I'm glad the government is sticking to their guns as I personally I think the majority of teachers are overpaid and their wages should be scaled backed. Most of the teachers I've come across in social settings have said that they're only a teacher because they really didn't know what else to do with a BA and having summers off is a nice perk, while going through the motions.

I'm finding very few teachers these days get into it because they truly love kids or educating, and this is the big problem, while there are a few dedicated, awesome teachers that perhaps deserve a raise, the majority don't and in my opinion deserve a wage rollback or to be fired, but the union environment doesn't really allow that. Couple that with declining enrollment numbers overall in BC, I cannot side at all with the teachers in this situation.

With the 10% rollback in wages already and now them deciding to strike, even if the government concedes a bit of a raise, the teachers will never make that money back, so overall, this is already a win for the government. I think the last news item I saw said the government would be saving about $26 million a week with the rotating strike action and will save $82 million a week if a full scale strike happened. Put some money back into the system for supplies and maybe infrastructure upgrades, but I personally wouldn't want to give teachers a penny more for wages.

You do realize those are just inherent characteristics of the job right?

brb for the kids
brb complaining about job description
brb asking for more money
brb brb

I'm going to unload on these teacher right now.

1st They do get 3 months off so they work a total of 9 months.

2nd They get paid starting 43k, ending at 83k. That's a great wage for 9 months work.

3rd Private School teachers are much better at teaching children than public school
teachers. But public school teachers believe there should be more equality.

4th They don't have have an incentive to teach more to students than in a guideline. So if the students if don't learn the subject matter, there are no consequences for the teachers of those students who learn in different ways.

5th Student suffer more than teachers do with class sizes and asking for more money per teacher is not going to help student learn the subject matter quicker. It makes teachers have less stress at work by having more money in their pockets and the government is handicapped in there budget. So the teachers asking for raises hurts students by having fewer and fewer teachers.

I agree with the guy above saying these are inherent characteristics of the job. Actually these are inherent characteristics of many professionals in any service based industry with multiple stakeholders. For example, I'm an accountant, and to reword you bit about teachers:

"Not to mention accounting standards change every few years, so the accountants have to change their plans and have lots of prep work. Accountants are not only there to do accounting but support clients after hours when they have financial troubles, offer guidance, etc. Accountants also have to review client business practices and give feedback back to stakeholders, or meet with auditors/CRA to discuss a client's issue. I feel like many of us may have not been in business for a while, so we feel like accountants only account."

(didn't fix grammar btw)

The context is surely different but you get the gist. I just don't think it's fair to keep pushing the "children" card.

i get the feeling that this thread is getting into the direction where we focus on discrediting teacher's claims rather than having a discussion on how a compromise could be developed - not that it matters, as we don't have control to the end result at all

my take: fault is on both sides: government and union

the way union is set up is that it rewards seniority and not performance (i think that's where some of our gripe is at) and because of this, many under performing and lethargic teachers get paid more money than they should.

children cannot be compared to adults - the individuals that we work with, whilst abysmal, arrogant, or immature at times, does not require us to care for their well being and growth. clients comes to us with a problem and we work to solve it.

we face our own challenges for sure but i don't think we would be as emotionally involved to our clients compared to the passionate teacher and his/her kids. ofcourse, there are the teachers who are in it just for the paycheque - which is why i pointed out to be the fault of the union but hopefully these guys are not the representative majority.

but back to the problem: finding a fair compensation in the eyes of both the government (the public) and the union (the teachers)

finding a fair solution that works for both parties is basically like squeezing blood from a stone. but i would think the ideal solution would require the union to fix their fundamental problems and start weeding out teachers who under perform, are lethargic, or have retired. on the government's side, they essentially need to be more efficient with the money they spend and allocate to public services; stop giving themselves raises, stop giving money to programs who could not use it all or have no use for it. doing so, would prevent us taxpayers from forking more money whenever a public services group demands more money and providing the opportunity to improve class room conditions when demanded.



just my opinion and attempt to take on the perspective of both parties.

This kind of shit happens everywhere though. Not just teachers.

I've met a lot of police officers who keep their job just because they need a job.
How many police officers out there are actually truly passionate about making a world better place? And serve for community and genuinely want to help people?

