So, basically Ontario teachers spend the rest of the day hanging around the teacher's lounge? That is how I read that.Originally Posted by MoneyGal
That's an interesting way of determining hourly wage. As an example, does that mean for firefighters we should only count the time that they are actually called into an emergency and hence have an inflated hourly wage instead of counting when they are on-call and sitting around the firehall?
I don't have any comment on that. The report, if you look at it, determines or derives a per-teaching-hour wage. Some teachers are paid for formal prep time and other activities; others are not. The actual report is fascinating and looks at educational attainment in a society and the number of hours kids go to school, etc.
I don't think we should understand the $x-per-hour as an actual hourly wage in the way that is normally understood. However, again, as a way to provide international comparability, the OECD report came up with the concept of "teaching hours" and looked at teacher compensation through that lens. It is interesting to me that Ontario teachers only (according to their own contracts) actually teach 22 hours per week.
If you read the linked Star article, currently Ontario teachers are paid for 22 hours(1300 minutes) of teaching time, 80 minutes of supervisory time, and 200 minutes of prep time per week.
1300 + 200 + 80 = 1580 minutes, or 26.33 hours per week. Given that those numbers are apparently directly from the teachers' contracts, I doubt there's any fudging. I assume that's for a week with 5 teaching days.
I read it and you misunderstood me. I don't doubt the numbers. I had a somewhat serious question. What are the teachers doing with the time that apparently isn't covered under their collective agreement?
I guess the other issue is the idea of how you want to account for salary and why one shouldn't mix up someone who is salaried with someone who is paid hourly. My point being if you want to translate their salaries into hourly based on their collective agreement then yes they have an inflated hourly wage. So if you were to rail against the teachers saying that they are overpaid, and that they should make half their hourly wage ($34), that results in an annual salary of $27K which I'm sure people can agree is much too low.
I assume that $27K is based on $55K that you cited above. Can you reference the source of the $55K number?
I think it's plain wrong.
Here's the official salary grid of Ottawa Carleton Elementary Teachers Federation
http://www.ocetf.ca/collective-barga...ary-grids.aspx
Scroll down to see 2011 grid.
Newly hired Category A teachers start at $44,930. They can progress to $59,315 after 5 years on the job, without upgrading their qualifications.
They earn more if they upgrade their category to A1, A2, etc.
Category A4 teachers with 10+ years of experience earn $92,821.
Last edited by GoldStone; 2012-10-22 at 08:08 PM.
Boy did this topic get off track MP Pensions. LOL
It's a link that Moneygal had posted two pages ago: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle4541629/
Due to the way it is normalized, it is possible that it may deviate from the actual salary.
As per MoneyGals last post, that is pretty sweet pay/pension for 26.33 hours a week. If the teachers were to work 40 hours a week and put in 12 months, and you consider the pension, that would be in the range of what alot of MD's take home a year.
Or, because they are salaried and not paid on an hourly basis, they get the same total annual pay for the extra hours worked and you have a corresponding decrease in hourly pay.
For the teachers that work that ... yes.
Though if that's all that's needed, I can't help wondering why my cousin was spending evenings and weekends grading papers or doing reporting the ministry required or attending staff meetings.
I suppose it's no different than the salaried managers at work. Some are regularly in at 9am and gone by 5pm while others are around more including weekends.
Cheers
The C.D. Howe institute published a new report stating that even after the reforms, the public pensions are still too generous.
Not just the MP pensions, but the general federal sector.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11...n_2058281.html
The C.D. Howe Institute report says the government is underestimating the plans' liabilities by about 40 per cent, or $100 billion, so taxpayers are on the hook for more than advertised.
Full report:
http://www.cdhowe.org/further-reform...required/19521
The authors find:
- The annual accumulations of wealth in these plans are now much higher than their reported current service costs, meaning that employee contributions will fall far short of their advertised 50-percent share.
- Taxpayers will still bear more than half of the risk of changes in the cost of new obligations and – more important – the entire risk of changes in the cost of servicing past obligations unless the federal plans are converted to target-benefit plans in which benefits adjust depending on funding.
- Federal employees now get tax-deferred saving that is triple or more what Canadians contributing to defined-contribution pension plans or RRSPs get, an unjustifiable unevenness in treatment.
- The proposed reforms will still leave the MPs’ plan completely unfunded, which weakens parliamentarians’ moral authority to lead Canadian pension reforms.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote