I don't get the mentality of teachers.

They are requesting 13% increase over 3 years because they feel they work more (lesson prep, committee participation etc). The last time I checked each and every teacher CHOSE the profession for a variety of reasons:

- the pension
- the benefits
- 2 months off in the summer
- reasonable job security
- best job available with an arts degree

Notice how 'for the kids' is not a part of it? Don't believe me? Ask any of your teacher friends or English or History majors what they plan to do after UBC and they will say "teacher". Ask them why?and if the first answer isn't listed above.. well then you have proved me wrong.. congratulations!

I highly doubt any of these teachers did it "for the kids". Lets cut the bullshit... seriously.

If you really care "for the kids" and want to keep up with cost of living ask for a 2-3% raise each year. Yes the governments are fucktards for not giving a cost of living adjustment for the past X years. However, my point is, Christy Clarke nor Mr. Campbell forced you into the profession, each and every teacher chose it on their own. As such they must live with what the job entails.

Example, I'm an accountant - I chose it for my own reasons but I also knew going in that if I end up in public practice I'll have no time for anyone from Jan - June. If I end up in industry, I'll probably be management so no OT. I will still have the same deadlines that I'll need to meet. If I don't like the inherent characteristics of my profession, I can chose to leave and become a burger flipper or electrician.

Same goes for the teachers. If you don't like the inherent characteristics of being a teacher, chose another profession- but oh wait the benefits and pension are too good. Anyone in HR will know this is called "Golden Handcuffs"...

I also wonder, some teachers complain about budget cuts and so on, but they have the tenacity to ask for 14% raise. WTF? I guess they didn't teach math in that arts program..

So which one is it? I see a bunch of numbers being thrown around from 13% over 3, 10.75% over 4, and 15% over 3. Maybe we should get our facts straight before putting out an argument.

^ it's called collective bargaining, they ask for 13% over 3, the government is offering 7.25% over 6.

They both know they have to meet in the middle, right now it's determining that middle ground.

Like I said in an earlier post, something like 1.5-2% a year for next 6 years and I'm sure there will be a deal.

and this shouldn't be a race to the bottom, that's how the corporate world mentality is becoming these days, everybody is working longer hours for less pay. and if you complain it's "if you dont do it, someone else will". it's already becoming like that for most CAs/ CPAs.

as time progress, the rate that incomes rise will be less than inflation, and we are working long hours, so effectively our real wage is lower.

as you get older, you see why and how unions form and get their powers, because without them, it is a race to the bottom. it's unfortunate because I hate the union mentality, just as I hate the corporate mentality.

^ I am familiar with bargaining. The reason I posted that above was because they BCTF is not asking for 13% hoping for 10.75% It's all the Premier's fault - so says the BCTF about disruptions to schools | (CKNW AM) AM980. They are actively asking for 10.75% over 4 years which means the 13% over 3 years is outdated information.

Again I disagree about this "race to the bottom".

Like everything else in life the price of an employee to a company is determined by supply and demand. Like it or not employees are just a commodity to every company, they may smear family and all that bullshit in your face, but at the end of the day its just smoke and mirrors.

As the need for a particular type of employee goes up, the price employers are willing to pay for a person of that skill set will also go up. We see this happening in the trades industry right now.

As the need for a certain type of worker goes down, the price a company is willing to pay in salary to that employee will also go down.

Now the example for that second one is a little complex, part of it is because I rather not offend people, the other part is due to the fact that in our current day and age there are a lot of factors influencing this "market" price.

#1 - Decline of workers, with the baby boomers retiring and the decline in the general working force, demand is going up for workers, especially skilled ones.

#2 - The demand caused by number 1 is unequal, the baby boomers did a solid job of spreading the workforce across all different types of necessary workers. Whereas today there is a lot of white collar 9-5, bachelors degree type people being churned out all across the country.

So what we are seeing is, in some industries the price for workers is greatly increasing while, in other industries it is remaining stagnant because the number of people available to occupy that job is high. Hence why it is so difficult to break into some professions (I.e. Teaching).

Going back to your "race to the bottom" idealism, realistically unless you want to try and promote communism, you must realize that this world will always have winners and losers. There will always be a 1% and a 99%. The goal for everyone should be to make it to the 1%. Now I understand some people have different priorities and becoming part of the 1% falls far down on the list, for that debate I will spoiler my thoughts below, as it does not necessarily apply to the teachers situation.

