# Teachers/unions/sick days



## Four Pillars

This one is for Harold Crump. Do you think this sort of stuff would occur in a non-unionized environment where the workers might actually have a chance of being disciplined or fired for bad behaviour? 

http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/...ng_sick_days_as_end_of_school_year_nears.html


----------



## LifeInsuranceCanada.com

Four Pillars said:


> This one is for Harold Crump. Do you think this sort of stuff would occur in a non-unionized environment where the workers might actually have a chance of being disciplined or fired for bad behaviour?
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/...ng_sick_days_as_end_of_school_year_nears.html


Poke. Poke-poke. Poke-poke-poke. (Poking hornets nest with a stick). Poke poke.poke.


----------



## stephenheath

Private sector here, although I'm on salary so don't have specific sick days, but for the staff that does get a set amount per year with no carryover yes they use those days at the end of the year if they haven't, and no there's no crackdown on using the sick days they were given, it's just factored in as part of the salary.

If the school board gives 11 days and then just expects people not to take them to meet budget, that's not really the employee's fault... if you can't afford to give them 11, don't give them 11.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Hi FP, thanks for thinking of me...I am flattered 
This is, of course, scandalous but not surprising or unexpected at all.
This is exactly what happens when misguided, incompetent governments get in bed with vested interest groups or lobbies like the teachers union.
They are an extremely powerful union and can almost single handedly sway the results of a provincial election, like in Ontario.

Remember the "_vote for kids_" campaign through the summer of 2011 prior to the elections?
They had put up large billboards all throughout the city, and even in suburbs like Mississauga with pictures of smiling children.
Awww..who could resist voting for kids, right?

Another recent development is the planned cancelation of music programs in Ontario schools.
The unions managed to get the concessions they wanted, but fundamentally all school boards are still broke.
So they turned around and cut the lowest hanging fruit...the music programs.

To answer your question:


> Do you think this sort of stuff would occur in a non-unionized environment where the workers might actually have a chance of being disciplined or fired for bad behavior


It wouldn't...at least not on such a large scale.
At the very least, employees taking sick leave ought to be asked to produce a doctor's report.
Oh wait...are they unionized too?


----------



## CanadianCapitalist

HaroldCrump said:


> To answer your question:
> It wouldn't...at least not on such a large scale.
> At the very least, employees taking sick leave ought to be asked to produce a doctor's report.
> Oh wait...are they unionized too?


You are kidding right? Like Stephen, I once worked at a company that had a set number of sick days every year. Employee cannot roll over these sick days. So, guess what happened? End of year, employees would be off "sick" to burn off their balance. If incentives are set up a certain way, people will behave accordingly.


----------



## HaroldCrump

And no one asked the employees for a doctor's note when everyone is suddenly "sick" towards the end of the year?
Where was this, and how do I sign up?

I agree the incentives are set up wrong. But so is the unlimited carry forward of sick time, and the jackpot bonanza at retirement worth 2 years of pay.
I can understand vacation carry-forward (full or partial), but sick time?
That reeks as a welfare state.


----------



## Charlie

I've been fortunate (?) enough not to have worked in that atmosphere. When sick days are an entitlement, then it's as if you're not paid for sick days -- after all, you get the time whether or not you're sick -- seems a shame to waste them on days you're not feeling well...I have seen companies that have a set number of personal days off....and it doesn't matter if they're for illness, vacation or other. I guess that addresses it, but I didn't like that system. 

I worked 10+ yrs at a company that had a complex formula for sick days -- # days/yr based on yrs of service with a percentage carryfwd and certain max etc. I didn't take a single day. I cannot think of anybody who would have maxed out (unless they went on a long term leave of some sort) and I don't feel I missed out. I liked that system, but it worked due to the culture of the company, and the integrity (there's a loaded word...) of the people.


----------



## none

Charlie said:


> I worked 10+ yrs at a company that had a complex formula for sick days -- # days/yr based on yrs of service with a percentage carryfwd and certain max etc. I didn't take a single day. I cannot think of anybody who would have maxed out (unless they went on a long term leave of some sort) and I don't feel I missed out. I liked that system, but it worked due to the culture of the company, and the integrity (there's a loaded word...) of the people.


You are either extremely fortunate to not have ben sick once for ten years or extremely inconsiderate of your co-workers for coming to work when you were sick and contageous. Sick days exist for good reason - I wish people would take them when they were justifiably sick.


----------



## MoneyGal

I've taken five sick days in the past 10 years - one random day last fall, and four days when I had knee surgery. I'm not inconsiderate; I don't get sick.


----------



## none

MoneyGal said:


> I've taken five sick days in the past 10 years - one random day last fall, and four days when I had knee surgery. I'm not inconsiderate; I don't get sick.


Good for you. I don't get sick terribly often either - hence I subsidize those with weaker immune systems and those with bad teeth. I don't mind - it's all about working together and helping each other out.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Let us not forget that the teachers already enjoy one of the lowest working hours among all professions.
We are not talking about 60 hrs. a week coal miners in some third-world country, or a sweat shop cotton factory in medieval England.

Almost all other full-time employment professions have a standard of approx. 2,000 working hours in a year.

For them to claim "sick" days as an entitlement is a slap on the face of tax payers.


----------



## none

HaroldCrump said:


> Let us not forget that the teachers already enjoy one of the lowest working hours among all professions.
> We are not talking about 60 hrs. a week coal miners in some third-world country, or a sweat shop cotton factory in medieval England.
> 
> Almost all other full-time employment professions have a standard of approx. 2,000 working hours in a year.
> 
> For them to claim "sick" days as an entitlement is a slap on the face of tax payers.


You're right - it's more like 50 hours per week for public school teachers. University professors, however, is much more like 60+.


----------



## LifeInsuranceCanada.com

stephenheath said:


> Private sector here, although I'm on salary so don't have specific sick days, but for the staff that does get a set amount per year with no carryover yes they use those days at the end of the year if they haven't, and no there's no crackdown on using the sick days they were given, it's just factored in as part of the salary.
> 
> If the school board gives 11 days and then just expects people not to take them to meet budget, that's not really the employee's fault... if you can't afford to give them 11, don't give them 11.


That's not sick days you're talking about. That's vacation days they're calling sick days. And that's an abuse of the system by the employees on an individual basis.


----------



## stephenheath

To be honest, I don't get sick days. Are they a form of insurance "we'll cover you up to 5 days if you're sick this year but don't take it if you're not", an incentive "we know you'd come and spread the plague if we didn't pay you not to, so GTFO of here", part of the pay package "if you're not sick enough, use em to avoid losing em"... etc?

Without knowing what prompted them to exist in the first place it's hard to tell if it's actually abuse or not.


----------



## stephenheath

LifeInsuranceCanada. said:


> That's not sick days you're talking about. That's vacation days they're calling sick days. And that's an abuse of the system by the employees on an individual basis.


That's what I keep telling my bosses, if you're gonna treat it that way, skip this whole separate system and just give them more holiday days, it's effectively the same thing, but they don't want to change.


----------



## Charlie

So it's a conceptual thing then. Are they a contingency or an entitlement? 

I prefer contingency -- use them if you really need them. Similar to bereavement leave. Others view them as an entitlement -- I have X days left.


----------



## MoneyGal

It's a work culture thing, IME.


----------



## Ponderling

Kind of a stalinist approach:

Well, they work for the sate, let the state look after its affairs in their sick days. 
Get paid with a doctors note only?

Or more radically, have the police swing by and put a boot lock on thier car in home gagrage or driveway that get undone only for doctors appointments. 
Or charge them with fraud if they are not at home when they go to lock up the car and find siad sick person not at home.

I'm not usually this wound up about these things, but last week, per torstar, my kid's school board, Peel saw about 16% of its teachers call in sick.


----------



## none

Ponderling said:


> Kind of a stalinist approach:
> 
> Well, they work for the sate, let the state look after its affairs in their sick days.
> Get paid with a doctors note only?
> 
> Or more radically, have the police swing by and put a boot lock on thier car in home gagrage or driveway that get undone only for doctors appointments.
> Or charge them with fraud if they are not at home when they go to lock up the car and find siad sick person not at home.
> 
> I'm not usually this wound up about these things, but last week, per torstar, my kid's school board, Peel saw about 16% of its teachers call in sick.


That's brutal - perhaps they should hire an ethics teacher for the future teachers (and current ones too!).

Funny that there are so many 'bad apples'. I don't know of anyone who would do such a thing - I guess I'm fortunate to have surrounded myself by the right people.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Ponderling said:


> I'm not usually this wound up about these things, but last week, per torstar, my kid's school board, Peel saw about 16% of its teachers call in sick.


As they said, _Vote for Kids_ :rolleyes2:


----------



## HaroldCrump

none said:


> it's more like 50 hours per week for public school teachers


Public school teachers work for 50 hrs. every week for 50 weeks?
Yeah, ok


----------



## andrewf

Teachers make it hard for others to defend them. This behaviour in egregious and indefensible.


----------



## dubmac

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...er-of-teachers-college-grads/article12357404/

I'm pleased to see that the Ont gov't is doing something to change the number of teaching graduates. These measures may seem somewhat paltry - but, it's a start IMO. Though these measures do little/nothing to respond to the matter ofsick days and the other points raised in this thread, these measures may start to change the profession by elevating the standards for admission, and removing the stigma that "becoming a teacher is easy, as is getting certified". 

This will *not* solve the problems associated with union politics and union greivances. Perhaps however, with time (10 years maybe), all those older, socialist bent teachers will enter retirement, and a more progressive graduate will emerge. This is still a pie-in-the-sky, and does little to fix the existing problems, but, at least some of the problem (OVER-SUPPLY of teachers) is being addressed.


----------



## HaroldCrump

A union is a form of supply management.
These changes are but a very small step.
As long as the teacher's union lobby controls the chains of provincial govt., no significant changes can be expected.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> And no one asked the employees for a doctor's note when everyone is suddenly "sick" towards the end of the year?
> 
> Where was this, and how do I sign up?


Every company I've worked for only requires a doctor's note at the fifth consecutive day off. Even then - the once I needed it, it was a quick phone call to the doctor's office and the note was faxed off to work.

A fair number of co-workers lectured others at the lunch table that they were being silly by not using all the sick days by the end of the year.


Cheers


----------



## HaroldCrump

Eclectic12 said:


> Every company I've worked for only requires a doctor's note at the fifth consecutive day off. Even then - the once I needed it, it was a quick phone call to the doctor's office and the note was faxed off to work.


Fifth day onwards is probably fine.
At some point, there has to be mutual trust between the employer and the employee.
It is very hard to run an organization of any kind (private/public, unionized/non-unionized) without any mutual trust or respect.

No one is saying teachers (or any public sector employee) should not be allowed to take sick days.
For their part, the employees (teachers) should not be abusing the system, and respect the fact that they belong to a 100% tax-payer funded enterprise.
The teachers union have demonstrated none of that since their stooge govt. came to power in 2003.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> Fifth day onwards is probably fine...


