher test scores in the short term but have much less in the way of social building (which is part of schooling) and is unseen in a test. It's not really that one is better than the other but one has strengths that may be harder to see. There's the hyper flamboyant types, the serious tough love types, the stern ones, the funny ones, the ones you hated at the time but later respected, the hippie ones who bring guitars to class and use tons of music and movement and the ones who go more by the book who cover more of the examinable content but tend to put the students to sleep. Some will let you go if you wear a cap in class to the ones who will nail you for it.

So what can we truly evaluate - well you can evaluate mainly the following:

1) the lesson plan (year plans are given to principals at the beginning of the year for approval).

1a) the delivery of said lesson plan

1b) the teacher's ability to reflect on how the lesson went - the pros/cons and things needed to be modified.

2) classroom management

So let's stop here. All of the above are done rigorously in teacher education training programs in Canada. I can't speak for the boomers but I had a practicum in Grade 2, 4, 7 and (10-11-12) In each of the 4 practicums there was a different evaluator - the evaluators were retired teachers now working for the universities. My evaluators consisted of an ex-superintendent, principal, 30 year retired teacher who has been published on classroom management, and a 30 year drama teacher.

Oh but wait it doesn't stop at those four. Each practicum has the teacher you are practicing under. I actually had 5 teachers because I had two different teachers in the high school. We're up to 9 evaluators. Each school has a principal and each principal makes it a point to watch you teach (or the VP). That's 4 more. Now at 13! If any one of those people has an issue with you as a teacher you will be called in front of the board to make your case. Regardless of how that goes you can then expect to have a panel of superintendents standing in the back of the room watching you teach. (It happened to a colleague who is a teacher but has dyslexia which makes her teaching somewhat unique and obviously concerned a teacher who reported it to the college and the university).

How long are the practicums- well throughout the school year. Usually one day per week - A Friday (worst day for learning) was what I got stuck with. Then you get a 2 week 50% teaching load around Christmas and then 80% teaching load for 3-4 weeks April. Every lesson plan you write for every subject is detailed - these are 4-5 pages per 40 minute lesson. You will state exactly what you will be doing/saying and what all the students should be doing and saying and what they should be learning - and how it relates back to the government IRP. You will state every material you use and all references and copyrights and you will write alternate plans for what the behavior kid should be doing and those who are weak in a subject what alternate assignment you will give them as well as any gifted students. The amount of work is truly shocking and then of course you have the report you have to write about how the lesson went and what sucked.

After 3 years of those comes your final practicum which is 6-7 weeks 100% teaching. I had a nice class - some of them cried when I left. Still, the boy in the front who mimics cartoons, the Jehovah Witnesses (which is like a special need), and the boy with his very often Tonic–clonic seizures (formerly known as grand mal seizures) - yes we need to know that stuff too.

And they heavily evaluate classroom management - arguably the single toughest part of the job (which is a non factor for private schools).

In China with 60 kids in 3 classes of 20 each I taught the entire year with 2 classroom management issues. One boy was laughing too loud - talked to him for 2 minutes in the hall - big deal. And the other - 2 boys copied the homework of the best student - who photocopied his pages and handed them in. I had to laugh - I mean they're so innocent in China that even when they copy they don't have any idea of how to do it properly.

Bottom line is that teachers have already been evaluated by experts, 13 or so in my case, and deemed to be good teachers. That doesn't mean they'll all be "GREAT" teachers but none of them showed they were bad teachers.

So you may think the evaluations are lightweight. I dunno - we had 68 people start in my program year. Minimum requirement to get in was an A- average in all BA or B.Sc subjects. 12 of the 68 were booted out in the first practicum. The second year about the same number again were kicked out or strongly advised to leave (ie; you passed marginally but you'll likely get booted next year).

No individual education assignment over the 3.5 years could have a mark under C+. Any assignment under a C+ you would be bounced from the education program. And I gotta tell you - I never had trouble with English, Psychology, Math, Philosophy, History - if you can write well and you can read you will pass the arts. Math is logic based and while not my strongest strong enough to get B to an A-. But you try getting high marks in some of the airy ferry touchy feelgood papers in education (they make you do it almost to illustrate how not to do it).

Ultimately, before we start with the whips and chains of evaluating teachers let's start with the fact that they've all already been evaluated by a dozen professionals in the field already. We know the pedagogy and we know what we have to do. Now being able to do it - having the time or resources to do it - well that's the heart of the issue.

I know WHAT will make a kid better - and I know how to teach to each kid's strength to make them better. I even know how to make a kid who is weak in a learning style strengthen herself in the area. And I think that is the frustration for teachers - they have all the knowledge on what works and get irritated when they are not given the tools to be able to put into practice - so they end up choosing a less effective alternate because it stops Johnny from peeing on the girl beside him - or the kids who find Mr. Jones' sarcastic humour funny and pay attention sends the autistic boy into a rage because he takes everything literally - so now he refrains from said humor and the rest of the class gets more of a snooze fest lesson - all because of one special needs student the whole class loses.

The bad teachers? That's a difficult one to spot.

[RGA]

Those greedy teachers - it's all about the money

Sara Ferguson, Pennsylvania Teacher Working For Free, Gets Surprise On Ellen Degeneres Show (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/sara-ferguson-pennsylvani_n_1250603.html)

[RGA]

I get people who dislike unions but I'm not exactly sure why no one questions the government at all on this matter. I mean they broke the law the first time around and the courts sided with the teachers a year ago.

Now the government claims to have a mediator - but really? Here's the thing for the anti-union pro-dictorship people on the board. If the government truly had a case - I mean they truly believe they're in the right and they're HONEST about being financially broke - then their argument could stand up to independent mediation CORRECT? It is only if they're lying crooked cheats where they could possibly lose CORRECT?

Here is the Liberal chosen mediator

Citing bias and flawed process, BCTF requests mediator to withdraw, asks LRB to intervene

The BC Teachers’ Federation this morning has made application to the Labour Relations Board seeking to have the appointment of Dr. Charles Jago as mediator in the current labour dispute quashed.

On April 2, BCTF President Susan Lambert wrote to Dr. Jago respectfully requesting that he step down as mediator, citing numerous factors that create an apprehension of bias. One day later, Dr. Jago wrote back, saying he declined to withdraw.

Despite Dr. Jago’s assurances of his impartiality, the BCTF remains unsatisfied that he could reasonably be viewed as impartial. Therefore the BCTF has gone to the LRB. “This government has legislated a biased process and appointed a mediator who not only lacks experience, but evidently lacks impartiality as well,” Lambert said.

The BCTF is concerned about a 2006 report on public education in BC done by Dr. Jago on commission to former Premier Gordon Campbell’s Progress Board. The report’s findings clearly foreshadow positions taken by the BC Public School Employers’ Association at the bargaining table and also reflect policy directions laid out in Bill 22. “Obviously there is a strong linkage between Dr. Jago’s thinking, and the bargaining and policy objectives of this government,” Lambert said.

The BCTF is also deeply troubled by the fact that, according to Dr. Jago, Deputy Education Minister James Gorman first approached him about taking on the mediation role in early February, at which time Dr. Jago tentatively accepted. This agreement was reached long before Education Minister George Abbott asked the BCTF for suggestions as to who teachers thought might successfully mediate the dispute. The BCTF suggested Justice Stephen Kelleher or Justice Ian Donald, both senior judges with extensive experience in labour relations and mediation.

Also in early February, and equally disturbing, Dr. Jago told BCTF representatives that he was given the opportunity to review and “to wordsmith” a draft of Bill 22 before it was tabled in the Legislature. He agreed, even though this was the very legislation he would later be expected to interpret impartially as a mediator. Abbott publicly announced Dr. Jago’s appointment on March 28. The BCTF learned about the appointment from media reports, not from the minister himself.

“Clearly there is a reasonable apprehension of bias here,” Lambert said. “What faith can teachers put in this mock mediation process, which is already so fundamentally skewed against us?”

To read the full text of Lambert’s letter to Dr. Jago and his reply, see: http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/BargainingContracts/2012-04-02-BCTF-JagoLtr.pdf

PS: Dr. Jago gets paid $2000 per day that come out of taxes too.

[RGA]

Review of the BC Liberals’ 10 years in office reveals an appalling K–12 record

By Noel Herron (School Principal - remember Principals are NOT part of the Union).

Reviewing the Liberals previous three official education election platforms (2001, 2005, 2009) and based on the provincial government’s performance, especially its failure to deliver on past promises, it is very clear that the gap between rhetoric and reality has widened dramatically since 2001.

It is an appalling, decade-long record, (detailed below), of multiple cutbacks, repeated missteps, policy reversals, and instances where the province often opted for ideology over clear public education needs. This record could form an albatross for the Liberals heading into 2013.

These varied, often snap, piece-meal, discriminatory, and regressive policy decisions, impacted negatively on every single aspect of public schooling since 2001. They are the touchstones on which Liberals, now seeking a fourth consecutive term in office, will be judged. A review of these policies and practices yields, sadly, not just disappointing, but appalling results.

1. Relations with BC public school teachers

Arguably, the worst in living memory. Madam Justice Griffin, commenting on the ramming through of Bills 27 and 28, by the then-Minister of Education Christy Clark, on class size and composition, said it all in her ruling: “The legislation undoubtedly was seen by teachers as evidence that the government did not respect them or consider them to be valued contributors to the education system, having excluded them from any freedom to influence their working conditions. This was a seriously deleterious effect of the legislation, one adversely disproportionate to any salutary effect revealed by the evidence.”

2. Loss of 1,500 specialized teachers (2001–2011)

The loss of upwards of 1,500 learning specialist teachers since 2001 as follows: teacher librarians (277); school counsellors (106); special education teachers (737) ; ESL teachers (328); Aboriginal education (10), has seriously eroded and fragmented the province’s infrastructure of special needs programs and services. The cumulative, deleterious effects of these significant losses spilled over into regular classrooms in every school district in BC.

3. The misleading, “greatest ever,” per-student funding claim

Perhaps, more than any other item, this blatantly misleading claim, made ad nauseam by five successive BC Liberal education ministers, has undermined the credibility of the current provincial government. To continue with this claim, (found in the 2009 Liberal platform), in the face of ongoing layoffs of teaching and non-teaching staff, leading to program evisceration and diminished services in virtually every school district, mocks the numerous shortfalls in K–12 schooling. A recent comparative review, based on a Stats Canada analysis, indicates that BC ranks among the lowest in Canada in terms of increases to education funding over the past decade.

4. Pre-election advertising gag law

The October 2011 ruling by the BC Court of Appeal upholding an earlier lower court ruling overturning limits placed by the BC Liberals on third-party pre-campaign election advertising marked yet another blow, in a string of legal defeats for the Liberals. Limiting third-party advertising by representative groups in education, health, and the social services sectors, in the 60 days before a 28-day election campaign was ruled “unconstitutional” because it limited freedom of expression.

5. BC leads the country in child poverty

For the eighth year in a row, BC has led the country in child poverty. The year-end outcry, not just from Lower Mainland inner-city schools, but schools such as these across the province has forced the Liberals to promise, belatedly, to introduce “regional“ poverty strategies in the upcoming session—whatever that means. The fact that 20%, or 1 in 5 kids, arrive in school, ill-clothed and ill-fed has altered the role of an increasing number of schools from places of learning to what one reporter called “an arm of the social welfare system…with teachers scrounging for donations from service clubs and private donors.”

6. Community schools downgraded

One of the first casualties of cutbacks by the Liberals in 2001, the long-established and highly-regarded network of community schools serving children, parents, and seniors across the province, saw the disappearance of community school co-ordinators. Other cuts followed. Community schools were supposedly replaced in 2009, with much hoopla, by the new, Campbell/Bond network of elegantly named “Neighbourhoods of Learning” schools. This phony Liberal initiative turned out to be a complete illusion with nothing more than the addition of one bare-bones classroom to, mostly, new schools.

7. Closure of upwards of 90 schools

While declining enrolment inevitably has led to many school closures all across Canada, the record number in BC, (incidentally, the Ministry of Education does not keep a tally), points to the repeated refusal of Victoria to call a moratorium on school closures while examining the overall impact on the social, economic, and geographical aspects on both urban and rural communities. Belatedly, we learned that 75 of these schools, as valuable public properties, were put on the block before a halt or restrictions were introduced to end this practice

8. Playgrounds rot as local fundraising soars to record levels

The on-again, off-again, provincial funding of school playgrounds provides yet another example of Liberal inconsistencies. In its latest incarnation, George Abbott promised to return $2.4 million to parent advisory councils (PACs) that purchased playground equipment for public schools between January and September of last year. Previously, Christy Clark, reversing herself once more, knowing that many playgrounds were falling into disrepair, announced a commitment of $8 million over two years for school playground renewal, as stories of decaying equipment increased. But the real story behind shortfalls in playground funding lies in the huge proliferation, over the past decade, of fundraising by local parents. Funds were raised to support not just playgrounds, but school materials, supplies and resources. One source puts the total amount of funding raised by many of the 800 plus elementary schools across the province in excess of $65 million since 2001.

9. Cancellation of 2009 Facilities Grant to school boards

The abrupt cancellation in 2009 of the $100 million provincial facilities grant to school boards speaks once more to the destabilizing impact of provincial yo-yo funding. This unilateral move put increased pressure on boards and drew a sharp rebuke, (finally), from BCSTA and even sharper and unprecedented rebuke from the provincial, professional association that represented secretary-treasurers (BCASBO). Repairs and maintenance that boards had planned for in their annual budgets had to be dropped and funds for urgent upkeep items had to be squeezed from other tight budgets.

This provincial grant was not fully reinstated until two years after it was withdrawn.

10. BCeSIS

This is the acronym given the province-wide and ill-conceived computer information system, imposed on school boards in 2003. Expensive and problem-plagued it crashed in 2010 causing endless grief to school secretaries, teachers, and principals both prior and subsequent to that date. The overall cost of this technological disaster, which runs into the millions of dollars, has yet to be determined and the final tally will have to be obtained, no doubt, through Freedom of Information.

11. Professional development withers, if not dies

This crucial aspect of teaching has taken a major hit over the past decade with a marked decline, if not disappearance, of teacher-consultant positions at the board level and the sharp decline in workshops, in-service programs, and education forums dealing with new programs, teaching methodologies and adapted strategies in all subject areas. Ongoing professional development is the key driver of quality education in any system. It promotes a climate of quiet renewal that has positive long-range impacts.

12. Early childhood programs and services delayed, denied, and defunded

Normally, a provincial government would get credit for introducing province-wide , all-day Kindergarten classes, as the BC Liberals have done this year; however, after a decade of foot- dragging (the Vancouver School Board has had all-day Kindergarten classes for over 20 years that were not recognized by the ministry), and last year’s partial introduction—funding only half the schools— caused grief to both parents and boards with side-by-side schools, some with all-day programs and others without—thus, understandably, praise for this initiative was muted. Indeed, for almost the entire decade there has been limited, utterly arbitrary and discriminatory, entrance admissions (some ESL, special needs, and Aboriginal students) to all-day Kindergarten obtained. The past decade has witnessed a weak and highly political response to the needs of pre five-year-olds in BC. In short, BC still lacks a meaningful, comprehensive, and coherent early childhood programs that meet the changing, contemporary needs of its young families with pre-school kids.

13. The misuse and abuse of provincial FSA testing

Despite the growing controversy surrounding the validity and reliability of FSA tests in Grades 4, and 7 and their blatant misuse by the Fraser Institute in producing an annual province-wide ranking system of elementary schools, the BC Liberals continue to advocate for their continued use. In an internal memo to former education minister, Shirley Bond, (obtained in 2007 by the Globe and Mail through Freedom of Information), ministry staff cautioned against the misuse of these tests. And over the past decade about 20 per cent of parents, in response to a BCTF campaign, did not allow their children to participate. For the first time in 2011, the BC Principals and Vice Principals’ Association expressed concern and called for the withdrawal of FSA testing. With only one Liberal leadership candidate calling for the abolition of FSA testing, political issues trump education concerns for the BC Liberals.

14. Destabilization of school boards

The on-again, off-again, funding approach of the Ministry of Education, (see items 3, 9 and 10), the refusal to pay for teacher salary increments negotiated by the province, the lack of inflation adjustments, coupled with the more recent imposition of a provincial carbon tax, destabilized financial planning by school boards over the past decade and created an environment of uncertainty and confusion in almost every district. Despite promises of stable, long-term, funding promises that were never realized, repeated downloading, often surreptitious, of costs, both direct and indirect, on to boards left them in a state of suspended animation. The hoary political standby of blaming local boards for service shortfalls was cynically and repeatedly used to justify cutbacks and, even today, continues unabated.

15. BC’s new, over-the-top, Education Plan

The recent release of the BC “futuristic” Education Plan marks the apex of spin doctoring by this province’s Ministry of Education. Accorded “visionary” accolades by a few, obligatory conservative commentators, this plan has been pointedly panned in many quarters, particularly by teachers, who felt slighted, by the not too subtle implication, that they had ignored technology and progressive teaching strategies. Given the background of ongoing cuts, with school boards currently chopping programs and services—some for the eleventh year in a row—it is more than a stretch to push for “personalized learning” with a strong emphasis on technology, as if this were a brand new phenomenon in our schools. One classroom teacher neatly dismissed this new-found preoccupation by the ministry in part of a letter to the editor with this comment: “Our schools, curricula, and teacher conferences are chock full of practice, research, and training in differentiated instruction, multiple intelligences, levelled reading groups, and project-based learning—all ways to adapt instruction for the varied abilities and interests of students.” It should be noted that the re-conceptualization of public schooling can often lead to innovative and positive reforms, but unless anchored in reality and tempered with pragmatism, it frequently ends up as a theoretical exercise.

Finally, quality, K to 12 public education in BC is, and will remain, the bedrock of this province, despite the fact that the BC Liberals, at every turn, over the past decade, have systematically undermined it. Fortunately, voters will get the opportunity to pass judgment in May 2013 on this performance. And this time, hopefully, won’t be fooled by past claims found in three successive Liberal platforms, especially of the self-congratulatory, “Great Goals” variety.

Over-the-top platforms, with unfunded pie-in-the-sky programs and promises, simply won’t cut it anymore.

Noel Herron, former school principal and school trustee.

[Feanor]

You're deluded if you think I'm going to read all this stuff, informative though it might be.

But I get and agree: current education policies are deficient and will harm, (are harming), the country. Investment in education is our main hope for the future. Up against enlightened policy is the head-in-the-sand, mean-spirited, begrudging attitude of mostly middle-aged tax payers who feel that all public institutions are inefficient and ineffectual, more or less be definition.

[RGA]

I think the issue is that the people who vote for the bad governments then blame the people on the ground running the governments if that makes any sense.

A recent article noted that right wing thinking is the same as people who have had one too many at the pub. It's lazy thinking or to be blunt - dumb thinking.

It's a simple phrase to say small government is better - it implies a streamlined cost effective efficient machine. And it would be so nice if that could actually work. But it doesn't - government is big bloated and it almost has to be in order to work for the common good.

First, it has to set the standard for private sector. So for accounting purposes it needs to be checked, re-checked, cross checked, counter checked, checked by independent bodies, and checked again if you want to limit all possible corruption. The more checks the better. But it costs money - it requires people, lot's of people. Everything from HR to the mail room clerk. The more there is the more paper there is the more people required to check the endless paper. It's going to run at a loss.

The alternative is gut all the checks and you can see the U.S. and Blackwater. U.S. military under Bush grossly underfunded while rich corporate fat cats have a para military (basically America's version of the S.S.) running ops all over the world (including the U.S which runs counter to their own Constitution. Less checks opens the doors to the very recession the world is in - thank you Bush regime pulling the checks away and the global recession we're in. But yeah it's Obama's fault because he can't fix the planet in 4 years.

The BC Liberals are basically Bush regime light. Maybe less competent but just as stupid. They're the very reason there is no money for anything (except their cronies and Olympic executives).

Anyway - I get e-mails from the BCTF telling me what they're going to try and do to combat Bill 22.

The long and the short of it is pulling extra-curricular activities.

I sort of understand that that's really the only thing that they can do since it is volunteer work - until the government decides that the teaching day should be 7am until 9pm (with no unions after all this can be made the case. The anit-union folks might finally complain if their boss walks in and says by the way you need to work 6am until 12am Monday to Sunday with no vacations and if you are sick you'll be fired or fired cause your shoe is untied. The half wit retards out there don't understand that not that long ago 6 year olds were working to clean out chimneys and often dieing in them UNTIL unions came about - and we WILL go right back to that without them.

Hey the BC Liberals were the clueless rejects that cam up with that first job law that you got paid at a much lower salary (lower than minimum wage) because it was "your first job" and so employers get partial slave labour for the first 500 hours or whatever it was. Yeah like McDonalds and Wal-Mart need more profit.







And the long of it

That the BCTF Bill 22 Action Plan be as follows:

That for the period April–June 2012 members will engage in a resistance strategy to oppose Bill 22, and:

a. teach.

b. not participate in any BC Ministry of Education initiatives.

c. continue with the activities of not participating in meetings with, or accepting written communications from AOs.

d. refrain from all extra-curricular/voluntary activities.

e. agree to write a single year-end report card for each student this year.

f. launch a public campaign (including advertising, public meetings, and print materials) to educate about the impact of Bill 22, and mobilize opposition to it around the province.

g. hold a province-wide vote of members to support a full withdrawal of services commencing on a date as determined by the Executive Committee.

h. undertake other actions decided by the membership in each local, such as holding weekly union meetings or not participating in district committees.

[tom1967]

I cant speak to Canadian conditions. Here in the States we are told that you have a wonderful utopian Euro-Socialist society up there where "each works to his ability and consumes only to his needs".....seriously, I have worked in both the private and the public sector and can assure you that on their worst day, private companies function better than govt performing analogus functions.Our big govt advocates tell us they can run the medical system better because there are no stockholders to reward or fat cat execs receiving huge bonuses. What they dont tell you is numerous time studies have been done on similar jobs in both sectors. The public sector requires almost twice the employees to do the same jobs poorly.And now in the US, public sector salaries exceed those in the private sector and include full pension of 70% of highest wage after 25 years of service. More disturbing is the fact that promotion in the public sector is essentially a matter of seniority and few incompetents are ever fired. In the private sector you get a 401k to a large extent promotion is due to merit.
I am sympathetic to the need to improve the lot of educators and students and willing to pay, but I want to see the results. In the US, we used to identify a problem like education where 80% were doing fine and 20% were not making the grade. The emphasis was to drag the 20% up to the level of of the 80%. Unfortunately, over the past 40 years the emphasis has been placed on dragging the 80% down to the level of the 20%, spending billions on busing, bloated administration and a Federal Education Dept that has spent a trillion making things worse. Senator Daniel Patrick Monyhan, the consumate liberal and for years, chairman of the Senate education committee, in a moment of exasperation once said "Academic sucess seems most closely related to the school's proximity to the Canadian border". I am by no means a literal Darwinist, but we are not going to improve things using a large public sector that produces no wealth itself as the engine

[Feanor]

I cant speak to Canadian conditions. Here in the States we are told that you have a wonderful utopian Euro-Socialist society up there where "each works to his ability and consumes only to his needs".....seriously, I have worked in both the private and the public sector and can assure you that on their worst day, private companies function better than govt performing analogus functions.Our big govt advocates tell us they can run the medical system better because there are no stockholders to reward or fat cat execs receiving huge bonuses. What they dont tell you is numerous time studies have been done on similar jobs in both sectors. The public sector requires almost twice the employees to do the same jobs poorly.And now in the US, public sector salaries exceed those in the private sector and include full pension of 70% of highest wage after 25 years of service. More disturbing is the fact that promotion in the public sector is essentially a matter of seniority and few incompetents are ever fired. In the private sector you get a 401k to a large extent promotion is due to merit.
...
Glad you had the opportunity to blow off some steam, Tom. I agree with you on a few points and disagree on others.

I can't speak to US conditions :blush2: (This phrase is somehow familiar, yet, different.) But I've certainly observed plenty of inefficiency and waste in private companies. Thing is, private companies aren't accountable to legislatures so you tend not to hear about it.

I lived in the province of Saskatchewan for a dozen years. There electricity, natural gas, water, telephone & mobile, and automobile insurance were provided by province-owned companies. They provided the very best service and very competitive, ( non-subsidized), prices. I'm not saying that government ownership is necessary, but want I am saying is that it isn't necessarily bad either.

The reason universal health care schemes can provide better results for lower cost is because they provide the services people need, rather than just those that make a profit. I leave it to you to figure our whose fault that is if it isn't t he shareholders & executives, but then we shouldn't blame them as human beings because the business of private companies is to maximized profits.


...
I am sympathetic to the need to improve the lot of educators and students and willing to pay, but I want to see the results. In the US, we used to identify a problem like education where 80% were doing fine and 20% were not making the grade. The emphasis was to drag the 20% up to the level of of the 80%. Unfortunately, over the past 40 years the emphasis has been placed on dragging the 80% down to the level of the 20%, spending billions on busing, bloated administration and a Federal Education Dept that has spent a trillion making things worse. Senator Daniel Patrick Monyhan, the consumate liberal and for years, chairman of the Senate education committee, in a moment of exasperation once said "Academic sucess seems most closely related to the school's proximity to the Canadian border". I am by no means a literal Darwinist, but we are not going to improve things using a large public sector that produces no wealth itself as the engine
The Canadian school system has a lot of the same problems as the US system in general. What are you suggesting? That we go to a for-profit education system? This will produce the same sort of results as the for-profit health system -- great for the rich; bad for the poor -- and the country as a whole.

[tom1967]

Yeah, Feanor I understand your comments. I'm a private sector advocate and was frankly dismayed with the performance of the health system and yearly cost increases 3x the price index. I was beginning to think this was one area the private sector just could not perform. That was until I dug into the facts:

1. Last year approx 55% of all dollars spent on health were spend by govt programs. Seems impossible at first blush, but remember almost all old folks on medicare and statistically 80% of health expense occurs during last 2 years of life and that group is now 20% of the population and growing. The fact is that we have had govt medical since 1964 and now they in fact drive the cost structure.

2. Medicare began in 1964 and covered their incompetence and deficits thereafter through subsidies by the private sector, (ie if a CT scan cost $500, private insurance companies paid $700 and medicare paid $300). The govt involvement has muddied the water to the point where we no longer know what things should cost. We have a similar situation with Homeowners insurance here in Florida. Prices soared after the hurricanes of 04 and 05 and private carriers were cutting policies (risk). In response, the state formed their own Insurance company of last resort, Citizens. The Florida insurance Czar called State Farm's proposed 20% increase last year as criminal activity. However, Citizens charges 20% more with less coverage for their policy. .....and anyone with a private policy, like State Farm, pays a surcharge on their policy to cover Citizen's yearly deficit. Again, with the govt involved, you dont know what you are really paying.

3. We do have a vibrant private sector medical system which includes highly skilled, highly paid board certified surgeons.Im speaking of elective surgury like Lasik for vision correction and cosmetic plastic surgury. Some proceedures like Lasik down from $5,000/eye to $250..Amazing what competition can do.The plastic surgeons live in mansions here in Florida, but manage to provide more service for less money.....we need to study how these folks are doing it.
4. The point is that under the present circumstances we really have no way of knowing what a truly private system could do. I would certainly be open to exploring it...

Education---Yes I would favor private schools insofar as the people were willing to pay for them. Obviously you will still need the public system and it will only be as good as the population from which it draws. We have a dropout rate approaching 50% in many urban areas and obviously you are not going to make much progress until or unless those to be served value education.

[Mash]

NO, Tom1967... YOU need to understand that medical services in the US are provided by PRIVATE medical businesses. They set whatever prices they deem appropriate. And they deem generously.

My daughter is a doctor and I get good information from her. She also teaches college courses.

It IS true that Medicare gets the biggest discounts for medical services, by law, but Blue Cross / Blue Shield gets the second-best discounts for medical services.

Usually United Health Care gets 1/2 the discount that BC/BS gets. But not always....

If you do not have insurance you pay the full price.

Lets look at a nice example from my wife's care (I got the bill paperwork and also we have full corporate medical/drug bennies) so here we go:

Treatment for low Red Blood Count, starting with prices paid by uninsured

If your RBC is below 10

One Procrit injection $2400
Fee for Nurse $65
Labratory $180
Doctor $165

Total $2810

Lets just look at the Procrit shot:
One Procrit injection list price................... $2400
What did BC/BS pay for one procrit shot? $460 [before my wife was 65]
What did Medicare pay for one procrit shot? $380 [after my wife was 65]

The old protocol was IF your RBC was below 10, you got several procrit shots (usually 3) to get your RBC above 14. The insurance companies copied Medicare.

BUT!

Medicare discovered that the mult-Procrit shot protocol was KILLING seniors, so Medicare changed the protocol....

TO

If your RBC is below 10 you get one Procrit shot and if your RBC is then above 10 you get no more shots until your RBC is again below 10. The insurance companies copied Medicare.

Medicare is the best damn deal for Seniors. Obama wants to eliminate "pre-existing Medical Conditions" for private (non-group) medical insurance policies.

"Pre-existing Medical Conditions" were ELIMINATED for group medical insurance policies YEARS ago.

But today insurance companies combine "the Book of Business" with "pre-existing Medical Conditions" to systematically deny individual insurance to anyone who has pre-existing medical conditions. See Consumer Reports, Jan 2009. And sooner or later WE ALL develop "pre-existing Medical Conditions".

Why do you think Seniors face "open enrolment" for their Medicare Suppliment Policies (those thingys that pay for the 20% not covered by Medicare) every December wherein they can buy NEW Medicare Suppliment Policies IF and only IF they have not yet developed any "pre-existing Medical Conditions"? This stirs the existing books of business by inducing those people with perfect health to switch to a new lower-priced policy leaving those who cannot buy a new policy behind, and the resulting death spiral of the shrinking books of business will price those left-behind Seniors out of their insurance.

The insurance companies say that premiums go up based on claims experience, but they do NOT tell you that YOUR premiums go up based upon the claims experience of the shrinking book of business your policy is in.

So you want Medicare privatized, Tom1967? You like the voucher idea? Problem is, if you cannot pay the balance, or if you cannot even GET insurance because of "pre-existing Medical Conditions", that voucher is worthless. So the Repubs would give you a benefit you cannot use. That will save a lot of money, won't it?

Maybe you like Romneycare a'la MA, Tom1967? Romneycare has RETAINED that wonderful "pre-existing Medical Conditions". Then when you loose your MA insurance (book of business scam), you cannot buy a new policy, so you pay a tax penalty to MA. Gee... a tax that will fall on the self-employed, unimployed and underemployed... Sound pretty fair to you, Tom1967?

And lets not forget that wonderful Medicare Part-D drug benefit produced by the Repubs, Tom. The Repubs offered 6 or 7 different plans with different premiums, deductables, etc., etc. The Seniors got into a terrible tizzy trying to decide WHICH plan each should pick.....

We were not candidates for one of these plans but we got a lot of information about them. So.....

Being I am a curious person...

I assembled my wife's 2006 drug bills which totaled $11,000 and I entered these into the CHEAPEST and the FANCIEST Medicare Part-D plans using EXCEL to see how those two plans compared.

Let us see:

CHEAPEST Medicare Part-D plan paid.... 35%
FANCIEST Medicare Part-D plan paid......35%

Now HERE is an example of honest and ethical Government in action, isn't it?


Before you pour anymore unquestioned Repub nonsense into your head, vet each and every "FACT" you find on Factcheck.org This neutral site can help you avoid looking foolish, and as well it may deter you from pushing for changes that one day you will deeply regret.

[Feanor]

Yeah, Feanor I understand your comments. I'm a private sector advocate and was frankly dismayed with the performance of the health system and yearly cost increases 3x the price index. I was beginning to think this was one area the private sector just could not perform. That was until I dug into the facts:...
Well good work, Tom. You'l dug around and discovered that the private health care lobby can come up with endless statistics to "prove" that public or universal, single-payer health care is inefficient.

The fact remains that the US, with its mainly private, for-profit system, has highest health care costs per capital in the world, and not just in absolute dollars but in percentage of national income. What the US does not have is the best overall health care results in the world. BTW, the British system has a better outcomes and about the lowest cost of any developed nation -- sadly for those who would argue the efficiency of private enterprise, it is also the most socialized.


...
Education---Yes I would favor private schools insofar as the people were willing to pay for them. Obviously you will still need the public system and it will only be as good as the population from which it draws. We have a dropout rate approaching 50% in many urban areas and obviously you are not going to make much progress until or unless those to be served value education.
The bullsh!t part of this statement is the blame-the-victim clause: "...it will only be as good as the population from which it draws". Improve the system and you'll see lower drop-out rates and better results overall.

[RGA]

This is an American citizen and Canadian Resident with health care who frequents both systems:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-

[Mash]

Ahhhh....... Real honest, concrete facts have an odd capability for revealing Repub positions and proposals for the selfish nonsense they really are....

Don't they, Tom1967?

Tom1967? Are you here?

Tom1967? Are you there?

Awww Gee... I was looking forward to Tom1967 reconciling his positions to the facts (yes, people, FACTS) about medical care and medical insurance here in the good ole USA that I have provided.

There is a simple (additional) truth that people are ignorant about:

Insurance companies are NOT in the business of paying claims.

Insurance companies ARE in the business of COLLECTING PREMIUMS.

Have you ever been in the home office of a major insurance company? I have. Two words: REALLY NICE.
MUCH nicer than the officies of the major industrial companies I have been in.

............. .................. ..............

Your link is Kaput, RGA...................

[RGA]

That was odd - I'll try again

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i)

[Feanor]

That was odd - I'll try again

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i)
This is good info and I endorse it as a Canadian. Americans are assailed by the US for-profit industry by a huge amount of distortions and outright lies about the Canadian system.

A fact only mentioned in passing in the article is that health care is actually a provincial responsibility and plans differ by province. E.g. here in Ontario drugs for seniors are paid by the plan (except dispensing fees which, however, a regulated for amount). The Federal government does set standards for provincial plans, enforce by subsidies the former pays to the latter. The current Conservative Party-run federal government plans to reduce standards for the provinces, unfortunately. (The sooner we get those b@stards out of office the better. And isnt just health care by a long shot).

In terms of cost, the bottom line for Canadian health care is that it works better and costs less than the American system. Yes, it is funded through taxes, and there is a species of individual who HATES paying taxes regardless of the benefit to themselves or the nation. It is not a uniquely American problem that a substantial portion of people are infuriated by the notion that any portion of their taxes might go to helping other people, regardless of the greater social benefit from which they themselves doubtless benefit. Sadly this attitude does seems a bigger problem in the USA than anywhere else I know of.:frown5:)

[Mash]

My personal strategy here in the USA was to work at a very large, i.e. huge dynamic company that provides comprehensive group medical & drug benefits that I could then carry through retirement. The "very large, i.e. huge" stipulation is intended to minimize the probability that "my" company will be bought and its assets raided.

Although the law stipulates that group plans cannot invoke "pre-existing medical conditions", that law does NOT require an insurance company to actually renew the group insurance policy, i.e. if the insurance company does not want a certain person with expensive problems in the group they simply refuse to renew the plan policy. You can figure out what would happen next. Huge companies have huge groups in their group plans which essentially precludes this problem because an individual will not "stand out".

State workers here usually have benefits as good as ours, but those benefits usually end when the worker retires. And one is more likely to need those benefits in retirement than when they were working. One state retiree here selected BC/BS as his Medicare suppliment polcy because he had BC/BS while working and was pleased with it, but I think he failed at appreciate that the "rules" changed dramatically when he shifted from a group plan to an individual plan. His first year's premium was $100/mo, the second year $150/mo, third year $250/mo and 4th year, $420/mo. You can see where this is headed. Open enrolment every December helps this along nicely.

[Feanor]

My personal strategy here in the USA was to work at a very large, i.e. huge dynamic company that provides comprehensive group medical & drug benefits that I could then carry through retirement. The "very large, i.e. huge" stipulation is intended to minimize the probability that "my" company will be bought and its assets raided.

Although the law stipulates that group plans cannot invoke "pre-existing medical conditions", that law does NOT require an insurance company to actually renew the group insurance policy, i.e. if the insurance company does not want a certain person with expensive problems in the group they simply refuse to renew the plan policy. You can figure out what would happen next. Huge companies have huge groups in their group plans which essentially precludes this problem because an individual will not "stand out".
. ...
A "free", for-profit market insurance will inevitably result in highly restrictive underwriting, (a.k.a. "cherry picking") with (1) good benefits and/or low premiums for the young & healthy and (2) very high premiums and/or no coverage for the old or unhealthy. No other result is possible in a "free" market.