This notion of 1% and 99% does not apply whatsoever to teaching as the teachers have more or less chosen ahead of time to be part of that 99%. Might sound harsh, but I mean come on, nobody goes into teaching thinking they are going to be making millions.

The teachers rely on the need for their services and the taxes paid by everyone else to dictate their salary. They rely on their collective power to bargain a better deal for themselves but at the end of the day the base price of their salary is still determined by that "market" price. They might be able to influence it a few percentage here and there, but by and large it will be a locked within a few points to that "market" price.

I hope this kind of makes sense on how I see it. It's late and I just finished working, so my mind is wandering a bunch thinking about this.



TL;DR - Salaries are all about supply and demand. Want to be a teacher? You will make mediocre money. Want to make good money? Go be a dumb fucking tradesperson, so few people want to do it that you will be rich in no time...:thumbs:

Teachers are complaining about their wage?

Although they're not making Corporate Executive territory, I don't find it miserably low either.
Their salaries range from $43,790 to $81,489...and don't forget all the benefits mentioned above.

Teaching Salaries in BC's Metro Region | Make a Future

Step Cat 4 Cat 5 Cat 6/PA Cat 6/M
0 $43,790 $48,083 $52,019 $52,823
1 $45,981 $50,494 $54,663 $55,467
2 $48,172 $52,904 $57,307 $58,111
3 $50,363 $55,315 $59,950 $60,754
4 $52,554 $57,725 $62,594 $63,398
5 $54,745 $60,135 $65,237 $66,041
6 $56,935 $62,546 $67,881 $68,685
7 $59,126 $64,956 $70,525 $71,328
8 $61,317 $67,367 $73,168 $73,972
9 $65,414 $69,777 $75,812 $76,616
10 N/A $74,353 $80,417 $81,489

I think the flaw in the argument from the BCTF side is that the issue at the beginning was class sizes (smaller class size = more teachers, which is what the union ultimately wants) and now it's also wage/salary increases. The last CBA with the BC Nurses had a 3% wage increase and I can't see the BCTF getting much more than that.

From a funding side, there's no way to really have both at the moment, without increasing sales tax or income tax. I'm all for raising taxes to fund education, but it seems the majority of the public wouldn't want that.

What is the average class size these days? Is it 25, 27 or 30? The BCTF would have you believe that class size is the issue, so that they can raise membership numbers. However the real issue is class composition, with more children with learning disabilities or other special needs being taught in the same classroom. I think the biggest impact would be additional funding towards support teachers and assistants for children with special needs.

just curious - i remember the nurses wanted more staff as hospitals were understaffed as well, did they get that in the end?

If they didn't they should have. Every nurse I know racks it in with overtime!

They did end up with more staff and the required hours went up to 37.5 hours a week.

haha i was thinking more of the lines that not enough nurses on the floor eg. certain patients requiring 1 to 1 care but due to lack of nurses on the shift you'd see 1 to 2 or more care.

I totally agree with you that if there is a special needs child, having an assistance or support teacher looking after him/her will alleviate the teacher from being bogged down by that student. I would think class size and class composition goes hand-in-hand.

Having to deal with a special needs child almost takes exponentially amount of time. However, as for class size, I can see the argument for both sides. As an example, a class of 40 well behave kids, while very high and probably not ideal, may be fine but as a class of 20 dumbfucks or even 10 dumbfucks would be much to handle. Given no one knows how kids behave, they would need to make an average assumption. What that class limit should be is is probably arguable for both sides.

I want to mention that often times we tend to discard issues that do not directly affect us. I mean, like a special needs child. Unless you have a specially needs child, this issue is hard to understand for most people. Another example is peanut butter allergy. It is a huge issue for parents who have kids with this issue as the worse case is death. But to some parents whose child doesn't have this issue, they don't care or do think about other children who does. Their thinking is, well, my child is not allergic to peanut butter, so why shouldn't my child eat peanut butter? If everyone is more open minded and if their children doesn't have any issues, just be glad but not everyone is so lucky. People just need to put themselves in others shoes sometimes and think, and be less selfish.

it's the 10/90 rule. 10% of your kids take up 90% of your time.

I was driving westbound on Hastings street in Burnaby this morning and saw teachers on strike. I got to thinking... How much sympathy/support do teachers expect by waving to people who are on their way to work. It's almost insulting. Especially when are fair percentage of the people they are waving to, in hopes of support, are heading to a job that does not include the salary, benefits or summer options that teachers are entitled to.