Same goes with doctors, many of them get into it just for social status, money or ego.
This happens to any job, I would say. Lawyers, bus drivers, carpenters, fitness instructors, McDonald's managers, anything.

13 dolla ballas yo

are kids gonna have a summer break or what?

So rotating strikes continue tomorrow and Monday. Tuesday the provincial strike starts.

I feel bad for parents that have to rearrange schedules and take time off work and kids who have provincial exams and graduation events.

Article by Peter Mansbridge.

^

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9QjARWd5a8...f-approval.gif

My son came home with all his stuff, school year is over as far as I can tell. I can send him to daycare for another $30 a day on top of the $450 I've already paid this month for after school care or I can keep him home and find alternate arrangements. Thankfully my sister in law is going to help us out with watching him during the day and save some of the costs.

My prediction is they get mandated back to work second week of Sept. as nothing will happen during the summer.

I have all the respect in the world for Peter Mansbridge, and he makes some great points about the poor job many parents do, and the difference a good teacher can make in that child's life.

BUT:

It has gotten to the point that we aren't comparing teachers to industrial employees we can compare a teacher to other jobs which take just as much school, and teachers still make a lot more. Jobs like accounting, and technologists.

Yes, the importance their job has on our future is immense, but the world revolves around TODAY, not tomorrow. Without us here today, tomorrow looks pretty fucking bleak.

You cannot say that other professions, like the ones who generate our food, the ones who build our infrastructure, the ones who manage our countries and safety. You cannot honestly try to tell me that these jobs are less important than that of the teachers just because the children are the future.

I always joke about how for my work I facilitate the raping and pillaging of the earths natural resources, but without companies like us the world as we know it ceases to exist; computers gone, infrastructure gone, cars gone, electricity gone, etc.

So I am here to say that I am just as important a member of society as any teacher, and those that tell me otherwise can pound sand.

I'm going add another 2 points.

There should be a base salary and a bonus structure so there are incentives for teachers to have high achieving students.

Teachers should use all the resources of their classrooms sizes to their advantage. There are going to be the students that are high achievers and require little attention and those students who don't understand the material at good enough rate to keep up with tests and exams. Pairing high achieving one's with low achieving ones with keep everyone at an more even playing field.

Using the weakness that are in the school system, teachers can flip the script and use them to their advantage.

There can never be parity if pay is based on student achievement. A physics 12 teacher with motivated students would make more than any grade 9/10 teacher. Also, with the ministry of education ditching most provincial exams there is no standard to compare one class to another. If the was a standard test that determined teachers' pay then teachers would spend 100% of their time teaching to the test instead of having the flexibility to focus on current events or the interests of the class.

As for mixing high and low achieving students, welcome to every classroom in the province. I can tell you from experience that 1) high achieving students are unlikely to have any positive effect on the grades of struggling students, and 2) it is unfair to those high achieving students to ignore them and spend all of your time on the struggling students (although this is inevitable to some degree).

This is pretty off-base. If you're accountant that makes the peak salary of a teacher, you're a pretty shitty accountant. If you're any good, you should be making 80K after four years. The only accountants who don't make that work for the government, or they're not accountants at all (e.g. bookkeepers).

And who do you think taught those people the skills they needed to become farmers, engineers, and business people? Teachers.

At $225.00 an hour and a $10,000.00 expense account, why the hell would the negotiator for the province want this to end? On top of that, everyday the teachers strike, millions are saved by the government.

The teachers will never make up the lost wages, so the government wins in the end. Public will just shit on teachers like RS members do here already and nobody will give two shits when it's all over.

The union leaders are happy in a way, too. What would they do if this kind of shit never happens?

If I were in charge, I'd tell Peter Cameron, the appointed negotiator, that he has until June 30th to get a deal done and that he will receive a bonus of $2000.00 for every day he's done earlier. Until then, he will receive 14 dolla an hour. A little incentive, lol.

The government doesn't give two shits about working people. They do whatever gets them re-elected. They just pit people against each other and play games.