With this inevitable result, what's to be done so the old & poor don't simply die? (Some people are fine with them dying, of course.) There are multiple options.

One option is to require insurance companies to accept all comers and to provide them with minimum set of benefits. This inevitably drives up premiums unless everybody is required to have insurance, ("mandate"), whether paid by themselves or by government subsidy. Some countries have the "mandate" system, and it works OK though it isn't cheapest system. Also there is constant political pressure to reduce minimum coverage and/or to reduce premium subsidies.

A second option is universal, single-payer, i.e. basically government insurance. (Medical practice is not "socialized".) This is insurance with funded by some combination of premiums (with subsidies to the very poor) and general tax revenues. This is the Canadian system for example. It works well, although there are the usual pressures to reduce services so taxes or subsidies can be lower.

A third option is actual "socialized" medicine in which case government provides all basic health service. Typically most doctors will be government employees, most hospitals are state institutions, etc. An example is Britain which, BTW, is a quite effective system that is, at the same time, very low in overall cost

In combination with any of the three above options is "two-tier" medicine where a person can opt for more and/or better coverage for extra cost to themselves. Either there are procedures that the basic plan doesn't provide at all and/or there are deluxe versions of procedures at extra cost. The inevitable result of a two-tier system is that consumers and the providers of extra cost insurance conspire overtime to reduce the quality of the basic service through political pressure. Britain has a sort of two-tier system which works OK because it generally doesn't allow insurance to cover the extra benefits.

[Mash]

..............................

One option is to require insurance companies to accept all comers and to provide them with minimum set of benefits. This inevitably drives up premiums unless everybody is required to have insurance, ("mandate"), whether paid by themselves or by government subsidy. Some countries have the "mandate" system, and it works OK though it isn't cheapest system. Also there is constant political pressure to reduce minimum coverage and/or to reduce premium subsidies.

A second option is universal, single-payer, i.e. basically government insurance. (Medical practice is not "socialized".) This is insurance with funded by some combination of premiums (with subsidies to the very poor) and general tax revenues. This is the Canadian system for example. It works well, although there are the usual pressures to reduce services so taxes or subsidies can be lower.

.

Oh, so you like Obamacare? Joe Liberman (I, CT) killed the second version with a last minute about face. Word suggests that either the insurance companies in CT paid him off with contributions or he was paying the Dems back for his defeat in the Dem primary..............

If you lived here & the Repubs win 2012 they would probably have you deported.

[Feanor]

Oh, so you like Obamacare? Joe Liberman (I, CT) killed the second version with a last minute about face. Word suggests that either the insurance companies in CT paid him off with contributions or he was paying the Dems back for his defeat in the Dem primary..............

If you lived here & the Repubs win 2012 they would probably have you deported.
:biggrin5: Well I prefer our Canadian universal single-payer system to Obamacare. However only brainless idiot would believe Obamacare could work without the "mandate". You'd also have to be brainless idiot to believe the "mandate" is somehow unconstitutional so the fact that it might be disallowed by the Supreme Court proves just how fricked up things are in the good old USofA.

[Mash]

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)

AND NOW

83% of Repubs in AK, MISS think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim.

But we are civilised here, not like in Canada:

Quote of the Day: Ted Nugent Threatens Barack Obama

So you complain that "However only brainless idiot would believe Obamacare could work without the "mandate". You'd also have to be brainless idiot to believe the "mandate" is somehow unconstitutional so the fact that it might be disallowed by the Supreme Court ......."

I think you gave a lot of people here a huge compliment ......or is "Brainless Idiot".... never mind. But I am sure that you gave a lot of people here a huge compliment ........

WARMING THOUGHT of the DAY:
The USA has NUKES.
............... feel better now?

[Feanor]

...
So you complain that "However only brainless idiot would believe Obamacare could work without the "mandate". You'd also have to be brainless idiot to believe the "mandate" is somehow unconstitutional so the fact that it might be disallowed by the Supreme Court ......."

I think you gave a lot of people here a huge compliment ......or is "Brainless Idiot".... never mind. But I am sure that you gave a lot of people here a huge compliment ........

WARMING THOUGHT of the DAY:
The USA has NUKES.
............... feel better now?
Humm ... well when you consider that the US Constitution permits citizens to be drafted to fight and kill / be killed in, say, Viet Nam, not being able to require a person to buy insurance seems like a monstrous offence to common sense. When you consider that a majority of the SC are such ideologues as to contemplate such nonsense, it is truly scary.

[Mash]

Viet Nam scary? Nah. We got out better than the French did at Dien Bien Phu, i.e. under our own power. Because this was a bipartisan project.

Now Iraq is/was a bit of a challenge. Those Iraqis hid their WMD's very well and we never found them. I think the Iraquis are still looking for them. But Prez Bush II would never lie to us.

Afganistan is a bit of a different situation. Somebody, someday, will figure it out. But not the Russians/Soviets.

But Prez Obama did send a deligation to see Osama bin Laden in Pakistan....

And Prez Obama did resolve the Lybian civil way rather quietly ....... With airpower support and by avoiding sending (Western) Christan ground troops in, i..e. Crusaiders which Muslims hate more that anything else in this world. Now the Lybians really like us. Unlike the Iraquis & Afgans.......

Hmmmm... is there a pattern here?

You Canadians cry about your government people sooo much that, as an act of kindness, I propose we send you a good (very large) group of our Repubs. This will help you a lot. Trust me. Have I ever lied to Canadians before?

[Feanor]

...
You Canadians cry about your government people sooo much that, as an act of kindness, I propose we send you a good (very large) group of our Repubs. This will help you a lot. Trust me. Have I ever lied to Canadians before?
Repubs from State-side? Forget it, we don't need 'em; we got our own home-grown variety.

[RGA]

I don't know Feanor - MASH (post of the year BTW) has a point. In no time with their Republicans in charge of Canada - Healthcare would quadruple - and 1/3 would not get any. All that savings would go to a new Army/Navy/Airforce. Canada were big shots in WWI and WWII - though few know it. We can be again. I say we attack Alaska - Most young Americans probably don't even know it's a U.S. state and most young Canadians already think it's part of Canada. Waaaait - you're right why would we want it? Say what you will but Palin's a MILF.

Speaking of MASH I've been watching a bunch of seasons on DVD - Quite enjoying it - one of the few shows that holds up well -army uniforms and period piece shows tend to fair better because the uniforms haven't changed much and of course it was set in the Korean war.

[Feanor]

I don't know Feanor - MASH (post of the year BTW) has a point. In no time with their Republicans in charge of Canada - Healthcare would quadruple - and 1/3 would not get any. All that savings would go to a new Army/Navy/Airforce. Canada were big shots in WWI and WWII - though few know it. We can be again. I say we attack Alaska - Most young Americans probably don't even know it's a U.S. state and most young Canadians already think it's part of Canada. Waaaait - you're right why would we want it? Say what you will but Palin's a MILF.

Speaking of MASH I've been watching a bunch of seasons on DVD - Quite enjoying it - one of the few shows that holds up well -army uniforms and period piece shows tend to fair better because the uniforms haven't changed much and of course it was set in the Korean war.
No, you're wrong: camouflage is de rigueur these days. :smilewinkgrin:

[bobsticks]

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)

Ain't that the truth---though the alternatives offer little hope, which I think is a reflection on the nature of politicians rather than ideologies.

[bobsticks]

Humm ... well when you consider that the US Constitution permits citizens to be drafted to fight and kill / be killed in, say, Viet Nam, not being able to require a person to buy insurance seems like a monstrous offence to common sense. When you consider that a majority of the SC are such ideologues as to contemplate such nonsense, it is truly scary.

Really?

So that a country reserves the right to engage in military campaigns---whether you agree with specific campaigns---gives it the right to demand that its citizens purchase a product and penalize them for non-compliance?

[Feanor]

Really?

So that a country reserves the right to engage in military campaigns---whether you agree with specific campaigns---gives it the right to demand that its citizens purchase a product and penalize them for non-compliance?
First, in as much as you agree that the government can conscript citizens for the military, you forfeit the argument that it can't compel things for the common good.

So how about compulsory automobile insurance? It's not so different in that it's for the common good, including ultimately that of the person forced to buy it. OK, maybe you don't think universal health insurance IS for the common good. Make that case then, as it was in Congress, and don't make it out to be a constitutional issue.

Meanwhile there is apparently nothing wrong in about banning things that are harmless to the population at large, e.g. same-sex marriage, abortion, birth control, and yes, marijuana.

[E-Stat]

The concepts of unions and pensions represent such a foreign world to me.

My wife is a college professor whose contract is renewed each and every year. There is no union. There is no pension. If you contribute to the 403b, however, the school does have a good matching plan. You advance through your own initiative. That has served her quite well especially in the last several years. While I work in a different industry, my situation is identical. We have been responsible for building our own retirement plan. No free lunch.

The age of both concepts is rapidly coming to an end. You won't find any such notions in Star Trek, either. :)

[E-Stat]

You'd also have to be brainless idiot to believe the "mandate" is somehow unconstitutional so the fact that it might be disallowed by the Supreme Court proves just how fricked up things are in the good old USofA.
For those of us who are brainless, please do cite the article(s) to which you refer. I look forward to your explanation. :)

HInt: the word "commerce" is used twice and the operative verb is "regulate". I trust you have understanding of the meaning of that word. It is not synonymous with "compel"

[bobsticks]

First, in as much as you agree that the government can conscript citizens for the military, you forfeit the argument that it can't compel things for the common good.

So how about compulsory automobile insurance? It's not so different in that it's for the common good, including ultimately that of the person forced to buy it. OK, maybe you don't think universal health insurance IS for the common good. Make that case then, as it was in Congress, and don't make it out to be a constitutional issue.

Meanwhile there is apparently nothing wrong in about banning things that are harmless to the population at large, e.g. same-sex marriage, abortion, birth control, and yes, marijuana.

Well...let's see...paragraph's one and two: No and no; paragraph three: absolutely yes...

...and that's all I'm going to say on the topic since we're looking backwards at the line demarking the terrirtory of "threadcrap"...

[E-Stat]

First, in as much as you agree that the government can conscript citizens for the military, you forfeit the argument that it can't compel things for the common good.
It's that Constitution thingy getting in the way.

But...

I have always loved -

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dtvsGgPfMYk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dtvsGgPfMYk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Feanor]

It's that Constitution thingy getting in the way.

But...

I have always loved -

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dtvsGgPfMYk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dtvsGgPfMYk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
On that note I think I'll just go with bobsticks' comment about "threadcrap". :rolleyes5:

[Mash]

Gee-whiz, guys... still feuding?

The Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare has NOTHING to do with universal mandates... but this sure sounds good! Nobody understands this topic but they believe they do.

Got your info from FOX? FOX is owned by Rupert Murdoch, that chap whose company was investigated by the Crown in England for invasion of privacy, phone-hacking, and bribing policemen. Time May 14, 2010 page 10 ("World") discusses the phone-hacking.

What is the REAL reason for the Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare? Glad you asked!

Romneycare in MA has a universal mandate too.... and NOBODY ever complained or filed suit!

Now mind you, Obamacare introduced a PCIP this year with reasonable premiums and NO income limits.
Note: PCIP = Preexisting Conditions Insurance Plan

But in previous years MA had an assigned risk pool with a rather low income limit, i.e. if you made a living wage you could not "get in".

But Romneycare DOES allow insurance companies to deny coverage because of preexisting conditions (PeC).

Combine PeC with the "Book of Business" and the insurance companies can systematically winnow out MOST people who MIGHT cause a claim. The inevitable "Book of Business death spiral" will cause your premiums to get so high (you like $4500/month?) that you will drop your present plan. Then.......... You have high blood pressure? Forget about getting new medical insurance. You have diabetes? Forget about getting new medical insurance.

Does Romenycare solve the problem of uninsured people using hospital ER's for routine care and then not paying their bill? NO. Because these people either cannot get insurance (PeC) or they cannot afford insurance and the hospital ER's cannot turn them away.

What problem DOES Romenycare solve? It forces people with perfect health (No PeC) to buy insurance. So the insurance companies sell policies to people who do not need them.

People with livable incomes in MA who could not get into the assigned risk pool and therefore do not have insurance must pay ~$950/person. So an uninsured husband + wife must pay ~$1900 to MA every year... and they STILL have to pay full retail for their medical services. So the people who must pay this penalty, and who cannot buy medical insurance because of PeC, and who must pay full retail for their medical services, ..... i.e. the most disadvantaged.... must pay this tax.. Sound fair to you?