Last few strikes (cause they happen so often) there were plenty of honks of support. I did not hear a single honk of support as I drove by. I guess everybody had to get to work. :concentrate:

It doesn't matter what side you are on. The media loves a good strike or job action to divide the people. :hotbaby:

Came across this great read:

Dear Parent Of The Average Child: One B.C. Teacher's Confession | Genevieve Hawtree

and from chatting with the few elementary / high school teacher friends that I have, the general impression I got is that the recounts in the article are quite true, although at different grades, the problems / mini crisis the teacher faces are naturally somewhat different.

Before anyone jumps in to say that we all face difficulties and challenges in our own jobs on a daily basis, and how the teacher isn't the only one struggling in their profession, I want to bring up this cliche one more time -- as good or as bad as they may be, our children today are our future tomorrow, and that makes our public education system the backbone of our future. Can we really afford to allow it (our public education) to fester due to insufficient funding? (Notice how I said funding, not necessarily teachers' salaries.) As any loving and responsible parent will probably tell you, they would 110% be willing to sacrifice their own needs to fulfill the needs of their own children. As a whole, why is the province unwilling to channel more resources into our children and the public education system when we are giving pay raises to politicians, crown corp senior and middle management, already wealthy corp and the like?

because investing in children does not make them money presently

Seriously fuck all those striking bitches. Seriously makes my blood boil driving by schools and seeing them sitting on their lazy asses with signs around their neck. IF they really cared about students they wouldn't use them as pawns in a game that everyone ends up losing. It's the same shit over and over again every time they go to the bargaining table. I want the Govn't to full on say screw you to them so they don't feel they can do this every time they want a raise. When the Govn't gives in, it's reinforcing the fact they know they can always get what they want (or close). Teachers deserve a raise, that I agree with. But what they are asking for is ridiculous and not on par with other public sector employees.

rather interesting comment from a teacher... I wonder how many feel this way but have to stand in support for something they dont want to participate because of union solidarity..
--

All good issues.
The (my) BCTF needs to take salary off the table, go on strike on ONE issue being class size/composition. When the government legislates the teachers back to work, stay on strike until the ONE issue is fixed. Teachers: we get paid well. Get over it. Our issue should be the students in our classrooms. Parents and students need to take a break as well. The tied for first cause of grief a teacher faces today is the shite attitude of many students and MANY MORE parents.

Malcolm Chrystal
Teacher since 1992.
Currently TOC in SD37

Meant to post this earlier, but oh well.

Thoughts? One side of me thinks that students should get the most of the time they have with their teachers, but the other feels that it's pretty damn hypocritical of teachers to pull the "Do as I say, not as I do" card.

As much as I support proper wages and decent class sizes for teachers, I hate that they're pulling this shit at the end of the school year. This is the time when students need help the most, what with final exams coming up.

about 11 years ago when i was in grade 12, some stupid shit with them was happening..

we ended up doing a student walk out.

honestly...it does/did shit all except get us out of class...

(cant say it'll do nothing for them, but who knows...)

sad thing is, i was involved in a teach strike (was it in 2000? i can't recall)

doesn't this all strike you as odd, that probably >50% of us has seen a strike whilst at school, not to mention the bus strikes, port strikes, etc.

i'm not from canada, and have lived in 4 different countries - canada, by far, is the most strike prone place i've ever lived, and that tells me something is inherently wrong with either the government and/or our union structures/powers.

fundamentally, the big losers here are the tax paying citizens.

i'm sick of seeing shit like that

this happened when i was in HS as well. all the schools in the city walked out and marched on city hall. really all it did was cause damage (some convenient stores were looted and bush shelters smashed, and time out of school.

Bumping this to the top, gonna make two separate posts in order to organise my thoughts a bit better.

New update from the government:
Province moves to make exams, report cards essential services

So having previously said that the government would lock teachers out on the days when the teachers would be marking the graduating tests and that they would 'ensure that the work was done' regardless, we now know that the default move is not to find a compromise, but instead to simply pass a law saying 'you have to do this regardless'.

As much as I understand the resistance that people feel to negotiating with the Teachers, given the demands which people perceive as 'extreme', defaulting to legislating in contracts is very much not a sign of good faith for anyone.

The few teacher friends that I have talked to pretty much expected this right from the start -- they were totally expecting the BC Liberals government to not take the negotiations seriously, and simply legislate them back to work, and perhaps even forcing a CBA down their throats once again. Legislating school teaching as "essential service" has already happened in the past with this government -- I forgot when, and I am too lazy to look it up. The BCTF as well as the teachers have pointed this out many times in the past -- they have repeatedly claim that the government is negotiating in bad faith.