Just tongue in cheek comments, so don't get knickers in a knot. I luv RS so muchee.........

not in vancouver.

working for KPMG, getting the top performance rating (as a CA), i made $66K there (now, this was a good number of years ago) in my 4th year. bonuses suck. I make way over double this now, thankfully, but this also required me to get the hell out of dodge. it should also be noted that i don't think there has been much salary inflation at the accounting firms in vancouver - their employees continue to get the shaft

please don't throw income numbers around without some solid support. i know a lot of people with more years than that earning less than $80K as CAs in industry because the job market sucks in vancouver (i also know a bunch that make more).

Maybe just like some of these teachers, many of these accountants value family, and spending time with loved ones. Not every accountant is going to grind 70 hours a week, to make 100k a year.

There are plenty of people with accounting degrees working for 60k or 80k a year in banks all over. Believe me I know, my family is full of bankers.

It was pointed out to me in another thread by Ulic, how difficult it is to break into high salary positions for those that aren't willing to grind out 80 hours a week. I never really paid attention, because I was willing to do whatever it took to make the cash. But now when I look at it the amount of truly intelligent people who have great educations but work for less money in order to have some flexibility or so they don't have to grind is immense. These people are working in industries where they have no security that the teachers do, yet they make very similar money, and they all have very similar levels of education.


Yes your right, but a world full of teachers doesn't put food on my fucking table.

If you start paying teachers as much as an average engineer, that engineer no longer will go to work as an engineer, he will just say "fuck it, I want security of union working as a teacher, I want 3 months off a year"

Teachers are important, but do not try and elevate them above other professions. Other professions which are making the exact same money as them now. Other professions which do not get 3 months off a year, and do not have the security the teachers have.

I just want one fucking person in this thread to explain to me this:

If we are not paying teachers enough, and we need to be paying them more, why in the fuck are there so many wannabe teachers?

Someone just please fucking answer me this^.

Man, you post this like it’s so black and white. I'd like to say I'm one of the more objective members on this board, and not some that take a teachers are wrong, government is right stance and don’t use any logic at all.

There are reasons why private schools tend to have so called "better" teachers.

By better, most believe in the fact that private school students achieve better grades, and go on to go into university at a higher rate than public schools. The highest ranking schools are usually expensive private schools or schools on the west side or in more affluent neighbourhoods.

I think it has more to do with the fact that their parents are more educated and spend more time assisting them as well as the students being surrounded by other students that are “keeners”, rather than the skill of the teacher.
Due to a variety of reasons it’s also much tougher to teach a student from say “east van” or “whalley” than to teach someone from point grey.
I know someone that works as a teacher in coquitlam and they are going to reshuffle which schools and some of the teachers from the nicer school are worried they may have to now teach in a poorer/ less attractive neighbourhood.

As a person whose been poor for most of my childhood until I graduated and rode the real estate boom and am now better off - not rich, just better off - and had certain type of friends, I remembered going to UBC and meeting a whole new different type of social class and having them become my friends, most of them grew up on the west side and drive new bmws purchased by their parents and really have no clue about how a lot of other people live. They are usually all for lowered taxes and think public servants are overpaid and like policies that would increase their bottom line. This is fine as everybody is entitled to their own ideas and opinions and they must act in the best interest of their parents companies etc. but it negatively affects many others – usually the less fortunate ones.

I really think some members are just not fully educated on all the issues or just don’t care about how our society is going to turn out. Right now it seems like the wealth gap between the rich and the poor is ever growing and when there’s a higher population of poor and unhappy people, more social problems will arise and things like riots start happening. Also I truly believe that if us commoners have better wages, we would in turn demand more goods and thus that would drive the demand for companies to produce and sell those goods. Now I don’t want this to turn into a political thread so I will revert back to the teachers.

Base on how the market is with the number of people who want to be teachers and the amount of graduates being pumped out of universities is much greater than the amount of positions available (supply and demand) - indicates that teachers are probably paid more than they should be.
Yes, one of the main cons about unions is that it’s difficult to fire bad teachers. Yes I know it’s hard to develop proper performance metrics but there are some employees in unions that just ABUSE the system and they need to be let go.
But overall I don’t want a race to the bottom in terms of wages.


http://static.someecards.com/someeca...99_8121033.png

I'll give it a shot.

Let's go back in time, shall we?