The ONLY reason for the dustup over Obamacare is that Obamacare PROHIBITS insurance companies from using PeC to deny a policy. The insurance companies will fight this change to the death, but they cannot admit this is their real fight, so their stooges advance a lot of BS arguments about "Universal Mandates" which NOONE EVER complained about when Romneycare was launched.

PeC being used to exclude otherwise-qualified persons from joining group medical plans is not permitted in group plans, but the "out" here is that an insurance company is NOT required to renew the group policy, which is with the group administrator and NOT with the group members. So you can remain in the group after your dependent starts generating large recurring bills but the consequence is that the group will not have insurance. Cool, huh?

So let us get back to the real situation:
1. Insurance companies are NOT in the business of paying claims.
2. Insurance companies ARE in the business of collecting premiums.
3. Sooner or later ALL of YOU .... WILL..... have PeC. ALL of YOU.

[E-Stat]

The Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare has NOTHING to do with universal mandates... but this sure sounds good! Nobody understands this topic but they believe they do.
The ALEC and quite a few states would be amused by both your statements. :)

Amicus summary (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alec-amicus-brief-obamacares-individual-mandate-fails-to-account-for-state-interests-and-displaces-state-policy-choices-139309083.html)

States involved (http://www.alec.org/initiatives/health-care-freedom-initiative/)

Complete text (http://www.alec.org/wp-content/uploads/ALEC-SCOTUS-Brief.pdf)

[bobsticks]

Gee-whiz, guys... still feuding?

The Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare has NOTHING to do with universal mandates... but this sure sounds good! Nobody understands this topic but they believe they do.

Not sure who your assuming to address or why you'd assume any of those were gleaning their opinions from Fox...nor, for that matter, that a negative opinion of "Obamacare" is de facto a positive opinion of "Romneycare".


The ONLY reason for the dustup over Obamacare is that Obamacare PROHIBITS insurance companies from using PeC to deny a policy. The insurance companies will fight this change to the death, but they cannot admit this is their real fight, so their stooges advance a lot of BS arguments about "Universal Mandates" which NOONE EVER complained about when Romneycare was launched.


Um...no...that's not quite true. It's not the "ONLY" reason. I'm surprised that you'd mention the elimination of catastrophic/leveled insurance by "Romneycare" and not include that same criticism of the "O-C".

Further, I don't think it's unreasonable to question a system that puts beancounters at HHS in charge of developing health matrixes for rationing care.

It's also worth noting that the President is in the process of gutting his own bill (particularly areas associated with gender-specific and preventative treatment) in favor of re-subsidizing Stafford Loans. Clearly funding for healthcare is a fluid concept.

[Mash]

Don't get your point about ALEC, E-stat. There are many claims made in an Amicus Brief which are intended to further a favorable decision for a particular interest, but these neither prove nor disprove the merits of the contested issue. They may or may not influence the outcome.

Chief Justice Warren once said "We do not sit on the Supreme Court because we are infallible. We are infallible because we sit on the Supreme Court."

[Mash]

Didn't get your point, Bobsticks. Is this what you refer to?

Michael Maiello, Forbs.com

ObamaCare will end the practice of rescission where insurers drop ill customers to avoid their mounting bills. This actually fits right in with the conservative critique of health insurance and with policies enacted by George W. Bush. In the conservative analysis, there's two kinds of health care--routine stuff that people should pay for and catastrophic stuff that it's just too hard to reliably save for and is more appropriately insured against. So Bush started the Health Savings Account as a tax-free way to save for health care expenses that can be tapped to pay for routine care by people who have high-deductible catastrophic health insurance. If you agree with Bush's HSA idea, then you kind of have to agree with Obama's effort to end rescission because there's simply no point in paying for catastrophic health insurance if the insurer can drop you at the first sign of catastrophe.

[Mash]

Re your other comments bobsticks, I suggest you return & read CAREFULLY.

My comments about FOX started with "Got your info from FOX? " I had asked a question, I did not make an assertion.

[E-Stat]

Don't get your point about ALEC, E-stat.
Mash: "The Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare has NOTHING to do with universal mandates."

It has EVERYTHING to do with the universal mandate. Never before has Congress compelled commerce. Since you didn't read the links, I'll summarize the content for you.

The first issue the ALEC and the states have with the universal mandate is:

Upholding the mandate would grant Congress a plenary police power, which exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.

The second issue the ALEC and the states have with universal mandate is:

The mandate fails to account for state interests, which exceeds Congress's authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The third issue the ALEC and the states have with the individual mandate is:

Upholding the individual mandate would displace state policy choices and stifle the states' constitutional role as laboratories of democracy.

They clearly disagree with your opinion. And filed an amicus curiae on behalf of the states to that effect.

[Mash]

As I wrote, E-Stat... those are the stated arguments but they are not (necessarily) the real reasons.

Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, list how many wars humans fought over "principles", and how many wars were fought over money and power.

You can start with "The Seventy Great Battles in History", Jeremy Black et al.

[E-Stat]

As I wrote, E-Stat... those are the stated arguments but they are not (necessarily) the real reasons.
You are welcome to your theories. As for me, I will be following the facts before the court.

[bobsticks]

Meanwhile, list how many wars humans fought over "principles", and how many wars were fought over money and power.

You can start with "The Seventy Great Battles in History", Jeremy Black et al.

Well, since World War 2 every war that the United States has fought seems to be on the principle of eliminating pesky brown people.

[bobsticks]

Didn't get your point, Bobsticks. Is this what you refer to?

Michael Maiello, Forbs.com

ObamaCare will end the practice of rescission where insurers drop ill customers to avoid their mounting bills. This actually fits right in with the conservative critique of health insurance and with policies enacted by George W. Bush. In the conservative analysis, there's two kinds of health care--routine stuff that people should pay for and catastrophic stuff that it's just too hard to reliably save for and is more appropriately insured against. So Bush started the Health Savings Account as a tax-free way to save for health care expenses that can be tapped to pay for routine care by people who have high-deductible catastrophic health insurance. If you agree with Bush's HSA idea, then you kind of have to agree with Obama's effort to end rescission because there's simply no point in paying for catastrophic health insurance if the insurer can drop you at the first sign of catastrophe.

That's from a 2009 article and a few things have changed since then. One thing that has not changed is that the practice of dropping folks from catastrophic health insurance is already illegal, so I'm not sure what benefit is derived from a redundant and costly and toothless law.

[Feanor]

Mash: "The Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare has NOTHING to do with universal mandates."

It has EVERYTHING to do with the universal mandate. Never before has Congress compelled commerce. Since you didn't read the links, I'll summarize the content for you.

The first issue the ALEC and the states have with the universal mandate is:

Upholding the mandate would grant Congress a plenary police power, which exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.

The second issue the ALEC and the states have with universal mandate is:

The mandate fails to account for state interests, which exceeds Congress's authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The third issue the ALEC and the states have with the individual mandate is:

Upholding the individual mandate would displace state policy choices and stifle the states' constitutional role as laboratories of democracy.

They clearly disagree with your opinion. And filed an amicus curiae on behalf of the states to that effect.
Thanks for this. It's all much clearer for me now. (I also read the Constitution too: Article 1, Section 8, 9 and 10, and Amendment 10.)

Who could have imagined? It's a states rights thing. :biggrin5: Not the first time in history that argument has been advance to keep useful things from getting done.

[E-Stat]

Who could have imagined? It's a states rights thing
Anyone who understands the Constitution?

[Mash]

You are way too rigid and hot and heavy on this, E-Stat. What is/are your REAL incentive(s) here?

I have no incentives what so ever, since we are covered 100% for medical/drug benes as well as a pension and 401k by the company I retired from.

I do hate to see hard working citizens who are not as fortunate as us being screwed.

So fess up, E-Stat.

[Mash]

Yea, Feanor, States Rights have been invoked for many noble causes, such as protecting slavery (1861) and now SC wants the people of SC to forgo Medicare & Social Security and accept some undefined state plan..... after they have paid in a lot of money to Medicare & Social Security over the years..................

As someone in SC said, "Shades of 1861...."

This is all BS.

There is no shortage of stupid people, is there?

[Feanor]

Anyone who understands the Constitution?
My initial understanding of the "Obamacare" thing was that the objection was a personal liberty issue around the "mandate". Apparently I was not well informed, so, again, thanks for appraising me of the actual issue before the court.

You probably don't give a damn, but up here in Canada we have division of powers issue too. E.g. health care is specifically a provincial responsibility. But our Federal Government does have broader powers and also residual powers which is the opposite of the USA. When our Canadian constitution was framed in 1866-67 we had before us the lesson of the US Civil War, and some effort was made to avoid the mistakes of the US model.

Be this all as it may, our constitutions are the fundamental laws-of-the-land and must be respected.

=> Our Constitution: right or wrong

=> Our Constitution: love it or ... change it.

[E-Stat]

What is/are your REAL incentive(s) here?
Sorry if you don't understand the Constitution. Allowing Congress to compel commerce would be a bad precedent. What would be next?


I have no incentives what so ever, since we are covered 100% for medical/drug benes as well as a pension and 401k by the company I retired from.
Virtually the same could be said for me except that I still work and actively contribute to my 401k and wife contributes to her 403b. I recently ran the local 5K and spoke with my family doctor. Each of us placed in our respective age groups (he's about ten years younger than i.) I usually see my dentist and her husband running the nearby half-marathon.

[E-Stat]

But our Federal Government does have broader powers...
Yes. While your quasi-constitutional bill of rights is similar to ours, it is more limited.

[Feanor]

Yes. While your quasi-constitutional bill of rights is similar to ours, it is more limited.
That's true technically. What we should be talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms), not the Bill of Rights which was an earlier and weaker document. In fact the Charter does have certain limitations and "notwithstanding" clauses -- it's noteworthy that these are mostly concessions to provincial rights at the insistence of the Province of Quebec.

However in practice the Canadian protections are very comparable to those of the US Bill of Rights. Wikipedia includes the following remarks ...

"<i>The core distinction between the United States Bill of Rights and Canadian Charter is the existence of the limitations and notwithstanding clauses. Canadian courts have consequently interpreted each right more expansively. However, due to the limitations clause, where a violation of a right exists, the law will not necessarily grant protection of that right. In contrast, rights under the US Bill of Rights are absolute and so a violation will not be found until there has been sufficient encroachment on those rights. The sum effect is that both constitutions provide comparable protection of many rights. Fundamental justice (in section 7 of the Canadian Charter) is therefore interpreted to include more legal protections than due process, which is its US equivalent. Freedom of expression in section 2 also has a more wide-ranging scope than the First Amendment to the United States Constitution's freedom of speech.</i>"

Neither the Charter nor the US Bill of Rights do anything to define economic rights, such as entitlement to health care or education beyond what public schools provide.

[E-Stat]

What we should be talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not the Bill of Rights which was an earlier and weaker document.
Enacted in 1982. Glad it only took you only a century and a half to more or less match ours.


Neither the Charter nor the US Bill of Rights do anything to define economic rights, such as entitlement to health care or education beyond what public schools provide.
"Economic Rights"? The Right for others to fund our happiness?

[Feanor]

...
"Economic Rights"? The Right for others to fund our happiness?
I don't equate economic rights with happiness but with life. From the Declaration of Independence ...

"<i>... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...</i>"

First comes "life". So I would proposes that it is your mutual obligation to protect the lives of each other by, for example, providing a reasonable minimum of heath care through a universal coverage system.

[Feanor]

[The Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms] Enacted in 1982. Glad it only took you only a century and a half to more or less match ours.
...
"A century and a half" -- now that's rich. Let me remind you about the slaves. What about their right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? The constitution was a travesty in that regard. Rights for black people weren't ensured until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[E-Stat]

First comes "life". So I would proposes that it is your mutual obligation to protect the lives of each other by, for example, providing a reasonable minimum of heath care through a universal coverage system.
We have a very different concept of rights. Rights are privileges endowed by our creator and don't *cost* anything.

Even more fundamental to living is eating. You certainly can't live for very long without eating even with the best of health. So, how much does the Canadian government pay you each month for meals? How about shelter?

As for slavery, that was clearly a matter of not applying those inalienable rights.

[Feanor]

We have a very different concept of rights. Rights are privileges endowed by our creator and don't *cost* anything.

Even more fundamental to living is eating. You certainly can't live for very long without eating even with the best of health. So, how much does the Canadian government pay you each month for meals? How about shelter?

As for slavery, that was clearly a matter of not applying those inalienable rights.
God created us equal, capitalism reduces us the master and servant. or slave.

Canada pays me about >$900 a month to eat, granted only because I'm over 65, (soon to be 67 thanks to our Republican wannabe Conservative government.)

[Mash]

I find this heat about commerce, state's rights, etc. interesting.

Medicare has similarities to this argument in that everyone working must contribute (pay a tax) to Medicare, and when they turn 65 they must "join" and pay about $100/month or they face a % markup penalty on their subsequent Medicare premium when they do "join" for every year after 65 that they did not "join". In effect they must "buy" a policy or pay a penalty later.... except they have already contributed (paid a tax) every year that they worked toward their future Medicare "policy". Of course Medicare is mute on pre-existing medical conditions because Medicare has no such stipulation.

Whatever rights states may wish to employ, they must then exercise those rights in a fair and equitable way or their rights will be restricted. SC has a history of obstructing the voting rights of blacks, so all changes to SC voting laws must now be approved by the US Feds. SC's rights to write their own voting laws is restricted.

In the same light, States must enact medical care laws in a fair & equitable manner or these rights will ultimately be restricted. No state has ever introduced, or attempted to introduce, universal medical insurance/care laws that are fair & equitable to address the healthcare elephant that is obvious to so many. MA introduced a law but that law is not fair and equitable.

Parents in the US have parental rights but those rights can be restricted or even terminated when their children are neglected and/or abused. This was certainly not the case in ancient Rome. Times change.

[E-Stat]

Canada pays me about >$900 a month to eat, granted only because I'm over 65,...
I wasn't referring to retirement when you get back a portion of your tax sourced *investment*.

Obamacare applies to every age.

[Mash]

Feanor: You get $900/month (or is that "lots more" than $900/mo, i.e. your >$900/mo) to eat?

Eat what? Beans & wieners?

[Feanor]

Feanor: You get $900/month (or is that "lots more" than $900/mo, i.e. your >$900/mo) to eat?

Eat what? Beans & wieners?
Yep, a little over $900/mo from the government as OAS (Old Age Security): basically everybody 65+ gets this. You'll be relieved to know that I have other income from private and government pensions.

[Mash]

Well, Feanor.... In the USA the biggest concern is medical & drug costs, as you likely know. I suspect that E-Stat has a few things to learn about this. Maybe the hard way.............

We get Social Security and a company pension.

Years ago, the "wisdom" was that one should have 3 to 6 months expenses as a savings cushion, but the Bush2 Recession disproved this "wisdom".

Our approach years ago was to have 5 years gross income in conservative investments. Then we increased this to 10 years gross income. Then we increased this to 15 years gross income. ...........

When my wife's wealthy parents died, they left us a very nice nest egg. Still.......

My company's medical/drug benefits were also worthwhile, because they saved us money in the significant 6-figures because of my wife's condition. People cannot appreciate this reality until they find their butts in a financial sling.

[E-Stat]

Well, Feanor.... In the USA the biggest concern is medical & drug costs, as you likely know. I suspect that E-Stat has a few things to learn about this. Maybe the hard way.............
I am under no illusion that Medicare can afford million dollar heroic treatments for everyone.

[Feanor]

Well, Feanor.... In the USA the biggest concern is medical & drug costs, as you likely know. I suspect that E-Stat has a few things to learn about this. Maybe the hard way.............

We get Social Security and a company pension.

Years ago, the "wisdom" was that one should have 3 to 6 months expenses as a savings cushion, but the Bush2 Recession disproved this "wisdom".

Our approach years ago was to have 5 years gross income in conservative investments. Then we increased this to 10 years gross income. Then we increased this to 15 years gross income. ...........

When my wife's wealthy parents died, they left us a very nice nest egg. Still.......

My company's medical/drug benefits were also worthwhile, because they saved us money in the significant 6-figures because of my wife's condition. People cannot appreciate this reality until they find their butts in a financial sling.
As I've related before, I had course of treatment for cardiac artery disease including triple by-pass surgery that would have cost ~$100k in the US. It cost me $800 for my semi-private hospital room, which was covered by my company insurance.

But E-Stat is right that late-life $1M heroic procedures are very rarely paid by provincial health plans.

[Mash]

"Medicare cannot afford million dollar heroic treatments for everyone"

This is pure BS!

I am not discussing heroic treatments.

I am discussing EVERYDAY treatments.

This is another BS argument.

Try again, E-Stat. And try to understand that the fickle finger of fate will put YOUR financial butt in the crosshairs of oblivion.

[Mash]

To add some substance, E-Stat.......

My wife has, from time to time, required procrit shots.

Once upon a time, the practice was that when one's RBC dropped below 10, a series of procrit shots (usually 3) were given to get the patient's RBC above 14.... until Medicare determined that this was killing seniors.

So now one gets one procrit shot if RBC is below 10, and if RBC is then above 10 then no more shots are given until one's RBC is again below 10.

One procrit shot is $2400. The lab test is ~$180. The Dr is ~$180. Add it up and get the picture.

I find handwaving by people who know nothing to be tiresome.

Your cardiac artery disease including triple by-pass surgery, Feanor, was a far more expensive than any single treatment that my wife has ever required. But a lot of little things can add up to something big.

We live on fish here, and my Dr said I would live to 100.

And if your drug bill is $17,000. per year.... and then drops to $11,000 a year.... you had better have some real money in your pocket.

You people need to get real, or this monster will consume you.

[Feanor]

To add some substance, E-Stat.......

My wife has, from time to time, required procrit shots.

Once upon a time, the practice was that when one's RBC dropped below 10, a series of procrit shots (usually 3) were given to get the patient's RBC above 14.... until Medicare determined that this was killing seniors.

So now one gets one procrit shot if RBC is below 10, and if RBC is then above 10 then no more shots are given until one's RBC is again below 10.

One procrit shot is $2400. The lab test is ~$180. The Dr is ~$180. Add it up and get the picture.

I find handwaving by people who know nothing to be tiresome.

Your cardiac artery disease including triple by-pass surgery, Feanor, was a far more expensive than any single treatment that my wife has ever required. But a lot of little things can add up to something big.

We live on fish here, and my Dr said I would live to 100.

And if your drug bill is $17,000. per year.... and then drops to $11,000 a year.... you had better have some real money in your pocket.

You people need to get real, or this monster will consume you.
The US healthcare situation makes a mocker of the "cost" argument from folks like E-Stat. US costs per capita are higher and outcomes worse than virtually all the rest of the developed world. So much for the efficacy of competition to promote low cost & efficiency.

I for one suspect it isn't so much about the cost of the system as it is an ethical deficit for some folks; (I'm not singling out E-Stat). I suspect these folks feel that (A) their own, well-funded health care will be less good if their taxes supported a universal system (-- whether or not it would be true --) and/or (B) a universal system would provide heath care to lazy, feckless, listless loosers who don't deserve it; (that greatest "moral hazard", helping the poor).

[bobsticks]

Yeah, it's an "ethical deficit" that some people recognize that there are consequences to behavior.

[Feanor]

Yeah, it's an "ethical deficit" that some people recognize that there are consequences to behavior.
True that a lot of people "take advantage of the system" -- but you'd better believe that they aren't all poor people.

[bobsticks]

True that a lot of people "take advantage of the system" -- but you'd better believe that they aren't all poor people.

That is not that to which I refer...The biggest welfare program in this country is not Unemployment Insurance or tax shelters for illegals nor is it Medicaid...it's Social Security...

[Mash]

Hard to know where these people are coming from, Feanor. Social Security is a welfare program? This would be funny if it were not so simply nasty.

And the US medical system is not a good free enterprise system. If one wants a new car or truck in a free enterprise system, one can shop around and also compare buying services for weeks or even months.

If you have, say, a heart attack or a stroke, your shop-around-for-the-best-deal time is quite limited.

Strong opinions and wisdom seldom travel together.

[E-Stat]

I am discussing EVERYDAY treatments.
So, tie these anecdotes together with Bill's concept of *economic rights*.

By his reckoning, someone else should have paid for your wife's treatments.

[Mash]

You make no sense E-Stat. I have paid for a lot of other peoples' treatments. That is the idea. We help one another.

BTW I presume that by "someone else should have paid for your wife's treatments" you are referring to my wife's treatments that were covered by Medicare?

Well, surprise to you! 95% of my wife's medical care on a cost basis was paid for by the company I retired from (before she was 65) and not by Medicare.

See how little you really know, E-Stat?

[E-Stat]

We help one another.
Yes, we already do.


BTW I presume that by "someone else should have paid for your wife's treatments" you are referring to my wife's treatments that were covered by Medicare?
Nope. That was funded by your contributions. You need to read Feanor's comments to understand his perspective.


Well, surprise to you! 95% of my wife's medical care on a cost basis was paid for by the company I retired from (before she was 65) and not by Medicare.
Yes, your insurance paid for that. You're completely missing the point.

[Mash]

I do not think I am missing any points, E-Stat. I think you are. So lets get into the nitty-gritty.

BTW I forgot my wife's drug bills, paid by the company (and not by that Repubican POS Joke called Medicare Part D) that have summed to more than $60,000. These drug prices are negoitated by the company with the drug suppliers. Best (lowest) prices wins. So Medicare is really less than 1%. But why quibble?

Here is how the game works.

Medicare gets the biggest & best discounts on medical services.
Blue Cross / Blue Shield gets the next best discounts on medical services.
United HealthCare gets 1/2 the discounts on medical services (usually) that BCBS gets.

Following this so far?

The price of a (huge) group policy is determined significantly by how big a discount on medical services a particular insurer commands. BCBS is preferred when Medicare is NOT involved because, even with their higher charges, the discounts they obtain more that compensate.

But if the medical benefits are tied to Medicare then the Medicare discounts determine the patient billing, meaning United HealthCare can be used as the carrier with significantly lower costs to the company because Medicare is providing the discounts. Not United HealthCare.

We are discussing a LOT of money here, E-Stat. Your TeaPeePartyFreakFriends have no clue what is happening here.

[E-Stat]

I do not think I am missing any points, E-Stat.
Ok. Then discuss *economic rights*.


Here is how the game works.
You're a broken record that continues to miss the point above. I'm still waiting.


Following this so far?
I don't have any difficulty with the obvious. For some reason, you like repeat the same stuff ad nauseum.


Your TeaPeePartyFreakFriends have no clue what is happening here.
Are you coherent? I will respond to anything that I've actually said. Not your imagination.

[Mash]

Economic rights?

Get real, boy. When you work for a company you have no economic rights.

You only have what you can negotiate, and set into a contract. Nothing more.

What phantasy world are you in?

[Feanor]

Since I first used the term "economic rights", let me be clear that I'm talking about our mutual obligation to give material support to, and our right on occassion, to request support from our community.

I realized that some people don't consider this a valid concept. Some, like Ayn Rand, have even denounced it as immoral. Obviously I don't share the latter opinion.

Does this make me a socialist? I'm not sure. Pragmatically I think well-regulated capitalism with a major public sector is the best compromise. But I do believe that socialism, meaning a mutually supportive society, has a moral basis, where as capitalism, whatever its practical value, has none.

[Mash]

So, Feanor.... You reference Ayn Rand... another great thinker who is not connected to the real world.

Karl Marx is another.

Greal thinkers with great ideas that turn to crap when inplemented in the real world.

North Korea is a prime example of ideology that, when implemented, has turned to pure crap. Red China is another example.

When.... Oh when.... will people ever learn??

[E-Stat]

Since I first used the term "economic rights", let me be clear that I'm talking about our mutual obligation to give material support to, and our right on occassion, to request support from our community.
Does your universal health care only work on occasion and by request? If you recall, you introduced the term "economic rights" in context to the right for all to have universal healthcare.

"So I would proposes that it is your mutual obligation to protect the lives of each other by, for example, providing a reasonable minimum of heath care through a universal coverage system."

The founding fathers weren't thinking insurance when they spoke of "inalienable rights endowed by their creator".

[RGA]

Just wondering why civilization can't grow and add new things and make society better. Nope - a document written 40 or 200 years ago - we must stick to that and never ever change.

[Feanor]

Does your universal health care only work on occasion and by request? If you recall, you introduced the term "economic rights" in context to the right for all to have universal healthcare.

"So I would proposes that it is your mutual obligation to protect the lives of each other by, for example, providing a reasonable minimum of heath care through a universal coverage system."

The founding fathers weren't thinking insurance when they spoke of "inalienable rights endowed by their creator".
Universal health care works very well. Most implementations have a few minor problems but results are always preferable to whatever came before.

Some universal plans are based on some sort of insurance, other are more purely government-run. But they pretty much all have these characteristics: (1) nobody can be denied coverage, (2) a defined basic set of services that must be provided, (3) premiums, (where there are premiums), don't differ based on age or pre-existing condition.

There are a variety of opinions about exactly what the FFs had in mind; in any case it's certain that they had quite different ideas about many things. Nevertheless I'm sure you're right that they weren't thinking of health insurance, (or education or the environment or consumer protection or worker protections or gay rights, etc., etc.). Fortunately Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 did stipulate ... "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States ...". This has enabled Congress to pass laws for the benefit of the people that weren't specifically listed in the Constitution.

Historically we ought to understand that the American Revolution was actually a revolt instigated by and mainly in the interest of the relatively wealthy -- such as George Washington, a trans-Appalachian land speculator wanted the British out so he could expel the native Americans and sell the land to poor farmers at a big profit.

[E-Stat]

Universal health care works very well. Most implementations have a few minor problems but results are always preferable to whatever came before.
You didn't answer the question. Here it is again:

Does your universal health care only work on occasion and by request?


mainly in the interest of the relatively wealthy -- such as George Washington, a trans-Appalachian land speculator wanted the British out so he could expel the native Americans and sell the land to poor farmers at a big profit.
It's always about class warfare. :)

[Feanor]

You didn't answer the question. Here it is again:

Does your universal health care only work on occasion and by request?
...
It always works when I have occasion to ask for it. And sometimes when I don't explicitly ask for it, e.g. I get biannual reminders for convert blood stool testing.

[E-Stat]

It always works when I have occasion to ask for it. And sometimes when I don't explicitly ask for it, e.g. I get biannual reminders for convert blood stool testing.
So, those who are to fund this via additional taxes are only asked to pay "on occasion" when services are "requested from our community" ?

[RGA]

The idea of Canada's health care is to create a safety net. Everyone pays X percent income tax and the safety net is that no one goes bankrupt should they get sick.

I don't see the evil in this proposition. The rich pay a higher percentage of taxes but the rich in Canada don't seem to mind (Doctors recently petitioned the government to raise their taxes because they felt they were not being taxed enough). Rich people like Bill Maher want the government to raise taxes on the top 1% of which he is one.

It's really no skin off their nose to pay it. If it's the "principle of the thing" then that's lame when lives are at stake. Yes the leaky bucket argument - but so what - even if 10% of tax revenue is lost in the transfer from rich to poor by corruption or incompetence 90% still gets there.

The middle class and poor should want a system where you pool a defense against bankruptcy and coverage for all.

Anyone can get access in Canada - it has been illustrated that with the exception of elective surgery it's just as fast, just good as the U.S. system. Rural parts of Canada is problematic in the same way rural parts of the U.S. is a problem.

I've used the emergency a few times over the years in Canada and I've waited less than 20 minutes each time (and my injuries were not emergencies) - hamstring, ankle sprains, tonsils.

Frankly the biggest positive isn't so much the actual medical care but the fact that you never have to "worry" about going bankrupt. Gee Granny is 88 and she's going to be expensive if she has to go to the hospital - may as well stick some drugs into her pudding to put her down cause we'll lose the house paying for her hospital bills.

Or Michael Moore and the finger guy - sorry mate you only have enough money to save one of your fingers - which finger are you going to choose.

I dunno but if I am a doctor and I supposedly went into the medical protection to save people's lives and future discomfort as opposed to going into medicine just for the bucks - then I don't get how they can stomach those decisions.

There is basic right and wrong - and if they can't see that as just wrong - so wrong - then wow. Is there no pity left in the hearts of man? Does everything start and stop solely with the dollar bill?

What I think might work better in the U.S. is a multi tier healthcare system. Rich people tend to want to show off their wealth in the U.S. and rub it in everyone else's faces. It's a way to cover for not having an actual personality.

So you have your free plan that covers strictly the life/death serious injury typed stuff but doesn't cover the luxury items that other western countries cover. Nor is there any nice separate room. You get the no frills dull plan.

Level two through ten is the buy in insurance plans each level adds more optional extras, maybe eye exams, dental plans, better beds, private rooms, free tattoo - whatever.

Then the a la carte option for the rich to pay for the best available Ferrari option with all the trimmings - your own hospital wing, with 7 full time round the clock nurses - personal doctors, someone to help you pee and shakes it for you. Yup the primo-limo treatment. No regular John Q Shmuck can get this service.

[E-Stat]

The idea of Canada's health care is to create a safety net. Everyone pays X percent income tax and the safety net is that no one goes bankrupt should they get sick.
Therein lies the significant difference to here in the States. Half of US citizens pay ZERO income tax. Many get *paid* via EIC.

In the 80s when I worked for the family business, I helped some of the hourly workers with their tax forms. For them the *safety net* became a hammock and many got creative with the number of dependents they claimed.

[Feanor]

So, those who are to fund this via additional taxes are only asked to pay "on occasion" when services are "requested from our community" ?
Reread my original assertion ...


Since I first used the term "economic rights", let me be clear that I'm talking about our mutual obligation to give material support to, and our right on occassion, to request support from our community ...

Giving material support isn't occasional, getting it is occasional.

[E-Stat]

"Giving material support".
What a great "politically correct" term for taxation. The Circular E should be renamed the "Employer's Material Support Guide".

I can see Obama making his tax plan more palatable by calling it the "Millionaire's Increased Material Support Bill". :)

[Feanor]

Therein lies the significant difference to here in the States. Half of US citizens pay ZERO income tax. Many get *paid* via EIC.

In the 80s when I worked for the family business, I helped some of the hourly workers with their tax forms. For them the *safety net* became a hammock and many got creative with the number of dependents they claimed.
'Stat, this is what bothers me about you: that you are far more concerned that a few people might get something they don't deserve than you are that they get something they need for decent life. IMO, this reflects a lack of compassion which falls into the category of "ethical deficit" I mention earlier.

It's undesirable that people get what they don't deserver, (or even what they are not entitled to under existing laws). It is wrong and socially irresponsible of people to cheat; it is culpable. However incidental abuse of charity doesn't trump our ethical responsibility to provided when people need it.

[E-Stat]

'Stat, this is what bothers me about you: that you are far more concerned that a few people might get something they don't deserve than you are that they get something they need for decent life.
What I really don't understand is the why liberals feel that benevolence is good only when it is forced.


IMO, this reflects a lack of compassion which falls into the category of "ethical deficit" I mention earlier.
Do you give away more than eleven percent of your gross earnings?

[Feanor]

What I really don't understand is the why liberals feel that benevolence is good only when it is forced. ...
What's that about "only"? You're saying that, not me. The problem relying on private charity alone is that it is insufficient, inefficient, and often ineffective in that it tends to go to people whom the donors consider "deserving".


...
Do you give away more than eleven percent of your gross earnings?
In truth I have not; then again I don't begrudge paying our higher Canadian taxes.

[Feanor]

What a great "politically correct" term for taxation [material support]. The Circular E should be renamed the "Employer's Material Support Guide".

I can see Obama making his tax plan more palatable by calling it the "Millionaire's Increased Material Support Bill". :)
Do you think? Maybe he could try that.

[E-Stat]

The problem relying on private charity alone is that it is insufficient, inefficient, and often ineffective in that it tends to go to people whom the donors consider "deserving".
Insufficient? By what criteria?

Inefficient? As opposed to government run plans? LOL! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Ineffective? By whose criteria?

I'm delighted you are content with your forced benevolence. I prefer the right to choose mine.

[RGA]

Therein lies the significant difference to here in the States. Half of US citizens pay ZERO income tax. Many get *paid* via EIC.

In the 80s when I worked for the family business, I helped some of the hourly workers with their tax forms. For them the *safety net* became a hammock and many got creative with the number of dependents they claimed.

Well that is a problem. I am not a fan of people "mooching" off of the system - nor am I fan of paying cancer treatments to 20 year old smokers. If you're 65 and you have lung cancer from smoking maybe we could agree that when the person started they were lied to. We may even come to an agreement that they can be covered. But if you're 20 with all the information we have - then if you get cancer you S.O.L. because you should know better.

I think people can also agree that some people are out of work for good reason and others who are out of work because they have a grow op in their basement. Or they're bone lazy.

I have a tough time paying tax to support those people. If it's a small percentage then you just stomach it and call it the leaky bucket and you say most of the money helps mostly good people. 50% lazy moocher 20 year old smoking drug dealers - then I'd probably take issue.

The guy who is 55 and got downsized and his company went belly up and took the pension - well that's different. It's much more difficult to land a job at 55 than 25.

Employment Insurance schemes are supposed to be temporary to cover you while you get another job. It should not be permanent support for lazy butts to mooch off people with a work ethic. Those kinds of people can shrivel up and die for all I care. The problem is that we throw the baby out with the bathwater - and we let the otherwise good people suffer in order to punish the moochers.

[Feanor]

Insufficient? By what criteria?

Inefficient? As opposed to government run plans? LOL! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Ineffective? By whose criteria? ...
In the sense of not enough for the people who need it.


...
I'm delighted you are content with your forced benevolence. I prefer the right to choose mine.
Yeah sure, I too would be rather be able to specify exactly who enjoy the benevolence. And I certainly hope that private and NGO benevolence will always be there

A big issue is whether one believes that elected government as agent of the community as whole, is more often best to determine who ought to get support and dispense it accordingly. Of course I would prefer my personal judgement to that of any government -- however I prefer an elected government's judgement to, say, your personal judgement.

[bobsticks]

A big issue is whether one believes that elected government [I]as agent of the community as whole...


So clearly the only way to "serve the community as a whole" is to enact a series of legislations that total more than 2400 pages and 1,147,271 words?

(...at a time when the same government clamors for transparency in banking and business)

The only way to "serve the community as a whole" is negate all existing HIPPA and right to privacy statutes by creating a mandatory national database with widespread access?

The only way to "serve the community as a whole" is to abrogate existing commerce statutes and engage in the prosecution of those who refuse to comply with a de facto monopolistic enterprise (great precedent)?

Inevitably, those that withhold support from this bill will be painted in an uncomplimentary light, the least of which would be an opposition to universal health care as a whole. The truth is not so easily as compartmentalized.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a bad bill.

...and by the way, if your opinon of the bill is derived from sound bites, news channels...if you haven't even read the 12 page Table of Contents much less the entire screed...then you're operating out of ignorance and blind ideology.

[bobsticks]

I dunno but if I am a doctor and I supposedly went into the medical protection to save people's lives and future discomfort as opposed to going into medicine just for the bucks - then I don't get how they can stomach those decisions.

That won't be an issue for doctors because a vast majority of the treatment/decision making apparatus will be given to the bureaucrats within the HHS


Section 1311 (h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with-
(B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require.




What I think might work better in the U.S. is a multi tier healthcare system. Rich people tend to want to show off their wealth in the U.S. and rub it in everyone else's faces. It's a way to cover for not having an actual personality.

So you have your free plan that covers strictly the life/death serious injury typed stuff but doesn't cover the luxury items that other western countries cover. Nor is there any nice separate room. You get the no frills dull plan.

Level two through ten is the buy in insurance plans each level adds more optional extras, maybe eye exams, dental plans, better beds, private rooms, free tattoo - whatever.

Then the a la carte option for the rich to pay for the best available Ferrari option with all the trimmings - your own hospital wing, with 7 full time round the clock nurses - personal doctors, someone to help you pee and shakes it for you. Yup the primo-limo treatment. No regular John Q Shmuck can get this service.

I agree with this Rich. Unfortunately, the existing bill blatantly travels in the other direction.

[E-Stat]

Do you think? Maybe he could try that.
And get the third grade math down correctly this time :)

What was that number again? (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-16/news/30164214_1_tax-rate-tax-deductions-gains)

[E-Stat]

In the sense of not enough for the people who need it.
Define "need it" in objective terms. If I need a prescription that costs $20k / year for the rest of my life, then somebody else must pay that for me, right?

[Feanor]

Define "need it" in objective terms. If I need a prescription that costs $20k / year for the rest of my life, then somebody else must pay that for me, right?
We are starting to go around in circles here but ...

In principle, yes. In the context of health care, the Province of Ontario will not automatically pay for every drug that is available -- there are limits to the public weal. Certain drugs will be paid for only if your physician certifies that cheaper drugs have been tried and been proven ineffective; other drugs are not approved for payment at all either because they are deemed experimental, because they are not proven more effective than cheaper alternatives, or (rarely) because they are just too expensive.

EDIT> I forgot to mention the essential fact that Ontario doesn't pay for ordinary prescription drugs at all except for those 65+; (seniors pay limited dispensing fees). Exceptions are made, I think, for people with very low incomes or whose drugs are very expensive.

[Mash]

..............................................
In the 80s when I worked for the family business, I helped some of the hourly workers with their tax forms. For them the *safety net* became a hammock and many got creative with the number of dependents they claimed.

Oh my goodness E-Stat, you aided and abetted people in cheating the IRS?

They could win a free vacation and huge fines from the Feds, i.e. IRS.

And so could you have for helping them, rather that turning them in. This is that accessory before the fact jazz.

The IRS is not called the friendly gestapo for nothing. NEVER cross them. I saw some people who did and they became very unhappy campers.

[Feanor]

And get the third grade math down correctly this time :)

What was that number again? (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-16/news/30164214_1_tax-rate-tax-deductions-gains)
Humm ... well maybe he could do with a little math remediation.

However $250k is a healthy income; top 1.5% according to the article. And it's a few multiples of what we ever brought in and yet we managed, so I don't feel sorry the poor rich folk. Probably all the Bush tax cuts should just expire, plus top rates and capital gain rates go up, maybe home mortgage interest deduction be eliminated, etc.

[Mash]

Gee, bobsticks, you quote

"Section 1311 (h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with-
(B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require. "

All this means is that doctors must practice preventive care, i.e. endeavor to prevent a very potential ailment from developing into a disaster. Our doctor does this now.

Your "serve the community as a whole" comments are way off.

My daughter is a Dr and I understand the doctors' perspectives.

[Mash]

bobsticks: I feel that you misintepret Obamacare for one of two reasons:

1. You are (for whatever reason) irrationally opposed to Obamacare, so you persist in misreading same instead of trying to REALLY understand same. This does not bother me because WE are covered either way, so you can only shoot your own foot off here; or

2. Your reading comprehension is poor. This will hinder you throughout life. There is a straightforward way for you to evaluate your reading comprehension: Take the LSAT. If you score, say, in the lower 50% then you have a huge problem. Me? I scored in the top 5%.

[bobsticks]

"Section 1311 (h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with-
(B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require. "

All this means is that doctors must practice preventive care, i.e. endeavor to prevent a very potential ailment from developing into a disaster. Our doctor does this now.

Read the word "only" which indicates that the mechanisms of "endeavor(ing) to prevent a very potential ailment from developing into a disaster." will be defined by a government bureaucrat. That administrator will be Dr. Ezekial Emanuel who is currently the Chief Medical Advisor to the President (also the brother of Chief f Staff Rahm Emanuel). He holds two official positions: health policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget and member of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

You might want to look up Donald Berwick too.

See, I read for both content and context, thank you very little...


Your "serve the community as a whole" comments are way off.

Tell that to the 23 million Americans who still won't be covered by the bill as well as the generations that are already here, and still to come, who will be sold into servitude by our government's irresponsibility.


My daughter is a Dr and I understand the doctors' perspectives.

Um...no...you used the plural...you understand one doctor's perspective...and if her worldview doesn't extend past the snack cart in the Employee Lounge then that doesn't really enlighten anyone, does it?

[bobsticks]

1. You are (for whatever reason) irrationally opposed to Obamacare, so you persist in misreading same instead of trying to REALLY understand same. This does not bother me because WE are covered either way, so you can only shoot your own foot off here; or

Actually, I'm doing just fine and---this might surprise you---but I'm glad you are too. We all prosper from the general well-being of the multitude.

That said, I notice you didn't make mention, as I noted, of having actually read the bill. I suspect that you're using the anecdotal evidence of your current situation and your perception of your daughter's opinions to project to the populace in aggregate.


2. Your reading comprehension is poor. This will hinder you throughout life. There is a straightforward way for you to evaluate your reading comprehension: Take the LSAT. If you score, say, in the lower 50% then you have a huge problem. Me? I scored in the top 5%.

That was clever. My powers of perception are, however, keen enough to tell the difference between a well researched, analytic response and an ad hominem...

[E-Stat]

Oh my goodness E-Stat, you aided and abetted people in cheating the IRS?
Your reading apprehension continues to fail you. Do quote anything I've said to indicate your assertion.

I taught them how to fill out the form. Not accurately count their children.

[Mash]

Nice try, E-Stat.... You participated and you also knew what they were doing, so that makes you a party to the deception. This is like the driver of the getaway car who did not set foot into the bank... but he/she can still be charged. How would you like your cell decorated?

[E-Stat]

Nice try, E-Stat.... You participated and you also knew what they were doing, so that makes you a party to the deception.
Just like H&R Block.


This is like the driver of the getaway car who did not set foot into the bank... but he/she can still be charged. How would you like your cell decorated?
At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, I was not the preparer who signed their forms.

Are you really that uninformed?

[Mash]

Back to your quote, bobsticks....

"Section 1311 (h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with-
(B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require. "

So the doctor must practice preventive care ("mechanisms to improve health care quality") as may be required by the Secretary.

The phrase "... only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require..." has fully proscribed WHAT the Secretary may require, i.e. The Secretary is limited to defining the required preventive care.... and nothing more.

Where is the commie plot here? There isn't one.

This entire document is typical Congressional writing that the Senate & House have produced for many, many years. You don't like it?

I can tell that you are unhappy here, bobsticks so you have two choices:

1. Tell Congress to use non-legalistic and easier to read language. Good luck with this since a majority of people in Congress are lawyers.

2. Require the President to write the legislation. One cook does a far better job with preparing the soup than would an unruly group of 500+ cooks. Obama would have done a far better job, I'll admit, but this would be unconstitutional since the US Constitution requires Congress to write the laws and the President can only accept what Congress writes or he can veto it. You could press for a Constitutional amendment, but I think this effort will prove disappointing.

I was serious about your taking the LSAT. This test is a series of paragraphs written in everyday collegiate English followed by a few questions about that paragraph. There were four possible answers to each question:

1. A very wrong answer;
2. An answer that is the socially-feel-good answer- but still wrong.
3. An answer that is *almost* correct... but not quite.
4. An answer that is exactly correct.

Answers 1. and 2. tend to reduce the perceived difference between answers 3. and 4.

[Mash]

Cool E-Stat... You left the "preparer who signed the forms" to hang for this? Well, I guess this is a proof of character.

[bobsticks]

The phrase "... only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require..." has fully proscribed WHAT the Secretary may require, i.e. The Secretary is limited to defining the required preventive care.... and nothing more.

Where is the commie plot here? There isn't one.

Given that regulations aren't a static thing it goes a good bit farther than merely prescribing "WHAT" the Secretary may require. I'd say given the nature and beliefs of the individuals involved in the bureaucracy that this will not improve existing standards.

But that's not really a big deal. What is a big deal is that it introduces a million more words into law, further unleashes the debt through unreasonable expectation and a refusal to give consequence to any variety of numbers and research, abrogates State's Rights, sets horrible precedent within the Commerce Clause, and introduces the most ineffecient mechanism of doing anything, anywhere at anytime into the equation of healthcare.

What it doesn't do is come close to addressing tort reform. It doesn't clearly detail from where the money will come for the millions of people who will fall into expanded funding sections. It doesn't stipulate anything about market fluctuation due to the elimination of annual dollar limits.

And, no, I don't think that it's a "Commie plot" but I do think that it's a money-grab and potentially a power grab---certainly smacks of both nepotism and catering to big business at the expense of civic responsibility.

Given the proclivities of the demographics involved it's no surprise that some will show a prediliction for ignoring these issues.

[Feanor]

Given that regulations aren't a static thing it goes a good bit farther than merely prescribing "WHAT" the Secretary may require. I'd say given the nature and beliefs of the individuals involved in the bureaucracy that this will not improve existing standards.

But that's not really a big deal. What is a big deal is that it introduces a million more words into law, further unleashes the debt through unreasonable expectation and a refusal to give consequence to any variety of numbers and research, abrogates State's Rights, sets horrible precedent within the Commerce Clause, and introduces the most ineffecient mechanism of doing anything, anywhere at anytime into the equation of healthcare.

What it doesn't do is come close to addressing tort reform. It doesn't clearly detail from where the money will come for the millions of people who will fall into expanded funding sections. It doesn't stipulate anything about market fluctuation due to the elimination of annual dollar limits.

And, no, I don't think that it's a "Commie plot" but I do think that it's a money-grab and potentially a power grab---certainly smacks of both nepotism and catering to big business at the expense of civic responsibility.

Given the proclivities of the demographics involved it's no surprise that some will show a prediliction for ignoring these issues.
These comments illustrate to me the unusual, almost uniquely American, suspicion & hatred of government and disbelief that government, (as the agent of the community as a whole), can accomplish anything all, much less do it efficiently.

I say "almost uniquely American" because though mistrust of politicians and government is common world-wide, it doesn't often reach the extremes it does State-side.

In the US case, excessively complex legislation and resultant complex administration are precisely the consequence of mistrust of government and the power of selfish interests to turn these to personal gain. Of course, the complexity is the cause of further mistrust clearly making for a vicious circle of cause and effect.

Obamacare is excellent example of this process. Of course when you add a whole other process to address certain problems on top of the already costly and arguably inefficient & ineffectual private healthcare system, the new process will added complexity and cost. Dah!

Clearly the USA needs to get to universal health care system like the rest of the developed world. But with the USA's socio-econ-political vicious circle system of fear, suspicion, hatred & greed, how's it going to happen?

[RGA]

The way it is

[E-Stat]

Cool E-Stat... You left the "preparer who signed the forms" to hang for this? Well, I guess this is a proof of character.
You are free to make any number of unsubstantiated assumptions you please as to what assistance I've offered unfettered by reality.

[RGA]

Politics and policies where you have few choices to make (or 2) and you have to vote the lesser of evils. The States it petty much is a choice between Sanity or Republicans and you cope with the problems.

[Feanor]

Politics and policies where you have few choices to make (or 2) and you have to vote the lesser of evils. The States it petty much is a choice between Sanity or Republicans and you cope with the problems.
Tragically the USA has become a "plutocracy".



plu·toc·ra·cy [ploo-tok-ruh-see] noun, plural plu·toc·ra·cies.
1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

Corporations = people. Money = free speech. PACs, Super PACs, C4's enabling secret funding by the rich. Kiss democracy goodbye.

This is small comfort to us Canadians who enjoy a Conservative Party government intent on making this country as much like the USA as possible as soon as possible. (This with 40% of the popular vote.)

[RGA]

Democracy and freedom are interesting concepts. So is the notion that the west is financially healthy or a first world country.

And 40% may be optimistic since the Harper regime was caught "fixing" the ballots - they learned from Bush to simply fix the votes (ahem hanging chads).

I still don't quite understand why in Hong Kong I will get a 5.8% raise due to a cost of living increase while my fellow teachers in BC will wind up taking a zero for (well forever if the BC conservatives have it their way).

The union here is pitiful and something like 1200 people get to vote for the leader of Hong Kong. They get these raises with a minimum of fuss. I am seeing less poor here than in Canada or the States as well. Maybe a despotic dictator is needed - stuff can actually get done The key part is despot.

[Feanor]

Democracy and freedom are interesting concepts. So is the notion that the west is financially healthy or a first world country.
...
I still don't quite understand why in Hong Kong I will get a 5.8% raise due to a cost of living increase while my fellow teachers in BC will wind up taking a zero for (well forever if the BC conservatives have it their way).

The union here is pitiful and something like 1200 people get to vote for the leader of Hong Kong. They get these raises with a minimum of fuss. I am seeing less poor here than in Canada or the States as well. Maybe a despotic dictator is needed - stuff can actually get done The key part is despot.
Depots -- if they aren't simply evil which most are -- tend to be pragmatists. They can, if they choose, ignore ideology and do what needs to be done.