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

Video: Jim Sinclair and Darryl Walker on Voice of BC - Support BC's Teachers:Stand Up for BC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

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

---

International House of Prayer?!?

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

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

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. :)

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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

---

Yep. Welcome to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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, fuck the unions. I want to know what's in it for me, because they're certainly in it for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

...

---

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

LMAO! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

...
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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

No...

---

You would say that, 'Sticks. Is there a principled reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

(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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

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.

Changes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

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.

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."