Back in the old days, teachers were paid next to nothing. One became a teacher back then because they loved what they did. It was a shitty job, albeit prestigious, but very few people wanted to become a teacher - the pay sucked and you needed a bit of schooling yourself. Back then well educated people were few and far between.

By WWII there was a shortage of teachers. Teachers resigned in droves for better paying jobs at factories. After the war, the easy solution to the shortage was to get those who served for their country to become a teacher. Since then, teachers had to have some post secondary training/degree. First it was two years, then four, and now five.

Pay for teachers kept going up. Today, the teaching profession is more about the pay, benefits, and time off and less about the kids and the joy of teaching. Today, that's all most people think about - the bottom line. It's too bad it has come to this, but the requirements for becoming a teacher is a step away for those who already have a degree and can't find a job in their field. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach!" That was written way way back when teaching was uber simplistic and has been irrelevent for ages until now. How sad.

In other countries, teachers are held in high regard. It is an honourable profession. Pay is never good, but being a teacher means a lot. Over here, it's the opposite.

Another North American trait - There are a lot more fucked up teachers than there are good. The unions are to blame on that one. Like in any profession where unions are involved, it's the lazy and ineffective workers who are the big supporters of unions. They are the ones who need the union to protect them.

Anyway, there needs to be a way to ensure the right people get the jobs - not the ones who are in it for the pay and benefits. There is no easy solution, because it is complicated. Don't get me wrong. There are some really good teachers out there making a difference. The ones who connect with kids. The ones who sponser extra-curricular teams and clubs. The ones who are first at school and last to leave. They are the ones who get lost in all of this.

On a side note, the teachers union should never strike over class size and composition. Just negotiate wages and benefits. Then, it's simple. Let the parents and the community decide what class sizes and composition is acceptable.

On yet another side note, the ones who are sitting back and watching with a bag of popcorn are the private school teachers. I have a catholic friend (yes, I actually have a catholic friend) who is a teacher at a private school and he's like, "Dude, I get paid almost the same as a public school teacher and I pay no union dues. And, to boot, I'm still working this week."

Christy Crunch is a cunning one. It's a balancing act. Save enough money by prolonging the strike, but don't let it go on too long....... her last words, "I'm hopeful that an agreement will be reached." Of course it will. It's already been decided when and how much, long ago.

I'll give it a shot as well.

For better or for worse, a lot people (I dare say the majority?) are nearly clueless about the daily realities of a prospective job. They certainly have some clues about it, but they don't really know what it is like until the day when they really get into the grind. So here we have a bunch of people who thinks teaching is a good career path because of all the common reasons that people think teaching is a good job -- stable and above average pay, 2+ months (or really, ~3 now) worth of holidays, 9-to-3 work schedule (plus a bit of homework/prep work), aspirations to teach the future generation and enlightened them, etc.

Note that not all of the above is true. As a matter of fact, a lot of it isn't. But hey, before they are actually out in the trenches teaching kids, they won't really know what it is like, and they only focus on the good aspects of the job. But then you get sucked into the B.Ed. program. You are paying all that tution for your professional designation. You are spending all that time to go to class for the degree. Are you really gonna back out now?

There's nothing stopping an engineer or an accountant from becoming a teacher.

Except for one thing and it's a big one.

Getting up in front of 30 children and speaky their language. I guarantee you very few engineers, let alone accountants, will have the attention of the kids for more than three nanoseconds. They will be chewed up and spit out into 1001 pieces onto the wall of the classroom. I've had many friends try to become teachers only to give up or fail their first practicum. Kids can reduce the toughest person to a sobbing, bumbling idiot. And, they will point and laugh for good measure.

Another weird thing I've noticed from my days as a PAC (parent advisory council) member at my kids' schools is that a lot of teachers are not very smart. More than a few, lol, but one thing they have over brain power is control over kids. You can be the smartest person on earth, but getting your message across to those little darlings is a whole new ball of wax.

This is pretty well what I have been saying all along.

Yet when I bring up the fact that unions aren't helping the teachers in this case, people start saying how without unions employment is a "race to the bottom".

Case and point go back to this thread:

http://www.revscene.net/forums/68389...ked-out-5.html

I said almost exactly what you have said here: