Striking teachers get pay docked!


JLM
#1
Striking B.C. teachers fight lockout pay cut at LRB - British Columbia - CBC News


W.T.F. would anyone expect to be paid for not working? It looks to me like neither side really wants a resolution! "Special needs" kids in the classroom are nothing new, there were at least half a dozen of them in every class when I went to school, they were just all lumped together under one classification that wasn't quite as flattering!
 
taxslave
#2
Government employees expecting to be paid for not working is nothing new.
 
JLM
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Government employees expecting to be paid for not working is nothing new.




There's definitely a few like that but they are the minority. I worked with a few I had to keep lined up with a stump to see if they moved!-
 
JamesBondo
+2
#4
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, correct?
 
taxslave
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

There's definitely a few like that but they are the minority. I worked with a few I had to keep lined up with a stump to see if they moved!-

You worked mostly with outside people. My experience has mostly been with inside ones mainly dealing with forestry and environmet when I was logging and for a period as a mechanic for the air farce. Most of those people have a phobia about moving or thinking. OTH any time I have gone into service BC I have been very impressed with both the knowledge and attitude of the front line staff.
 
spaminator
+3
#6  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Striking B.C. teachers fight lockout pay cut at LRB - British Columbia - CBC News


W.T.F. would anyone expect to be paid for not working? It looks to me like neither side really wants a resolution! "Special needs" kids in the classroom are nothing new, there were at least half a dozen of them in every class when I went to school, they were just all lumped together under one classification that wasn't quite as flattering!

the teachers find the situation, outwageous.
 
JLM
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminatorView Post

the teachers find the situation, outwageous.


Good one- maybe a bit of truth there too! -
 
The Old Medic
+1
#8
It is a real shame that they can't just fire those slackers, and hire a bunch of bright, young college graduates that actually want to teach.
 
BornRuff
#9
Did anyone bother to read the article?

The teachers are not paid at all if they are on strike. The issue is that the government is locking out teachers who are not on strike and docking their wages.

You probably would be pretty pissed if you showed up to work and your boss just said that they were going to dock your pay 10% for the day.
 
JLM
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Did anyone bother to read the article?

The teachers are not paid at all if they are on strike. The issue is that the government is locking out teachers who are not on strike and docking their wages.

You probably would be pretty pissed if you showed up to work and your boss just said that they were going to dock your pay 10% for the day.


There's fault on both sides, it's not just the teachers, for one thing the Gov't is offering bribes to settle- in most walks of life that is criminal. Why should the taxpayer have to fork over bribe money especially when he/she was never asked? I think the rationale behind the 10% dockage is that teachers are only performing compulsory duties when they are working. Sounds O.K. to me. But it doesn't matter a rat's @$$ what I think, the two sides have to figure out some way of meeting in the middle. They can do it now and save a whole pile of hassle or wait until it's mediated.
 
gerryh
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

There's fault on both sides, it's not just the teachers, for one thing the Gov't is offering bribes to settle- in most walks of life that is criminal. Why should the taxpayer have to fork over bribe money especially when he/she was never asked? I think the rationale behind the 10% dockage is that teachers are only performing compulsory duties when they are working. Sounds O.K. to me. But it doesn't matter a rat's @$$ what I think, the two sides have to figure out some way of meeting in the middle. They can do it now and save a whole pile of hassle or wait until it's mediated.


The reason for the lock out, is because the teachers started rotating one day strikes to go along with their "work to rule" action. The Government warned them that if they started rotating one day strikes then they would be locked out. It was the teachers choice to carry on with the rotating strike, so it should have come as no surprise that they were locked out. It was their choice.
 
BornRuff
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

There's fault on both sides, it's not just the teachers, for one thing the Gov't is offering bribes to settle- in most walks of life that is criminal. Why should the taxpayer have to fork over bribe money especially when he/she was never asked? I think the rationale behind the 10% dockage is that teachers are only performing compulsory duties when they are working. Sounds O.K. to me. But it doesn't matter a rat's @$$ what I think, the two sides have to figure out some way of meeting in the middle. They can do it now and save a whole pile of hassle or wait until it's mediated.

The teachers are doing exactly what they are paid to do. Why would the government have right to dock their pay when they are doing their job.

We already went over this bribe thing though. Paying someone for their services is not a bribe.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

The reason for the lock out, is because the teachers started rotating one day strikes to go along with their "work to rule" action. The Government warned them that if they started rotating one day strikes then they would be locked out. It was the teachers choice to carry on with the rotating strike, so it should have come as no surprise that they were locked out. It was their choice.

It is also the government's choice to do this. Everyone in this thread seems 100% against the teachers when this is all about an action that the government has taken.
 
JLM
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

The reason for the lock out, is because the teachers started rotating one day strikes to go along with their "work to rule" action. The Government warned them that if they started rotating one day strikes then they would be locked out. It was the teachers choice to carry on with the rotating strike, so it should have come as no surprise that they were locked out. It was their choice.


I think one problem is they have the wrong guy for Minister of Education, he comes across to me as guy who wants to "steam roll" his idea of compromise, and of course the teachers want smaller classes, different make up of classes and more money, they have to make up their minds which is most important and go for that. If the employee is going to dictate the wage then the employer should be able to dictate the work and vice versa. Just bring in Vince Ready and the whole issue will be solved in a week.
 
BornRuff
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I think one problem is they have the wrong guy for Minister of Education, he comes across to me as guy who wants to "steam roll" his idea of compromise, and of course the teachers want smaller classes, different make up of classes and more money, they have to make up their minds which is most important and go for that. If the employee is going to dictate the wage then the employer should be able to dictate the work and vice versa. Just bring in Vince Ready and the whole issue will be solved in a week.

They are not making it easy on themselves by trying to go for such long term deals. If it is only a few years, it is easier to sell the idea of focusing on one thing now and dealing with other things next time around. If they want them to sign on for 6+ years, they pretty much have to settle all grievances now.
 
JLM
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

. Paying someone for their services is not a bribe.


This isn't money that's paid for services, it's money promised to the teachers if they settle on a contract before June 28. A bribe is exactly what it is. They call it a "signing bonus". The taxpayer shouldn't be burdened with that sh*t!
 
BornRuff
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

This isn't money that's paid for services, it's money promised to the teachers if they settle on a contract before June 28. A bribe is exactly what it is. They call it a "signing bonus". The taxpayer shouldn't be burdened with that sh*t!

It is just part of their compensation for the period of the contract.

Putting a sunset date on offers is a very common negotiating tactic.

Exactly how pay is structured is not really an issue. As a taxpayer I just want them to get the best overall deal.

If they can avoid putting other more costly things in the contract and get the deal done faster by structuring the deal in this way, isn't that a win for the taxpayers?
 
JLM
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

It is just part of their compensation for the period of the contract.

Putting a sunset date on offers is a very common negotiating tactic.

Exactly how pay is structured is not really an issue. As a taxpayer I just want them to get the best overall deal.

If they can avoid putting other more costly things in the contract and get the deal done faster by structuring the deal in this way, isn't that a win for the taxpayers?


Yeah, "tactic" is the right word, that doesn't mean there is anything reputable or honorable about it! -
 
BornRuff
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yeah, "tactic" is the right word, that doesn't mean there is anything reputable or honorable about it! -

There is nothing disreputable or dishonorable about being paid for your work.

You are obsessed with how the pay is structured, but isn't the real issue how much it actually costs you overall?
 
JLM
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

There is nothing disreputable or dishonorable about being paid for your work.

You are obsessed with how the pay is structured, but isn't the real issue how much it actually costs you overall?


Well, you obviously have the issues confused. I think most people want to see teachers get paid appropriately for what they do, but that doesn't include succumbing to bribes. When you have a job building widgets I would think your pay would be based on the number and quality of the widgets you build! Why complicate the issue?
 
JamesBondo
+2
#20
Nurses and doctors do their professional development without closing hospitals. Someone should mention this to the elementary schools.
 
PoliticalNick
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

The teachers are doing exactly what they are paid to do. Why would the government have right to dock their pay when they are doing their job.

We already went over this bribe thing though. Paying someone for their services is not a bribe.



It is also the government's choice to do this. Everyone in this thread seems 100% against the teachers when this is all about an action that the government has taken.

If you had any idea how many time the BCTF had held the parents of BC hostage for more money in the last 2 decades you would understand why most of us would be just as happy to see their contract include being boiled in oil.

Teachers work about 8 months a year and continually seem to want to do less teaching and more babysitting for their salary. I say they are an essential service and should not be allowed to strike. Personally I think they should go to every district that engages in these rotating strikes and hand every teacher notice for the end of June. F*ck em all, fire their a$$es and let them reapply for September when they can start at the bottom.
 
captain morgan
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

If you had any idea how many time the BCTF had held the parents of BC hostage for more money in the last 2 decades you would understand why most of us would be just as happy to see their contract include being boiled in oil.

Teachers work about 8 months a year and continually seem to want to do less teaching and more babysitting for their salary. I say they are an essential service and should not be allowed to strike. Personally I think they should go to every district that engages in these rotating strikes and hand every teacher notice for the end of June. F*ck em all, fire their a$$es and let them reapply for September when they can start at the bottom.

Take a page from Ralph Klein and each time the teachers strike; offer up a number of licenses for Charter/Private schools - all with the 'per student funding allocation'.

Shuts 'em up real quick especially in that the teachers that move from the Union to the private sector really scale back the Union numbers
 
PoliticalNick
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Take a page from Ralph Klein and each time the teachers strike; offer up a number of licenses for Charter/Private schools - all with the 'per student funding allocation'.

Shuts 'em up real quick especially in that the teachers that move from the Union to the private sector really scale back the Union numbers

Yep. I started raving about this to my girlfriend and she couldn't understand my anger. Then I found out she had never experienced a teacher's strike here in AB and her oldest graduated yesterday. Once I explained I had put my boys in private school because of 3 strikes in 5 years she saw my point a bit better.
 
MHz
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Government employees expecting to be paid for not working is nothing new.

I'm pretty sure if kids started school when they were 12 that they would be just as smart at the end of grade 12 as they are today. That cuts out 6 years of 'useless spending' and you could still use the same number of teachers with smaller classes or whatever of just save the money and the kids will sort out who goes where as far as careers go.
 
JLM
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

I'm pretty sure if kids started school when they were 12 that they would be just as smart at the end of grade 12 as they are today. That cuts out 6 years of 'useless spending' and you could still use the same number of teachers with smaller classes or whatever of just save the money and the kids will sort out who goes where as far as careers go.


I hear you, but I have just one question. Some of the kids will no doubt be self-starters and will likely get cracking doing something constructive, but I'm guessing for about 75% what you'd have is 6 wasted years between the age of 6 and 12, not to mention some bad habits get deeply ingrained. What do you propose to deal with those developments?
 
BornRuff
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Well, you obviously have the issues confused. I think most people want to see teachers get paid appropriately for what they do, but that doesn't include succumbing to bribes. When you have a job building widgets I would think your pay would be based on the number and quality of the widgets you build! Why complicate the issue?

Structure of the deal doesn't change the overall amount that it costs you. If they can save money by offering a one time bonus instead of an ongoing benefit, as a taxpayer I always want them to save money.

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

If you had any idea how many time the BCTF had held the parents of BC hostage for more money in the last 2 decades you would understand why most of us would be just as happy to see their contract include being boiled in oil.

Teachers work about 8 months a year and continually seem to want to do less teaching and more babysitting for their salary. I say they are an essential service and should not be allowed to strike. Personally I think they should go to every district that engages in these rotating strikes and hand every teacher notice for the end of June. F*ck em all, fire their a$$es and let them reapply for September when they can start at the bottom.

I'm sure they would love to be declared an essential service. That would mean that their contracts would automatically go to binding arbitration which almost always ends in better deals for the union.

In the end, it takes two to tango. The BC government has been really bad at managing their relationship with teachers. It is really exemplified by things such as just stripping parts of contracts unilaterally.
 
JLM
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Structure of the deal doesn't change the overall amount that it costs you. If they can save money by offering a one time bonus instead of an ongoing benefit, as a taxpayer I always want them to save money.


That's where you and I differ. I want to see what my money is actually going for. If it's being spent to educate children I'd rather spend a few $s more, that is well spent. I don't want to see my money spent on bribes to get teachers to sign contracts. I want them to sign the contract because they are happy with the pay for what they are paid to do.
 
BornRuff
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

I'm pretty sure if kids started school when they were 12 that they would be just as smart at the end of grade 12 as they are today. That cuts out 6 years of 'useless spending' and you could still use the same number of teachers with smaller classes or whatever of just save the money and the kids will sort out who goes where as far as careers go.

Kids learn the most important stuff in those early years. Basic literacy and numeracy is essential for any later learning, and it is very clear that most kids simply don't learn this stuff without high quality education.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

That's where you and I differ. I want to see what my money is actually going for. If it's being spent to educate children I'd rather spend a few $s more, that is well spent. I don't want to see my money spent on bribes to get teachers to sign contracts. I want them to sign the contract because they are happy with the pay for what they are paid to do.

This is stupid. If you are paying the same people the same amount of money to do the same job, what difference does it make?

You would seriously want to pay more money just to prove your misguided point about "bribes"?
 
JLM
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Kids learn the most important stuff in those early years. Basic literacy and numeracy is essential for any later learning, and it is very clear that most kids simply don't learn this stuff without high quality education.



This is stupid. If you are paying the same people the same amount of money to do the same job, what difference does it make?

You would seriously want to pay more money just to prove your misguided point about "bribes"?


It's guys like you who already "feed" a corrupt system! Like I've already said the system needs an overhaul from stem to gudgeon. Maybe a good place to start would be to fire the worst 10% of the teachers and give the other 90% a 10% raise. That makes more sense to me than bribing them.
 
gopher
+2
#30
no work
no pay
 

Similar Threads

20
Why aren't McGill students striking?
by Walter | May 25th, 2012
no new posts