If private industry wants a note after five consecutive days off (times two and likely three employers) and the article mentions Mondays and Fridays which implies the teachers the days are being spaced out - I'm not sure why either situation would require a doctor's note or be seen as exceptional.




HaroldCrump said:


> No one is saying teachers (or any public sector employee) should not be allowed to take sick days. For their part, the employees (teachers) should not be abusing the system, ...


... and I'm pointing out that abuse of sick days have dramatically increased in private industry over the last twenty years. So it is culture shift in the working culture? Is it abuse of the public system? Or is it something in between?

I'm not sure it is as clear cut as you see it.


Personally I'd prefer if everyone took sick days only if they were sick, private or public. The recent graduates at work consider it an entitlement and will take a sick day for being tired after being out late with friends the night before as "I'm going to lose it if I don't use it".


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

none said:


> That's brutal - perhaps they should hire an ethics teacher for the future teachers (and current ones too!).
> 
> Funny that there are so many 'bad apples'. I don't know of anyone who would do such a thing - I guess I'm fortunate to have surrounded myself by the right people.


Can send them out to private companies as well?

Between the "sick" on Friday and "working from home" types - it has become a regular thing in the summer to have more than 20% of my department unreachable.


There seem to be those who are there to work and those who know how to work the system.


Cheers


----------



## Dmoney

none said:


> You're right - it's more like 50 hours per week for public school teachers. University professors, however, is much more like 60+.


LOL

From first link when I googled school hours (some Toronto school):

Gr. 1-6 Class	A.M. 8:50 a.m.	- 11:40 a.m.
Recess A.M.	10:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m.
Lunch 11:40 a.m.-12:35 p.m. (Lunch in Gym 2)
Recess P.M. 2:00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.	
Gr. 1-6 Class	P.M. 12:35 p.m.- 3:25 p.m.

Let's call it 8:30 to 3:30 just for fun... 7 hours... 5 days... 35 hours.
Should we start taking out lunch? PD days? Summer? Christmas? March break?

Teachers have it good, sick days should be used when sick... there's abuse in the private system and the public... but I only pay for the public system, so I expect them to be held accountable.


----------



## dogcom

I believe teachers have work to do when school is over for the day. They also volunteer for free in many extra programs like sports teams. 

On sick days I believe they should get like three to use every year and the rest should be earned. So if one is sick for more then three days in a year they would earn nothing unless they had built some up to a maximum of 11 each year or something to carry forward. So if one was not sick for a year they would have up to 11 days to use the next year and the year after they could have up to 22 built up. If however they were sick for 11 days in year one then they would not get paid for 8 of those days.


----------



## nathan79

At my last job that provided sick days, you had the option of using them when you needed, or having them paid out at the end of the year. That way you were compensated even if you weren't sick enough to use all your days, and there was no pressure to use them up at the last minute.


----------



## dubmac

As a teacher who works in the private system, I can offer some perspectives on "sick days" at my work place. Almost all of the staff - I'll estimate 90%- 95% do not abuse the system at all. There are a few who do abuse the system - but I think that you will find similar abuse in any medium sized business. The biggest deterrant in taking sick days, is the fact that we often take one anothers classes and workloads. As a department, we don't like to 'dunp' our workload on our colleagues, nor do we want the added marking load that some with it. As for the hours-that I put in - I'm out of the house at 7:30 am, back at 5:00- or 5:30 pm most nights. I often bring work home on weekends & nights.

I saw quite a lot of abuse of the 'sick days" system whe I worked briefly at a "tough: school, where most of the kids were not very motivated. Staff morale there was low. The school that I work is quite highly rated, has some very good relations between admin and teachers. Most feel lucky to work there - I do.


----------



## Nemo2

HaroldCrump said:


> Public school teachers work for 50 hrs. every week for 50 weeks?
> Yeah, ok


Anecdotal: When we lived on SSI our neighbor's teenage son came over one afternoon and asked for assistance with his Shakespeare, (something that I am remarkably unqualified to provide).....my late wife asked him if there weren't teachers available for a little after hours consultation........he laughed and said something to the effect that "Come 3:30 p.m. there's not a teacher anywhere".


----------



## LondonHomes

I was on holidays in Vegas last fall ..... started talking to the guy sitting beside me at the table. 

Turns out he was a teacher from Ontario and was annoyed at the contract talks. So he called in sick to go to Vegas for the weekend


----------



## Eclectic12

Dmoney said:


> ... Let's call it 8:30 to 3:30 just for fun... 7 hours... 5 days... 35 hours.
> Should we start taking out lunch? PD days? Summer? Christmas? March break?


Good to know that the report cards, marking, provincial assessments are all being done between in seven hours, in addition to teaching, lesson planning, classroom setup etc.

Also good to know that lunch does not require the yard be supervised (quite a change from when I went to school - does this mean all the students are sent home for lunch, including those that were bussed in?).


Cheers


----------



## sags

The problem with these kinds of threads is they are a distraction from the real issues of the growing wealth gap, corporate tax avoidance, stagnant wages, the proliferation of part time jobs, and the general attack on all working people by the powerful elite.

In recent reports I read.................the richest 1% increased their wealth another 7% for a total of 39% of all worldwide wealth, many corporations are not paying anywhere near the level of taxes they should be, the wealthy are hiding taxable money in offshore accounts, and pensions, unemployment, and other benefits are all under attack as legitimate benefits for average working people.

Scalping a few dollars from the teachers or other public servants only serves to lower another group of workers to a lower level.

We are in a race to the bottom, and although a lot of people don't like unions...........who else is advocating for workers?


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> the real issues of the growing wealth gap


You wanna talk about the growing wealth gap?
OK, so let's start by talking about the _growing wealth gap_ between the unionized, striking, militant public sector workers (incl. teachers) and the _rest_ of the Canadian workers.

On one hand, you have stagnant wages, part-time jobs, layoffs, etc. in the private sector, and on the other hand you have unprecedented levels of pay raises, pension top ups, and benefits inflation for the unionized public sector - all appropriated from the other 80% of tax payers.
There is indeed a huge wealth gap - but it is not what you think.


----------



## m3s

HaroldCrump said:


> On one hand, you have stagnant wages, part-time jobs, layoffs, etc. in the private sector, and on the other hand you have unprecedented levels of pay raises, pension top ups, and benefits inflation for the unionized public sector


Not true. Lots of benefits have been cut especially recently.. pension radically changed and not grandfathered.. layoffs and reductions in my short career. We always had part-time contracts and in the 90's wages were frozen but currently indexed to inflation, so that's 0/5. All my benefits are tied to the public sector which I have no say, while they negotiate in the interest of the old and screw the young. It's just ignored by the media (which apparently makes it not exist) sags is right and has been saying it for years. The more and more wealth a select few control, the poorer the average working class is. A simple matter of fact. Of course everything appears fine and dandy so long as you ignore the unprecedented cheap debt up to their ears...


----------



## none

Agree with M3s. There are a lot of public sector haters on this forum. In my experience public sector workers are just as hard working as private sector. Further, corporate waste seems much less in government.

No kidding, I was once part of a private sector project that was ultimately testing the question 'is pH on the log scale'? There goes a quarter million dollars. Private being more efficient that pubic in my experience is a myth.


----------



## HaroldCrump

none said:


> In my experience public sector workers are just as hard working as private sector.


I totally, absolutely, completely agree with you.
Now, let us just pay them the same as the average private sector workers.


----------



## none

HaroldCrump said:


> I totally, absolutely, completely agree with you.
> Now, let us just pay them the same as the average private sector workers.


When I operate in a consulting capacity I make far more in the private sector compared to if I did the same in a public sector capacity. The golden handcuffs ain't that good.


----------



## HaroldCrump

m3s said:


> Not true. Lots of benefits have been cut especially recently.. pension radically changed and not grandfathered.. layoffs and reductions in my short career. We always had part-time contracts and in the 90's wages were frozen but currently indexed to inflation, so that's 0/5.


Not at all.
The cuts and clawbacks in the public sector have been trivial compared to what the private sector has been going through for the last several years.
The period from the 1990s onwards has been unprecedented bullish for the entire public sector, fueled by record levels of govt. spending at record low interest rates.
Union contracts have gotten more and more generous, staffing levels have increased (even under the current administration, which claims to be "small" government).



> while they negotiate in the interest of the old and screw the young.


Thank the unions for that.
It's all made up of entitled, entrenched, crusty old men.
They don't care about anyone else, let alone the tax-payers footing the bills.


----------



## HaroldCrump

none said:


> When I operate in a consulting capacity I make far more


Why can't they eat cake, said Marie Antoinette....


----------



## Dmoney

Eclectic12 said:


> Good to know that the report cards, marking, provincial assessments are all being done between in seven hours, in addition to teaching, lesson planning, classroom setup etc.
> 
> Also good to know that lunch does not require the yard be supervised (quite a change from when I went to school - does this mean all the students are sent home for lunch, including those that were bussed in?).
> 
> 
> Cheers


Google "teacher contract prep time" 
From second result that pops up:

*Within the instructional day* the Division shall provide a minimum of one hundred and eighty (180) minutes of preparation time for each full time elementary teacher and a minimum of two hundred and forty (240) minutes of preparation time for each full time secondary teacher per six (6) day cycle. Preparation time shall be scheduled in blocks of not less than fifteen (15) minutes.

This is from Winnipeg, but I know for a fact that the #s are quite similar in Ontario (at least in certain school boards).

Four hours every 6 days *of the 30 teaching hours* is allocated to prep time. So in fact all those things you list aren't done in the 7 hours a day, they're done in the 5 hours a day that are intended to be spent actually... you know... *teaching.*

Somehow, despite these slave-like working conditions, barely a third of graduates can find full time teaching work on graduation. Quite surprising given how horrible the job is.


----------



## m3s

HaroldCrump said:


> The cuts and clawbacks in the public sector have been trivial compared to what the private sector has been going through for the last several years.


So that's what this is about. Stocks are back to all-time-highs and CEOs are making more than ever, so maybe sags was on to something? The public sector is not multinational... there are far more obstacles to outsource our military, teachers, police and politicians to China, India and Bangladesh. How exactly do you raise the benefits of jobs that can be done far cheaper elsewhere? There are in fact countries who would pay me far far more for the skills I've acquired at the cost of the crown as is true for many public sector workers.. so the golden-handcuffs are more than just golden-handouts after all.... (and is calculated quite well trust me)


----------



## HaroldCrump

m3s said:


> How exactly do you raise the benefits of jobs that can be done far cheaper elsewhere?


But those are the tax payer dollars funding this whole circus.
If real wages and benefits in the production sector (i.e. manufacturing, agriculture, value added services) are not going up over time, then the tax base is not expanding.
How can we keep expanding the public sector superstructure in these circumstances?

_The public sector added 34,200 people in April while the private sector shed 20,000 positions. 
The number of self-employed was little changed. 
Over the past year, virtually all of Canada’s job gains have occurred in the public side while employment at private companies has been flat._

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...stly-but-jobless-rate-static/article11847191/

So here we have a situation of stagnant, even shrinking tax base, and ever expanding public sector spending on labor contracts that are completely out of whack from the realities.
That makes for a recipe for fiscal disaster.

And no, tax revenues cannot be expanded indefinitely by imposing surreptitious taxes like gas taxes, eco fees, "land value recovery", and other bull*t euphemisms.



> There are in fact countries who would pay me far far more for the skills I've acquired at the cost of the crown as is true for many public sector workers


Huh?
So Ontario teachers will get paid _higher_ if they went elsewhere?
A paper pushing bureaucrat in Ottawa will get paid _higher_ in some other country?
Where? In the Land of Oz?


----------



## sags

I do agree with Harold that union organization is largely responsible for the higher wages and better benefits that the members enjoy.

That is the goal of workers organizing themselves into a single voice that advocates for them, and the reason I believe more "voiceless" workers should organize themselves into effective associations or unions.


----------



## sags

As to the question of "sick days" or other benefits............workers in private industry take advantage of time off as much as anyone does.

I worked in the auto industry........and regardless of if the people were earning straight time wages, or being paid at a "triple time" overtime rate of pay, they couldn't get out of the factory fast enough when the company announced they could go home early (without pay).

There is no joy in working for most people. There is no "job satisfaction" or feeling of accomplishment. We would much rather be home with our families, than working afternoon shift. My wife works as casual, part time in a retirement home. She gets as many "unpaid call in hours" as she does from her regular schedule.

Work, for most people, is a daily grind necessitated only by the need to support themselves financially.

We can choose to..................work to live...........or live to work.


----------



## m3s

HaroldCrump said:


> But those are the tax payer dollars funding this whole circus.
> If real wages and benefits in the production sector (i.e. manufacturing, agriculture, value added services) are not going up over time, then the tax base is not expanding.


So where is all the money going? Not to the average Canadian and not to China, India and Bangladesh... How have the CEO's done compared to this embattled Cdn private sector? They also pay taxes and still want government, military, police, and diplomats to protect their interests. Fight them too much for benefits and jobs will just leave.. tax them too much and they will just leave as well. So let's just fire half the public sector and see if that fixes the Cdn job market



HaroldCrump said:


> So Ontario teachers will get paid _higher_ if they went elsewhere?
> A paper pushing bureaucrat in Ottawa will get paid _higher_ in some other country?
> Where? In the Land of Oz?


Teaching in English is probably one of the most international jobs there are right now. Lots of government diplomats, police, military etc make connections and take their skills and knowledge elsewhere (signing bonus to boot) We are highly regarded in all of these jobs, including teachers. Teachers just don't seem to have their foot out the door the same way. One friend left the public sector for Bay Street, and is now teaching in S Korea. Guess where he makes the most?


----------



## My Own Advisor

I recall at our work we get 5 "sick days" per calendar year. You don't use them for being ill, fine, but you can't carry them over nor can you get paid out for not using them. They are an added benefit as part of the total compensation.


----------



## HaroldCrump

m3s said:


> So where is all the money going? Not to the average Canadian


You _know _ very well where it is going...just look at the new contracts negotiated by the Ontario teachers in 2009 (12% raise over 4 years, I believe), or the one negotiated by the OPP (8% raise).

_A 8.5-per-cent pay hike for the Ontario Provincial Police in 2014 is proof the Liberal government’s wage freeze for one million public sector workers is meaningless.
The 6,100 OPP officers received a 5-per-cent wage hike this year in advance of the freeze, and because of a clause in their contract guaranteeing they’ll be the highest paid cops in Ontario, they will get another 8.5 per cent in 2014._
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/p...or-opp-in-2014/article1360155/?service=mobile

Public sector wages and benefits are the black hole of our economy.
No matter how much you feed the Godzilla, it will never be satiated.



> So let's just fire half the public sector and see if that fixes the Cdn job market


Who said anything about firing anyone?
This is exactly what the union bosses say every time the topic of rational compensation comes up - _ok fine fire everyone and see how that works out_.
As tax-payers, we don't want to fire anyone, do we?
Tax-payers want to pay a rational, market price for the services they receive.



> Teaching in English is probably one of the most international jobs there are right now.
> We are highly regarded in all of these jobs, including teachers.


In the case of teachers, that is not true.
If it were, and since there are no exit restrictions in our country or any binding employment contracts, we would already have seen this flight to greener pastures.
Not only is no such flight happening, the reverse has happened i.e. there are hordes of new entrants waiting to get into this sector, lured by overly generous pay, benefits and employment terms.

Further, you realize, right, that Canadian teachers are amongst the best paid in the OECD?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ear-the-top-of-the-oecd-class/article4541629/


----------



## Toronto.gal

HaroldCrump said:


> Canadian teachers are amongst the best paid in the OECD?
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ear-the-top-of-the-oecd-class/article4541629/


As are professors:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/educati...est-paid-professors-a-surprisingly-good-deal/

I know a 27 year old, who is currently teaching English in South Korea; she makes under $30K, and the school hours there are very long x6 days, so when you take that into account, they are making less than minimum wage! She went there because 1) could not find a job here, and 2) for the experience.

Not sure if this is true, but I was told that the hiring process there is quite discriminatory.


----------



## m3s

HaroldCrump said:


> Public sector wages and benefits are the black hole of our economy.
> No matter how much you feed the Godzilla, it will never be satiated.


Stephen Harper's salary is peanuts compared to the average CEO. The public sector salaries are more evened out. Harper earns 5 or so times what the average public sector worker does. CEOs make ~200 times more in Canada, with some US multinationals making ~1000 times more... This ratio is increasing rapidly, while the public sector's is not. Enjoy the rate race.



Toronto.gal said:


> I know a 27 year old, who is currently teaching English in South Korea; she makes under $30K, and the school hours there are very long x6 days, so when you take that into account, they are making less than minimum wage! She went there because 1) could not find a job here, and 2) for the experience.
> 
> Not sure if this is true, but I was told that the hiring process there is quite discriminatory.


A lot of differences as my 29-year-old friend had prior leadership experience and was a very successful investment analyst and teaches University level in English not the language. He had a good job here and he makes similar there before the drastic cost of living and quality of life factored in. There were in fact serious brain drain issues in the 90's when pubic sector pay was lower, and still in some sectors. My job is done in English around the world, and Canadians are highly sought. It's a balancing act and it's well calculated.

The hiring process is discriminatory around the world.. you just don't see your own culture. Try getting a waitress job in a hijab or a teaching job covered in tattoos. Asians are actually very fond of westerners they perceive as successful.


----------



## Nemo2

m3s said:


> Stephen Harper's salary is peanuts compared to the average CEO. The public sector salaries are more evened out. Harper earns 5 or so times what the average public sector worker does. CEOs make ~200 times more in Canada, with some US multinationals making ~1000 times more... This ratio is increasing rapidly, while the public sector's is not. Enjoy the rate race.


Is this a good time to mention the salaries of (some) athletes and entertainers?


----------



## Toronto.gal

m3s said:


> Asians are actually very fond of westerners they perceive as successful.


The way it was explained to me, they are fond of white people.


----------



## HaroldCrump

m3s said:


> Stephen Harper's salary is peanuts compared to the average CEO.


No, not compared to the _average_ CEO.
You are comparing against average CEOs of publicly listed, large cap companies.

Secondly, you are comparing _base_ salary, not the fully loaded cost to tax-payer i.e. including their benefits, pensions, expense accounts, other perks.
And we all know by now how generous and flexible those expense accounts are, don't we.



> This ratio is increasing rapidly, while the public sector's is not.


Why should the tax payers be on the hook for ensuring politicians and bureaucrats make the same total compensation as private sector CEOs?
Where does it say that?

OK, fine, if that is indeed the goal, let us institute mandatory fixed wages for _all_ workers - private sector, public sector, unionized, non-unionized.
I'm ok with that.
It will be the average non-unionized, private sector shmo that will benefit from this arrangement, not the unionized public sector worker.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Nemo2 said:


> Is this a good time to mention the salaries of (some) athletes and entertainers?


:chuncky:


----------



## none

HaroldCrump said:


> Why should the tax payers be on the hook for ensuring politicians and bureaucrats make the same total compensation as private sector CEOs?
> Where does it say that?
> 
> OK, fine, if that is indeed the goal, let us institute mandatory fixed wages for _all_ workers - private sector, public sector, unionized, non-unionized.
> I'm ok with that.
> It will be the average non-unionized, private sector shmo that will benefit from this arrangement, not the unionized public sector worker.


I think the motivation is to ensure that you obtain quality people. If there is a large spread between public and private then the public sector would only get the dregs of the applicant market. Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Karen

Toronto.gal said:


> The way it was explained to me, they are fond of white people.


My daughter taught English in Taiwan for two years at a private school where most of the students were from wealthy families and were planning to attend universities in Canada after they graduated. She was told that the reason the school preferred Canadian teachers was that the parents wanted their children to learn English with a Canadian accent.

I don't remember what her salary was; it was years ago so would be meaningless now, in any case. But I do recall that, as well as her salary, she was provided with an apartment at no charge. I wonder if your friend in Korea has her accommodation provided over and above her salary?


----------



## Toronto.gal

Karen said:


> 1. She was told that the reason the school preferred Canadian teachers was that the parents wanted their children to learn English with a Canadian accent.
> 2. I wonder if your friend in Korea has her accommodation provided over and above her salary?


*1.* Yes, they prefer teachers from the US and Canada, because supposedly the accent is easier to understand. 
*2.* Yes, apt. is included.


----------



## m3s

HaroldCrump said:


> You are comparing against average CEOs of publicly listed, large cap companies.
> 
> You are comparing _base_ salary, not the fully loaded cost to tax-payer i.e. including their benefits, pensions, expense accounts, other perks.


The richest tycoons are not publicly listed at all. A private family-owned company controls most of the Maritimes and have the government wrapped around their finger. We all know that CEOs get far more than a _base_ salary as well and have endless ways to pad their real earnings and dodge taxes. The PM earns peanuts in comparison and is under the microscope. Canadians expect a high standard from their police, doctors, teachers etc and they are paid as such. All of them are certainly sought for abroad and the 90's was proof of the real cost of lower wages



Toronto.gal said:


> The way it was explained to me, they are fond of white people.


In Asia many girls try to avoid the sun to keep their skin as white as possible and have white makeup. I wondered if it had to do with the poor working outside in the sun. Here however.... girls cook themselves in tanning beds to make their skin look like those who can afford vacations in the sun.... No difference what so ever! Except the tanning gives you skin cancer... It's all cultural and we have the same non-sense ourselves. Judging by skin colour is a faux pas but we still judge in many ways

BTW if I feel too sick to work then I take a sick day instead of getting everyone else sick, which is rare. On the autobahn everybody decides for themselves what is a reasonable speed for the situation, because driving too fast is dangerous and wastes fuel. In Canada most will people drive 120kmh regardless of what's going on unless they see a cop. Rules always change the thought process.


----------



## HaroldCrump

m3s said:


> The richest tycoons are not publicly listed at all. A private family-owned company controls most of the Maritimes and have the government wrapped around their finger.


But you see how your demands are increasing?
First your said the Prime Minister does not get paid as much as an average private sector CEO.
Then it was large Canadian corporation CEO.
Now it is mysterious, anonymous private tycoons.
Somewhere in there are entertainers and sports players that Nemo talks about.

Where does it end?

Next it will be that pubic sector workers do not get paid as much as oil-rich Arab sheikhs.

I agree that the Prime Minister deserves to be paid more.
And some key cabinet members, such as the Minister of Finance, Environment, Public Safety, etc.

But you can't take that and generalize that the entire public sector is underpaid relative to the private sector.
And if that is indeed your premise, how do you suggest we fix it?
By raising taxes even more?
Yeah, ok :rolleyes2:


----------



## Eclectic12

Dmoney said:


> Google "teacher contract prep time" ...
> 
> Four hours every 6 days *of the 30 teaching hours* is allocated to prep time. So in fact all those things you list aren't done in the 7 hours a day, they're done in the 5 hours a day that are intended to be spent actually... you know... *teaching.*


According to my co-worker, his wife in Ontario has her class of students for 5.5 hours a day. I'm not sure how much quiet work can be assigned to a mixed class that includes special needs students so that prep work etc. can be done effectively.




Dmoney said:


> Somehow, despite these slave-like working conditions, barely a third of graduates can find full time teaching work on graduation. Quite surprising given how horrible the job is.


Wow ... quite the leap to move from a discussion of hours/work into "slave-like working conditions".
A lot of people including the gov't will be surprised to hear that demand is trumped by working conditions.


Cheers


----------



## m3s

I never tried to say the public sector should be paid to match CEOs... I'm saying the private sector does in fact have lots and lots of money.. it's just _distributed differently_. If the public sector was comparable Harper would make millions upon millions and the rest would earn peanuts.. Investing in HR for the long term actually makes financial sense in the public sector. The private sector seems to have a completely different HR strategy. Why invest in employees who only intend to stay a few years?


----------



## Toronto.gal

m3s said:


> 1. The hiring process is discriminatory around the world.. you just don't see your own culture.
> 
> 2. In Asia many girls try to avoid the sun to keep their skin as white as possible and have white makeup. I wondered if it had to do with the poor working outside in the sun. Here however.... girls cook themselves in tanning beds to make their skin look like those who can afford vacations in the sun.... No difference what so ever!


*1.* What I see, is that you're forever telling us how everything is so much better outside of Canada, and since you brought up South Korea, I commented that a friend works there, but the work week = 6 days, and the hours are very long. The salary is also lower when compared to a similar teaching job here, even when an apt. is included over and above her salary. 

My friend was looking for teaching jobs here for a couple of months, then applied to SK and was hired almost right away after obtaining the required documents.

Regarding discrimination, sure you find it everywhere, but here, people of all colours find teaching jobs, while apparently in South Korea, for the most part, they prefer Caucasians.

*2.* The tanning comparison was totally inaccurate and yes, IMHO, there is a big difference! In SK [and other parts], skin colour seems to have a deeper meaning that goes beyond cultural. I'm reminded of a Chinese friend, who was told by her mother not to go out to the sun too much before her wedding, because she wanted her skin as white as possible for the wedding pictures. There have also been many reports about cosmetic surgery in Asia, and not so much to transform one's boobs, but for eye-lid surgery, aka: for racial transformation.

http://www.businessinsider.com/korea-is-obsessed-with-plastic-surgery-2013-5?op=1


----------



## m3s

Toronto.gal said:


> What I see, is that you're forever telling us how everything is so much better outside of Canada. Regarding discrimination, sure you find it everywhere, but here, people of all colours find teaching jobs, while apparently in South Korea, for the most part, they prefer Caucasians.
> 
> The tanning comparison was totally inaccurate and yes, IMHO, there is a big difference! In SK [and other parts], skin colour seems to have a deeper meaning that goes beyond cultural. I'm reminded of a Chinese friend, who was told by her mother not to go out to the sun too much before her wedding, because she wanted her skin as white as possible for the wedding pictures. There have also been many reports about cosmetic surgery in Asia, and not so much to transform one's boobs, but for eye-lid surgery, aka: for racial transformation.


Would you have the same reaction if I constantly had to point out the good in other races? Nationalism has a lot of similarities to racism, except one is still a social norm... Racism was bred from isolation and used to be an acceptable norm as well. How many countries do we have real first hand exposure to beyond tourism? Believe it or not, others label us as typical nationalists :eek2:

Some women don't want to look pale on their wedding so they go in the sun as much as possible to get a tan. Why does tanned skin look better to us? The eye surgery is also a cultural opinion of beauty. Some Asians are born with double eye lids just like some westerners are born with large breasts. Same thing. We have many empty preferences and expectations that we don't see as discriminatory as they are norms to us

What if we always focused on other people's faults to reinforce our perceived superiority? It's ok if it's a geographical group instead of a racial one? I just chose to be open to the good things other countries offer and constantly question our own idiosyncrasies instead.


----------



## Dmoney

Eclectic12 said:


> According to my co-worker, his wife in Ontario has her class of students for 5.5 hours a day. I'm not sure how much quiet work can be assigned to a mixed class that includes special needs students so that prep work etc. can be done effectively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ... quite the leap to move from a discussion of hours/work into "slave-like working conditions".
> A lot of people including the gov't will be surprised to hear that demand is trumped by working conditions.
> 
> 
> Cheers


As far as teaching hours in a day, I'm sure contracts vary slightly from board to board, but the actual school day is usually ~5 hours, and time within that 5 hours is allotted to prep. For example, a French immersion teacher will teach 4.25 hours of french, and for 0.75 hours the class is herded to an English teacher, giving the French teacher "prep" time, with no students in the class. 

As for the "slave-like" working conditions, I was being sarcastic. As in, why would tens of thousands of people be lining up for teaching jobs if the pay or conditions are apparently so horrible. In any functional labour market, when supply of labour outstrips demand so drastically, wages come down. We have only seen wages go up, and significantly faster than most of the private sector employees paying the teacher's wages.

Don't get me wrong, there are great teachers out there who deserve what they get and more, but in my experience, the mediocre teachers far outweigh the great, and the piss-poor teachers definitely give the great ones a run for their money.


----------



## uptoolate

I didn't see if it was mentioned upthread but the Ontario government has just cut the number of positions in Teachers' College by half and increased the length of training by a year to 2 years.


----------



## Dmoney

uptoolate said:


> I didn't see if it was mentioned upthread but the Ontario government has just cut the number of positions in Teachers' College by half and increased the length of training by a year to 2 years.


Yep... instead of taking the opportunity to cut the workforce in half, they just add another year so the current teachers of the future teachers remain safe.
Kind of like telling the auto workers we only need half as many cars, so work half as hard.
It's like we're actively trying *NOT* to save money when faced with a blatant opportunity to do so.


----------



## uptoolate

Actually they did cut the number of new teachers graduating in half and will have one year with no grads at all, but yes, your point is taken that many agreements made by unions are meant to protect current members and are often at the expense of future members. In the meantime, the number of unemployed would-be teachers suggests that the market is taking care of the excess grads at this point.


----------



## Toronto.gal

m3s said:


> 1. Why does tanned skin look better to us? The eye surgery is also a cultural opinion of beauty.
> 2. Would you have the same reaction if I constantly had to point out the good in other races?
> 3. Nationalism has a lot of similarities to racism


*1.* I do so to look better, so for beauty if you will, but not to resemble another race, so I don't consider the comparison similar at all.

*2.* No, it would be preferable, however, if you could manage to stay in Canada for a change when the topic = Canadian teachers. I believe that you're the only one who brought other countries into the discussion, and I foolishly commented, though at least I was making an equal comparison unlike your example of an investment analyst having a greater income in SK [do these even teach in schools here?].

*3.* So those who think Canada is a great country and are proud Canadians, must also be racists? :rolleyes2:

You're correct that 'Asians are actually very fond of westerners they perceive as successful', but in fact, they admire us westerners for more than our success. And now that I have a friend working in SK, I can believe that there is rampant hiring discrimination in SK. I also recall 60 Minutes reporting on this subject a few years ago.


----------



## Toronto.gal

MoneyGal said:


> I've taken five sick days in the past 10 years...I'm not inconsiderate; I don't get sick.


Not inconsiderate either. In 15 years with my former employer, I was sick 15 days, 7 of which were consecutive days due to the chicken pox [given by my then toddler]. 

I could have actually been off for an extra week, but once it was safe to return 2 work, I did, even though I still looked pretty scary.


----------



## Dmoney

uptoolate said:


> Actually they did cut the number of new teachers graduating in half and will have one year with no grads at all, but yes, your point is taken that many agreements made by unions are meant to protect current members and are often at the expense of future members. In the meantime, the number of unemployed would-be teachers suggests that the market is taking care of the excess grads at this point.


Sorry, I meant that given the opportunity to cut the workforce at teachers college (ie. the profs or whoever teaches students in teachers college), instead they keep the workforce the same.
I get that they are reducing the number of students *in* teachers college, which is step one... but then to turn around and double the time spent in teachers college? Means that all those teaching at teachers college preserve their jobs. I'm not advocating hacking and slashing jobs just for the sake of cutting, but when the actual number of teachers required is cut in half *don't just arbitrarily shift the paradigm so all of a sudden the same number of teachers is required*.

For example
In 1994-95 there were 2.07 million students in Ontario, and 100,100 teachers.
In 2001-02 there were 2.16 million students in Ontario, and 104,800 teachers.
In 2011-12 there were 2.04 million students in Ontario, and 115,000 teachers.
Less students, more teachers? Any good reason?
Has the education system gotten any better? Have our graduates become any more productive? Has GDP kept pace with expenditures?


----------



## uptoolate

Yes excellent point. I was surprised to see that the budget for the Teacher's College was only cut by 20% and you have hit upon the reason. Two year program now so still the same total number of candidates in the College at one time. That said much of what is done is out-placements so I'm sure that they could have cut more. As far as to whether education has improved, I'm sure that we all have our own opinions on that.


----------



## fraser

I am not a teacher, nor is my spouse. But I get tired of the constant teacher bashing. Sure there are some bad apples, but there are many, many dedicated teachers out there doing a great job. A contract is two sided...BOTH sides agree during the bargaining process.

I had some great teachers where I went to school in Quebec. Especially after being re-admitted to high school. They taught me think, they prepared me for college, and for university. A few of thme never gave up on me when others did. I went on to college and university thanks in part to a few of them-they contributed to shaping my life, and my financial success. 

My children went to school in BC and in Alberta. Again, some great teachers and a few not so great. Just like any other group of workers or professionals. I for one hope that the number of teachers are increased and that the staff increases are applied to children with learning disabilities or in schools that have a higher proportion of underprivileged students. These people need that extra boost-even if only a small percentage of students are impacted. There is such a high correlation between reading, learning in early years and success in latter years. I believe that there is a good return on investment.


----------



## dubmac

fraser said:


> I am not a teacher, nor is my spouse. But I get tired of the constant teacher bashing. Sure there are some bad apples, but there are many, many dedicated teachers out there doing a great job. A contract is two sided...BOTH sides agree during the bargaining process..


Thanks for this post fraser. Your remarks are very much on point. There are good teachers, and not so good ones. I experienced both with my 2 boys education, and I think most parents and most individuals will recall at least one of each! Regardless of your occupation (doctor, plumber, lawyer, electrician), there will be laggards, and individuals who do not work as hard as others do. I have colleagues at work who do the bare minimum. I have others who work hard, work overtime to make their students experiences rich, meaningful and relevant in a world that is fast and changing. I take my students on trips for weekends, I have my class 4 drivers licence, I coach teams, run a science fair club. I would say that many are in the latter category. 

Many of the rants take issue with the teacher *unions*. This is a reasonable issue - especially if you live in Ontario. I do not support, at the tax-payers expense, 1 million dollar pensions to 55 yr olds leaving the workforce - it is excessive and it should change. How much does a 30 yr vet in the police force get for a pension, or a fire-fighter. Some believe that teachers do not work nearly as hard as police. But I also wonder what shape some individuals on this forum would resemble if they taught in a school in, say, the Jane and Finch corridor of Toronto, or on some reserve in Northern Ontario where suicides are rampant. Those teachers that are fortunate enough to get a job at say, Forest Hills Collegiate in Toronto, - well - they won the lottery IMO.


----------



## Dmoney

fraser said:


> I am not a teacher, nor is my spouse. But I get tired of the constant teacher bashing. Sure there are some bad apples, but there are many, many dedicated teachers out there doing a great job. A contract is two sided...BOTH sides agree during the bargaining process.


No, one side (the government) capitulates because it is a better political move to have the teachers and the teachers' union on their side. Generally a contract negotiation involves give and take. 
In a private school, there is a limit to what parents will pay, which in turn limits how much is available for operating the school. For the government, there is no limit to how much they are willing to throw at certain interest groups, they'll just tax more. 
In a private school, when tuition rises to a certain point, parents stop paying and go elsewhere. When taxpayers stop paying, they get wages garnished. 
Public sector negotiations are in absolutely no way two sided.




dubmac said:


> Many of the rants take issue with the teacher *unions*. This is a reasonable issue - especially if you live in Ontario. I do not support, at the tax-payers expense, 1 million dollar pensions to 55 yr olds leaving the workforce - it is excessive and it should change. How much does a 30 yr vet in the police force get for a pension, or a fire-fighter. Some believe that teachers do not work nearly as hard as police. But I also wonder what shape some individuals on this forum would resemble if they taught in a school in, say, the Jane and Finch corridor of Toronto, or on some reserve in Northern Ontario where suicides are rampant. Those teachers that are fortunate enough to get a job at say, Forest Hills Collegiate in Toronto, - well - they won the lottery IMO.


100%. I find no fault with the teachers who work to the letter of their contract. That is their right. I have a problem with those who negotiated the contracts (government of the day and teachers' union). Clearly the contract is overly generous when there is a backlog of 10's of thousands of fully qualified candidates.


----------



## fraser

I do not think that the focus should be on what a teachers, or any other public servant for that matter, pension entitlement is. I think the focus should be on what is the cost of that entitlement and how is that cost split between employer and employee. And how the cost to the employer factors into the cost of the total compensation package for each employee.

I have a standard private sector pension-based on 1 percent per year of service w/no adjustment for inflation. I did not fund one cent of that DB pension. My employer funded it 100 percent. 

A friend of ours is a teacher in the BC Lower Mainland. Her pension will be indexed. BUT...she contributes just under 12 percent of her gross salary towards that pension plan.

Who got the better deal? I don't know. But I am not about assume anything about the funding unless I know the facts-which I do not.


----------



## Berubeland

When I had dental benefits and other benefits I did take them before the year was out. If I had 11 sick days I would take them before the end of the year.


----------



## sags

If a person invested 1250 per year into the stock market for the past 40 years.............they would have almost 500,000 dollars.

If they invested 2500 per year into the stock market for the past 40 years..............they would have 1 Million dollars.

At 12% of their income, plus the employer portion.............I would think teachers invest a lot more than 2500 a year.

The magic of a 9% annual compounding rate of return.

http://www.fool.com/how-to-invest/thirteen-steps/step-1-change-your-life-with-one-calculation.aspx


----------



## Karen

I'm appalled that some people think that sick days are something they are automatically entitled to. Honest employees stay home when they're sick and come to work when they're not - what's so hard to understand about that! I did appreciate the fact that, in the federal public service, sick days could be accumulated instead of ending each year, but I strongly disapprove of plans that pay retirees cash for unused sick days - employees should be grateful for good health and not rewarded for it. My manager retired with over 500 sick days accumulated over his 35-year career and appreciated the fact that his health had allowed him to do that - he never came to work sick.

The plan and the fact that I hadn't abused it benefited me personally when I was off work for a long period when I had open-heart surgery. I had several months of sick leave accumulated that I had to use up before being eligible for long-term disability. That meant that for my first few months off work, I received full salary rather than the 70% that I received after I had used up my sick leave and went on LTD.


----------



## Toronto.gal

m3s said:


> 1. underpaid and undervalued was a legitimate problem
> 2. aspiring teacher who couldn't get a job is not exactly _brain drain_.
> 3. you feel superior for no good reason and look down on others because they are different... yes, I think that is quite similar to racism.
> 4. Americans are very condescending, as you have been. You flatter yourself that they want to look like you... actually they are just appeasing you.
> 5. She's quite fond of her heritage......


I don't even know why I took you off my ignore list where you rightly belonged. I'm sick and tired of your ignorance and insults, and this shall be my last post to you. 

*1.* Except it was totally off-topic in this particular discussion, but you brought it up because you always like to criticize Canada.
*2.* True, she didn't get a job in 2 months, then the SK offer came and took it.
*3.* You make false conclusions.
*4.* Again, you make false conclusions. I actually feel sad that some non-Caucasians pay importance to skin colour, that's what I was trying to say, that it's not only the talent they respect, as you were saying, but unfortunately, skin colour.
*5.* As everyone should be, but that's just not the case.


----------



## fraser

I have absolutely no doubt that some teachers abuse or take advantage of their sick day allocations. And I am certain that there is a minority of people in other vocations who do exactly the same. I would however suspect that someone in the teaching or nursing professions would have a higher number of average sick days simply because they come in contact with more people and are probably a little more sensitive to passing their illness on to a student or a patient. I don't think teachers are any different from the average joe who has similar provisions in his or her workplace.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Karen said:


> I'm appalled that some people think that sick days are something they are automatically entitled to. Honest employees stay home when they're sick and come to work when they're not - what's so hard to understand about that! I did appreciate the fact that, in the federal public service, sick days could be accumulated instead of ending each year, but I strongly disapprove of plans that pay retirees cash for unused sick days - employees should be grateful for good health and not rewarded for it. My manager retired with over 500 sick days accumulated over his 35-year career and appreciated the fact that his health had allowed him to do that - he never came to work sick.
> 
> The plan and the fact that I hadn't abused it benefited me personally when I was off work for a long period when I had open-heart surgery. I had several months of sick leave accumulated that I had to use up before being eligible for long-term disability. That meant that for my first few months off work, I received full salary rather than the 70% that I received after I had used up my sick leave and went on LTD.


Indeed Karen!

All great points.


----------



## Islenska

Karen----you are spot on!
I owned a small town pharmacy for more years than I want to admit,we had sick time for those that were sick. I would never "call in sick" if simply because it was a burden to others if I did not show up.
Those that never were off got a bonus at day's end and ones who received sick time deserved it.
That is why it it is called "sick time"
Accumulating just is not in the cards, wake up and think of those around you in the workplace!


----------



## uptoolate

Well said Karen and totally agree. I'm not lucky enough to have any benefits or sick days in my work but I have been lucky enough to never have been very sick and can count the number of days off sick on one hand after 30+ years. I think the problem arises when people see the 'sick' days as part of their benefits that should be used and feel that by obtaining the 'sick' days in the contract that they must have given up some other compensation. So the feeling that if they don't take the days then they are giving away some of their compensation. The next thing that happens is 'normalisation of abberance' where, in this instance, a small group begins to exercise their 'entitlement' and before long almost everyone is and those that do not take the days are actually frowned upon.


----------



## m3s

Toronto.gal said:


> Again, you make false conclusions.


I've just spent a lot of time in Asia, as I came to this conclusion on my own. Seems others agree..

White Skin: Why Racism In Asia Isn’t Quite What You Think

I don't see criticism as a bad thing. Think different


----------



## Beaver101

m3s said:


> I've just spent a lot of time in Asia, as I came to this conclusion on my own. Seems others agree..
> 
> White Skin: Why Racism In Asia Isn’t Quite What You Think
> 
> I don't see criticism as a bad thing. *Think different*


 ... agree that people should think differently and with an open mind. Unfortunately, the author of this article doesn't and equates skin-colour to "racism" or quoting him "When I traveled to Asia and lived in Thailand, I was shocked to see so much “racism.” They loved whiteness. The whiter your skin the better you were. " So it's better to be an albino? If one is open-minded, they wouldn't believe everything that they read nor come to that conclusion. Sorry but it's a stupid article.


----------



## Karen

According to last night's CTV news, federal public servants take twice as much sick leave as employees in the private sector - an average of 18 days per year. Then this morning, I read this article that says the feds are going to crack down on employees abusing sick leave: http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/tony-clement-targets-sick-days-in-public-service.


----------



## m3s

Maybe most can't fathom it, but it should pique some inquisitive minds... The point was that he over reacted to it as racism at first... it does make a strong point if you read past the intro maybe he could have explained it better. "Stay out of the sun so your skin is white for your wedding" is no more racist than "Ahh your skin is so pale, you need to get more sun"... These are simply different cultural perceptions of beauty.. we tend to knee jerk to racism whenever someone mentions white skin. It didn't come from idolizing Caucasians, some Asians also have lighter skin and double eyelids. You can make them out to be racist, but they could point out our cultural flaws as well. I didn't believe anything I read, I believed what I've learned from working with Asians and many other cultures.


----------



## dubmac

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ys-are-unsustainable-clement/article12450013/

wow - 18.2 days per year per person are taken as sick days are taken by public servants - that's alot of sick day. do the math for the entire public service.


----------



## MoneyGal

Just heard this on the CBC radio six o'clock news! AMAZING.


----------



## sags

It isn't that high when they count long term disability as sick days.

According to the article, a public servant has to use 13 weeks of their own sick days before they can access the long term disability benefit. Apparently, that is the purpose of "banked" sick days.

I would think that a waiting period of such length would greatly diminish the cost of providing long term disability insurance for the employer.


----------



## Spidey

sags said:


> It isn't that high when they count long term disability as sick days.
> 
> According to the article, a public servant has to use 13 weeks of their own sick days before they can access the long term disability benefit. Apparently, that is the purpose of "banked" sick days.
> 
> I would think that a waiting period of such length would greatly diminish the cost of providing long term disability insurance for the employer.


This is exactly what my wife and I were talking about in the car. There is no short term disability in the Federal government. I think the numbers are vastly skewed by those who get cancer or some other serious illness and then use up their sick days over several months and perhaps occasionally over years. Whether sick time is too generous for short-term disability is perhaps a valid argument but I'm not sure that the comparisons to the private sector are an "apples to apples" comparison. In the department where I work (Federal government) I would guess that the average is about 5 or 6 days a year. In my wife's department it is perhaps 7 - 8. Personally, I used 2 days this past year with a very bad cold and I don't think that my wife has used any.


----------



## MoneyGal

But...that article said the *average* is 18 days per year, which means that either *most* people are taking that amount or close to it, or a small proportion of people are taking a ton of sick leave while others take only a few days. And the point of comparison is the private sector, where many people do not have short-term disability benefits either. (I am working from the data in this 2010 OECD report: http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/46093870.pdf, suggesting rates for private disability of less than 30% for the Canadian workforce as a whole). So...something doesn't add up, and the absence of short-term disability leave can't explain it away, at least as far as I can tell.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The fact that public sector workers on average take more sick days was first highlighted by the CFIB last year:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/public-sector-workers-take-more-sick-personal-days-cfib-1.1064742

Note that per that report, the problem is particularly bad in the _federal_ public service, where the average is 15.2 days vs. the overall public sector average of 12.9.
The private sector average is far behind at 8.2.

Seems the average has now gone up even more to 18.2?


----------



## HaroldCrump

Wait...the G&M article posted above states there are 5 _additional_ "family" days, over and above sick days and vacation?
Some provinces already have a Family Day (third Monday in Feb).
What is going on?


----------



## MoneyGal

Didn't go back and check the G&M article on this point but many employers have "floater" days for things like moving, funerals, kid doctor appointments, etc. Five seems...five more than most people get.


----------



## Spidey

MoneyGal said:


> But...that article said the *average* is 18 days per year, which means that either *most* people are taking that amount or close to it, or a small proportion of people are taking a ton of sick leave while others take only a few days. And the point of comparison is the private sector, where many people do not have short-term disability benefits either. (I am working from the data in this 2010 OECD report: http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/46093870.pdf, suggesting rates for private disability of less than 30% for the Canadian workforce as a whole). So...something doesn't add up, and the absence of short-term disability leave can't explain it away, at least as far as I can tell.


I'm sure they exist but I don't know of anyone who has taken 18 sick days with the exception of cancer patients. I suspect what has happened is that people with decades of accumulated sick time are now reaching the age where they get these serious diseases. It probably doesn't take that many who take several months and sometimes even over a year off to vastly skew the numbers. 

That all being said, I have to admit the benefits in the public sector are quite generous. My last private sector employer offered a whopping 3 days sick leave and that was supposed to cover such things as doctor appointments as well.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Spidey said:


> I'm sure they exist but I don't know of anyone who has taken 18 sick days


The original news report posted by Four Pillars at the beginning of this thread contains evidence of how Ontario teachers are indeed maxing out their sick leave.
The data in the CFIB report I quoted two posts above is also based on real data.

Therefore, all I can say is there is Self-Selection Bias i.e. no one knows anyone that takes 18 days on average, but clearly that is the case.

Your theory of aging or seriously sick individuals (cancer, etc.) could be true, but for the fact that the average days is suspiciously close to the maximum allowed by their contracts (i.e. 15 days + 5 floater days).
That would indicate that, on average, workers are trying to max. out their entitled benefit.


----------



## Berubeland

My mom took over a year of banked sick days when she had her brain tumor, she is a teacher. I know for a lot of teachers it provided a lot of security to have that cushion that if they get really sick they can use it. 

I just want to say, that tonight the principal of my school and my son's current teacher, and his next teacher met to discuss what his needs will be surrounding his Autism and his needs as a gifted person. It took 2 hours and no one looked at their watch and after a while my son's computer teacher wandered in as well. We all got out at 6 ish. 

I speak to all of them all the time and we work as a team to put the child first. They have a very important job. 

You know who is a real waste of time and money? Politicians and elected officials. I think they should just give the teachers and other unionized workers what they give themselves. There's some hypocrites right there.


----------



## lonewolf

Instead of giving away free sick days on the back of the tax payers. Why not let the teachers earn them with doing volunteer work with the kids. If they do 1 day of volunteer work give them 1 sick day that can be used when they are sick. Of course set a limit on the number of days that can be done this way with no payout for days not used.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Ha, apparently there is a "market" developing for buying & selling vacation days.

_Some companies allow their workers to buy and sell vacation time, a perk that gives workers more flexibility in managing their time off.
The novel approach might help employees buy some extra days off to take the trip of a lifetime or spend more time with a newborn. 
Co-workers could sell off unused days to get some extra money._

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/06/10/business-vacation-time-buying.html


----------



## brad

My employer recently reduced the number of paid sick days, and the complaints posted to the corporate blog revealed that a lot of parents use their sick time not so much for themselves, but when their kids are sick. When a kid is sick and you have two working parents, one of the parents has to stay home. If you don't have a job that allows you to work at home then you either take vacation time or sick time. Or if you've reached your limits you take unpaid leave and chalk up the lost income (which can easily amount to a week or more per year given how often young kids tend to get sick) to the cost of having kids.


----------



## Four Pillars

brad said:


> My employer recently reduced the number of paid sick days, and the complaints posted to the corporate blog revealed that a lot of parents use their sick time not so much for themselves, but when their kids are sick.


I know people who do this and I always thought it was wrong. Sick days are for yourself and that's it.


----------



## Toronto.gal

My employer offered 3 days per year for family sick days, but also was allowed to bank a certain amount of overtime + saved a few vacation days for additional family sick days, because when you have young children, you just never know what's coming. Anyway, I thought what was provided was more than fair.


----------



## brad

Four Pillars said:


> I know people who do this and I always thought it was wrong. Sick days are for yourself and that's it.


Why? Isn't that an arbitrary distinction? Actually what my company did (and many others are doing this as well) is that they merged vacation time and sick time into one pool of "paid time off." That means you don't have to account for sick or vacation time separately, you just have a pool of available paid time off and it doesn't matter how you take it. This seems like a grown-up way of doing it.

I actually once worked for a firm that had unlimited sick and vacation time, and didn't monitor it. Employees had responsibilities and deadlines to meet, and as long as they met their deadlines and turned in top-quality work, the company figured it didn't matter how they managed their time. It worked really well, and had an incredible impact on employee loyalty and morale; turnover rates plummeted after they instilled that policy.


----------



## Four Pillars

brad said:


> Why? Isn't that an arbitrary distinction? Actually what my company did (and many others are doing this as well) is that they merged vacation time and sick time into one pool of "paid time off." That means you don't have to account for sick or vacation time separately, you just have a pool of available paid time off and it doesn't matter how you take it. This seems like a grown-up way of doing it.
> 
> I actually once worked for a firm that had unlimited sick and vacation time, and didn't monitor it. Employees had responsibilities and deadlines to meet, and as long as they met their deadlines and turned in top-quality work, the company figured it didn't matter how they managed their time. It worked really well, and had an incredible impact on employee loyalty and morale; turnover rates plummeted after they instilled that policy.


That sounds like a great way to do things.

I'm sure I'm living in a theoretical world, but in my opinion you don't 'get' sick days. At my company if you are sick, there are a certain number of days you can take off and then after that they can ask for a doctor's note.

Besides - you also get into the fairness issue. What if you don't have kids? What if your dog is sick?


----------



## m3s

brad said:


> I actually once worked for a firm that had unlimited sick and vacation time, and didn't monitor it. Employees had responsibilities and deadlines to meet, and as long as they met their deadlines and turned in top-quality work, the company figured it didn't matter how they managed their time. It worked really well, and had an incredible impact on employee loyalty and morale; turnover rates plummeted after they instilled that policy.


If people have to work 9-5 they will just waste a lot of that time whereas in this case they would not want to waste their own time. I've noticed on all forums I follow, the activity skyrockets at about 0830 am Monday and drops significantly on the weekends... Must be all the lazy public sector workers and teachers? I wouldn't even think of going on a forum at work ever, but nobody asks questions when someone has a family responsibly so long as they still carry their weight. We try to allign as many work and personal goals as possible and it works well in the long term. Canada actually has some of the least paid vacations, out done only by the USA. With private sector jobs on a race to the bottom and such high turnover rates, you can't compare to something like teachers.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

_


dubmac said:



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ys-are-unsustainable-clement/article12450013/

wow - 18.2 days per year per person are taken as sick days are taken by public servants - that's alot of sick day. do the math for the entire public service.

Click to expand...

As usual, the Tories are playing fast and loose with statistics to make the problem seem worse than it really is. See:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Tories+seek+public+servants+banked+sick+leave/8504788/story.html

Clement said workers in the public service are off an average of 18 days, when paid and unpaid sick leave, workers’ compensation and disability leave are taken into account.

On average, federal employees were absent 12.5 days last year — twice the rate of employees in the private sector.

Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the joint union and labour management National Joint Council ...
said sick leave of unionized workers is less than 10 days a year.

So, which is it, 18, 12.5, or 10? If you are going to throw in workers compensation & disability, that will really skew the "average". Employees are required to use up their accumulated sick leave before applying for disability. And how much is "unpaid" sick leave costing the government? Do you think employees taking unpaid leave are doing so unnecessarily? 

Critics of public service benefits invariably insist on comparing such benefits with the benefits of the "private sector average" worker, as if it would be a good thing to drag all workers down to the wage & benefits level of your local convenience store employee. The vast number of private sector workers without decent pay or benefits pulls the "private sector averages" down very nicely. When a minimum wage worker has little or no sick leave benefits, it should not surprise us that such a person goes to work sick rather than take unpaid time off. It should also not surprise us that people such as public servants, who earn a living wage and have reasonable sick leave benefits, actually take more sick days than the poor “private sector average” worker. 

Such invidious comparisons do not foster constructive debate about the management of sick leave in the public service. They only incite the public to anger over perceived unfairness, and incite public servants to anger over unfair accusations. And it helps the President for the Treasury Board to create an atmosphere of false crisis where something drastic needs to be done._


----------



## LifeInsuranceCanada.com

OhGreatGuru said:


> _
> Do you think employees taking unpaid leave are doing so unnecessarily?
> ._


_
And you don't? Your entire post reeks of entitlement. Which you're entitled to in the private sector, but when it comes to taxpayers, there's some responsibility attached - that's not happening.

i don't care whether it's 10 days or 18. You should grasp the idea that every single gov't employee (on averge) is so sick that they can't make it into work an entire 2 or 3 weeks a year, every year. That's completely absurd. It's entirely clear that people are en masse abusing the system.

I take about 2 days off sick every couple or few years. That's what you get when there's accountability - I don't get paid when I don't work. When there's no accountability and people can take time off work even when they're not sick, you get them taking an additional 2-3 weeks a year as paid vacation. 

3 weeks a year is 6% of the time they should be working, Having people off sick only when they are sick could reduce costs by 6%. 6% of the gov't payroll is enormous - that's why this is such an obscene abuse of the system by the gov't employees._


----------



## fraser

While I applaud the Harper government for proposing reasonable changes I do think that they are more than a little disingenuous.

Why is the Government so concerned all of a sudden? Could it be the polls, do they want the public to see the NDP on the 'wrong' end of public opinion on this|? They certainly were not concerned about the costs in the past. The civil service employee numbers have actually grown about ten percent since Harper was first elected. 

So now they have decided to cut, cut cut. Tony Clement was certainly not in the cut cut mode when so much of our money, most of it unaccounted for, was poured into his riding prior to the G8 conference. Nor did they seem too concerned about Senate spending until the press started to dig out the real facts.

So, I think that the proposals have a great deal of merit...even if they are about eight years too late and appear to be politically motivated.


----------



## sags

I think the word "entitlements" is getting mixed up with the words "negotiated benefits".

Two completely different things, in my view.

Put money into per hour pay........or put your money into more vacation time......or put your money into DB pensions........or put your money into sick time.

What is the difference if the overall cost is the same.........unless the real target is to attack overall compensation in the public service.

That debate would require a lot of decisions on the value of a police officer, emergency room nurse, judge, crown attorney, military, accountants, lawyers, doctors, and a host of other occupations, along with the teachers.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> I think the word "entitlements" is getting mixed up with the words "negotiated benefits".


You are right, sags.
There are two parties to these negotiated contracts - the union is only the first party.
Equally culpable, or rather _complicit_, are the govt. representatives agreeing to these contract terms.



> unless the real target is to attack overall compensation in the public service.


Replace the word "attack" with "discuss", and we can make some progress.
Yes, the real core issue under discussion ought to be the _total_ compensation of the public service - all three levels.


----------



## MoneyGal

But...isn't sick leave intended to be a form of insurance, something that's there in the event that you need it? Are people burning down their houses because they are "entitled" to the insurance payout?


----------



## HaroldCrump

MoneyGal said:


> But...isn't sick leave intended to be a form of insurance, something that's there in the event that you need it? Are people burning down their houses because they are "entitled" to the insurance payout?


The keyword is _intended_.
Yes, I agree with what you wrote.
But that _intent_ has become an _entitlement_.


----------



## sags

MoneyGal said:


> But...isn't sick leave intended to be a form of insurance, something that's there in the event that you need it? Are people burning down their houses because they are "entitled" to the insurance payout?


It is human nature to use a benefit that you have. I am sure people are always "aware" they have x numbers of sick days........and if the contract is "use them or lose them".................people tend to use them.

Harold is right of course. Unions ask for what they want............and employers respond to those "demands".

Crying the blues.....by EITHER side after the fact.........is pointless.

I remember when the CAW negotiated a 3 year wage freeze, gave up 9 days holidays each year for 3 years, and other concessions.

The next year, GM made record breaking profits again.........and the union asked GM to return the benefits.

No.........GM said. You have a 3 year contract.

Tough luck for the CAW if that is what they agreed to, as far as I am concerned.

So the door swings both ways. 

Both sides should negotiate a contract they can live with...........and stop the whining.


----------



## MoneyGal

But isn't the evidence that public sector workers are (on average) a special *kind* of people that use more sick leave than non-PS workers? Or is your argument that "everyone" uses their sick leave to the extent it is available, because it is a "negotiated benefit" that "we" should just stop whining about?


----------



## CanadianCapitalist

Pretty good column in The Ottawa Citizen today about the Government's latest claim:

Clement can’t kill the public service, so he might as well kill morale




> You know, put it all together: On the whole, your boss thinks too many workers are lazy, not enough are being fired, too many abuse sick days and lots of them need a kick in the pants during a performance review.
> 
> 
> Doesn’t that make you want to race to work in the morning!


----------



## Four Pillars

MoneyGal said:


> But...isn't sick leave intended to be a form of insurance, something that's there in the event that you need it? Are people burning down their houses because they are "entitled" to the insurance payout?


That's different though. The proper analogy would be 'are people making themselves sick to be able to use up their sick days?'.

Which obviously isn't happening.


----------



## HaroldCrump

That article above further re-inforces to me what MG said about unionized public sector being _a special *kind* of people_.

If any part of the Canadian workforce is to be classified as _serfs_, it is certainly not the unionized public sector workers in Ottawa.
In fact, they would be the new _gentry_, the nouveau bourgeoisie.

The neglected public works projects he is talking about - the Canal, the museums, the bridge on the river, etc. well, if the govt. weren't spending so much on compensation, maybe they'll have some money left over to fix/modernize those things.


----------



## Cal

At my work when I take a sick day off, they do a crazy thing. Seeing as I don't produce anything for the office when I am off, I don't get paid. I know, it is a crazy scheme.

Yes, I am an independant contractor.

It would be nice to have some sick days, and perhaps a few more if documentaion is provided. I don't think that is unreasonable.

I think there are some great teachers out there, and in all honesty, I don't blame the teachers for their contract situation or status. If I was offered a sweet deal I would take it too. 

I do blame the teachers union though, as they know they have the upper hand on all negotiations. It does benefit the gov't to have the teachers union on thier side, and they can hold the kids hostage in any strike action. 

I also blame the gov't in the negotiation process as well. Sometimes you have to do what is right for taxpayers too. (and I don't singularily mean this point in the situation of the teachers too) I do hope that the events in Greece and such do wake up the fiscal responsiblity of our elected members.

Harold you would have my vote.


----------



## Cal

HaroldCrump said:


> The neglected public works projects he is talking about - the Canal, the museums, the bridge on the river, etc. well, if the govt. weren't spending so much on compensation, maybe they'll have some money left over to fix/modernize those things.


Just think of how many more jobs that could provide, and how much more the same amount of money could do for so many more.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist

HaroldCrump said:


> If any part of the Canadian workforce is to be classified as _serfs_, it is certainly not the unionized public sector workers in Ottawa.
> In fact, they would be the new _gentry_, the nouveau bourgeoisie.
> 
> The neglected public works projects he is talking about - the Canal, the museums, the bridge on the river, etc. well, if the govt. weren't spending so much on compensation, maybe they'll have some money left over to fix/modernize those things.


I've made this point before. There are many PS jobs where a worker can earn more in the private sector even after you generously cost for pension and leave benefits. 

Compensation costs are already projected to drop. I can't wait to see how the money saved is going to get us all these goodies.


----------



## HaroldCrump

CanadianCapitalist said:


> Compensation costs are already projected to drop.


Where did you read/see that?
All we see is a significant expansion of the public sector even under the Harper administration.

Sure, they have made noises and made some cosmetic cuts - mostly to front-line service workers, such as Parks Canada officers, Service Canada call staff, etc.
All of those are cuts to services.
We need discussions around reducing the _cost _of services, not the services themselves - cutting services is easy.


----------



## Dmoney

CanadianCapitalist said:


> I've made this point before. There are many PS jobs where a worker can earn more in the private sector even after you generously cost for pension and leave benefits.


Which ones? I challenge you to point out to all these PS jobs where on a like for like basis, the comp is higher in the private sector. Don't use the typical "CEO, VP, upper management" spiel, because those aren't comparable for several reasons including job security, the path required to get there, and the hours worked.

Teachers: better comp in public sector vs. private school
Nurses: nurse in hospital makes more than those in a private retirement home
Police officer: not a perfect comparison but cops make significantly more than a Brinks security guard
TTC(or any other public transit) fare collector: makes a helluva lot more than any other ticket taker/fare collector I've heard of
Librarian: Private school librarian makes significantly less than at any public library
LCBO cashier/stocker: likely a little better off than Wal-mart cashier/stocker
Bus driver: likely makes a little more than the Greyhound bus driver
Garbage collector?
Street cleaner?
Snowplow driver?
The list goes on.

Could Carney make more as an MD at Goldman? Absolutely. But for every Carney there are 10,000 PS workers that are paid significantly more than their private sector counterparts. 
Factoring in job security, reduced hours, reduced stress not to mention all the other benefits (pension, health/dental etc.) I would doubt there are more than a handful of positions in the PS that are underpaid relative to the private sector.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Dmoney, several of those job categories have essentially become "equalization" and "income re-distribution" mechanisms for governments at various levels.
i.e. appropriate private sector incomes, and re-distribute in order to create the perception of a more "just" and "balanced" society.


----------



## sags

The government has to collect and redistribute wealth among average Canadians, because they aren't collecting what is due from the wealthy and corporations.

Sure the tax "rates" look high.........but few wealthy or corporations are paying anywhere near the full rate.

Tax loopholes guarantee that outcome..........and every new "tax saving" incentive benefits the wealthy far more than everyone else.


----------



## Karen

As a retired federal public servant whose responsibilities included supervising the clerical staff in my office, there is no question in my mind that many employees badly abused their sick leave entitlement. It was always the same people, and they simply didn't care how much of a burden their absence placed on those of us who came to work regularly.

I was shocked one day when our Executive Director, who was visiting from our head office in Ottawa, suggested that I should go on Long Term Disability until I was retirement age because I had a serious heart problem and I was diabetic. I said that I was perfectly capable of working - my diabetes was perfectly controlled, and my recent surgery had repaired my damaged heart. He said that he was sure I would qualify for LTD and why would I work for several more years when I didn't have to. I continued working, but guess what happened? Two months later he went on LTD himself (for mental stress, he claimed) and remained on it for three years until he was 65! I had really liked the man up until that point, but I lost all respect for him after that.

On the issue of salaries in the public service compared with the private sector, I believe that it's hard to compare across the board. I believe that office/clerical positions generally pay better in the public service but many professional positions certainly don't. A relative of mine, who currently has a high-level position managing the IT department at a major university was interested in joining the federal public service until he discovered that the highest salary he could earn was close to $40,000 a year less than what he was earning in the private sector at that time.


----------



## Plugging Along

Dmoney said:


> Which ones? I challenge you to point out to all these PS jobs where on a like for like basis, the comp is higher in the private sector. Don't use the typical "CEO, VP, upper management" spiel, because those aren't comparable for several reasons including job security, the path required to get there, and the hours worked.
> 
> .


Here are some. Project managers, engineers, analysts, strategists, lawyers, IT people, instructional designers which is like a teacher. Many of the professional areas one will get a lot more in private sector. 

I know many teachers that left public to develop courses and teach in private sector. I took a 20% paycut not including my lose of profit sharing and bonuses. I get recruitment offers frequently for 20% more even after I factor in the pension.


----------



## HaroldCrump

How are you "factoring in" the pension?
Are you counting the employer contribution to your plan at its nominal cash value?


----------



## Plugging Along

That is factorIng the pension at the cash value. I had a db pension at my private sector job too, so consider this an apples to apples consideration. In my case, I will most likely never receive the full pension as others describe. 

Now, that I have been on other sides I don't see as much inequity as I once perceived. I make a lot less than I would in the private sector, that is a fact. I do not get the high raises, crazy bonuses, stock options, etc that I used to. It is much harder to get a large salary increase. However, that has been offset by job security, and a pension, and a much better work life balance. I personally do not value the job security nor pension as much as I do not require them. 

My thought is if one wants a pension so badly, then they should,find a job that offer one..


----------



## CanadianCapitalist

Dmoney said:


> Which ones? I challenge you to point out to all these PS jobs where on a like for like basis, the comp is higher in the private sector. Don't use the typical "CEO, VP, upper management" spiel, because those aren't comparable for several reasons including job security, the path required to get there, and the hours worked.


Most IT jobs. The PS pay scales are posted here:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/cs/cs08-eng.asp


----------



## MoneyGal

But CC: add approx 30% for the pension benefits.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist

MoneyGal said:


> But CC: add approx 30% for the pension benefits.


Why 30%? Employees do contribute to their own pensions. IIRC, employees share 35 percent of the cost today and Govt. plans to increase it to 50 percent.

Also, you are assuming that private sector employees get nothing extra apart from base salary. Most private sector equivalents have (1) variable compensation in the form of bonuses (2) Profit sharing / stock options / RSUs etc. (3) Stock purchase plans (4) Group RRSP matching etc.


----------



## HaroldCrump

CanadianCapitalist said:


> Why 30%? Employees do contribute to their own pensions. IIRC, employees share 35 percent of the cost today and Govt. plans to increase it to 50 percent.


It is not just the nominal cash value of the pension contribution that matters.
There is a value attached to the guarantee and inflation protection that the tax payer is providing to the pension plan.



> Also, you are assuming that private sector employees get nothing extra apart from base salary. Most private sector equivalents have (1) variable compensation in the form of bonuses (2) Profit sharing / stock options / RSUs etc. (3) Stock purchase plans (4) Group RRSP matching etc.


The stock options, SPPs etc. are applicable only to a handful of publicly listed corporations.
There are several other sops that public sector workers get, such as the cashable sick days.
Termination benefits are also quite generous compared to regular private sector, such as 1 week of pay per year of service (leaving aside the executive levels in the private sector).


----------



## MoneyGal

OK, 30% less employee contributions. 

These kinds of discussions never go that well; my point is that the PS DB pension has a value that can be calculated numerically at today's date (and about which there is little disagreement, actually). Not including the DB pension excludes a significant element of the employee compensation package. And while private sector employees can get all the things you have mentioned, they don't have the same value.


----------



## fraser

My best guess is that the overhead burden for Public Service salaries would be in the 45-50 percent range. Perhaps even higher. As a general manager for a large multinational IT company, my payroll burden reached a high or 44 percent. What that means is every dollar of salary actually cost $1.50 or more when the value of benefits are added.....vacation, pension, sick time, health/dental, staff development, maternal/paternal leave....the whole enchilada.

Our benefits were very good, but certainly not as good as the Public Service. That company, over the past ten years, has decreased the salary burden to the low-mid twenties by cutting benefits, replacing full time ees with contractors, and offshoring absolutely anything that could be offshored.


----------



## MoneyGal

30% is just the DB pension. The PS parental leave provisions are the absolute best across the Canadian workforce.


----------



## sags

The value of a DB pension was one of the main reasons my brother in law, who was a corporate lawyer for a national franchise company, went to work for the government. He earned a lot more money in private industry.......but really wanted the safety of having some guaranteed income when he retired.

The DB pension is a big recruitment drawing card for the government, and they used it to bring him on to mentor younger lawyers in corporate law who will be with the government long after he is retired. They need the experience because they are dealing with experienced corporate lawyers for oil companies on the other side of the table.

There are some professions within the public service where the public servants must work for the government against high priced, experienced people on the other side. 

Corporate lawyers, Crown Attorneys, and CRA accountants come to mind.

If the DB pension were to be eliminated............would some other form of compensation be needed to offset it............for recruitment purposes?


----------



## CanadianCapitalist

MoneyGal said:


> These kinds of discussions never go that well; my point is that the PS DB pension has a value that can be calculated numerically at today's date (and about which there is little disagreement, actually).


Yes, absolutely, DB pensions have a cost. And it's total compensation costs including generous pension benefits that matter. My point is even if you account for these costs by grossing up the salary scales by 25 percent, equivalent private IT jobs pay more. My estimate is an average of 10 percent more.

It's possible that many (heck, may be even most) job types in the PS pay much better than the private sector. My point is that this is not true for all job classifications.


----------



## MoneyGal

But is anyone seriously arguing that the most in-demand and most-highly-paid workers are *not* competitive in both public and private sector workforces? I think most if not all people participating in this discussion would agree that a lawyer (for example) can probably maximize compensation in the private sector. The issue (for me) is not that lawyers, IT, accountants, and other people with professional qualifications may be underpaid in the private sector - I understand this and understand that people make decisions on criteria other than maximizing total compensation.

But if we take the "underpaid" professionals out of the equation, what then?


----------



## MoneyGal

(It took me way too long to type that out; I think we are saying the same thing but coming from different angles)


----------



## CanadianCapitalist

HaroldCrump said:


> It is not just the nominal cash value of the pension contribution that matters.
> There is a value attached to the guarantee and inflation protection that the tax payer is providing to the pension plan.
> 
> The stock options, SPPs etc. are applicable only to a handful of publicly listed corporations.
> There are several other sops that public sector workers get, such as the cashable sick days.
> Termination benefits are also quite generous compared to regular private sector, such as 1 week of pay per year of service (leaving aside the executive levels in the private sector).


What I'm saying is that employees are contributing to pensions (I'm not disputing that the contributions have a cost) from their own pockets too and you have to account for it. Let's take an employee in the private sector who has a group RRSP program. Employee contributes 5 percent, employer matches it. Are you saying that the entire rrsp benefit of 10 percent is a cost to the employer? Of course not. The employer's cost is 5 percent.

Stock options are very common in non-public companies. In fact, they are prime tool for attracting talent. Variable comp such as bonuses are also extremely common in both public and non-public companies. I do agree that some benefits offered in the public sector are not common in private companies. Examples are mat leave, extra vacation days etc. My point is that there are benefits in the private sector that one doesn't get as a civil servant. And when you compare the two, you should compare total comp. from both sectors. You can't compare total comp. in public with base salary in private.


----------



## fraser

My experience, in 30 odd years in the IT sector, is that public sector employees-federal, provincial, municipal, hospital, etc. were underpaid compared to industry standards. I cannot comment on total compensation because I have no knowledge of the public sector salary overhead burdens. 

The result was that many of the public institutions that I dealt with had difficulty in attracting and retaining really good IT talent. This had, in some instances, a very negative impact on their operating environment in terms of quality and uptime. 

In the private sector, my compensation package included a DB pension plan that I did not pay a dime for (since replaced with a DC plan), SPP, stock options, stock purchase plan, performance bonus, health/dental, etc. They allowed me to retire early.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Some further evidence of the whole "entitlement" issue with the public sector:

_Via Rail presented its latest proposal on Wednesday, offering wage increases of two per cent a year over three years._
...
_But the Canadian Auto Workers Union said the offer is nowhere near *good enough* and a strike is unavoidable._

So now the truth comes out...it is *not good enough*.
A 2% annual increase for 3 years is not good enough?
Why? After all, inflation is only 1.2%, no?

So they have been offered a free wage increase of 66% (2/3rd) above the rate of inflation.
And it is not good enough for them?


----------



## fraser

The contract goes into the future and there is a prediction that inflation will increase. So, at the end of three years, the union could have actually take an effective reduction. 

It also depends on what other concessions-on both sides-are on the table.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> The contract goes into the future and there is a prediction that inflation will increase.
> So, at the end of three years, the union could have actually take an effective reduction.


Oh my, my, so they know something about upcoming inflation that the rest of us don't know.
What is the BoC telling them that they are not telling the rest of us?

If there is expected to be a serious uptick in inflation in as little as the next 3 years, I'd like to believe the bond and stock markets would have noticed by now.

Wages getting reduced in real terms because of inflation - hmm, to me, that sounds pretty familiar and normal for the rest of us riff-raffs.



> It also depends on what other concessions-on both sides-are on the table.


The other main point of contention is the increased employee contribution required into the pension plan because there is a > $400M deficit.
Clearly, that should not be the workers' problem - that is entirely a tax payers' problem and the tax payers should make up the deficit :rolleyes2:


----------



## fraser

There does not have to be a 'serious' uptake in inflation...just a small move from 1.2 to 2 to will negate the raise. 

I do not think that you can limit a contract negotiation to salary alone. There are always other issues on the table that have a price tag or a cost savings attached to them. 

All things being equal, I think the union request for 2 points year for a three year deal is reasonable.

I do not believe that the VIA rail pensions are anything like the public service pensions. They are essentially a hold over from CN and CP DB plans (UTU, CBRT, etc)-both of which were bog standard with no inflation adjustments. Though my knowledge is a few years out of date.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Public service pays better for jobs that the private sector considers "menial" - secretaries, clerical, admin. support. The private sector periodically complains about having to compete with the "excessive" salaries paid to these groups by the government, because the private sector doesn't want to pay their own staff a living wage. 

Generally speaking, professional/technical staff do not have higher wages in government. Their salary settlements tend to follow industry averages for salaried employees in the private sector, (not self-employed consultants). The other benefits compensate to some extent for the lower wages, and overall "salary & benefits" are taken into consideration in all bargaining agreements. (Not that there is much actual "bargaining" these days).


----------



## HaroldCrump

fraser said:


> There does not have to be a 'serious' uptake in inflation...just a small move from 1.2 to 2 to will negate the raise.


The public sector raises have no connection with the inflation rate - small move or large.
The OPP union negotiated a 8% raise for themselves in 2013 (link posted in my post a page or two ago).
The teachers union negotiated a 12% raise during the 2009 strike.
Reported inflation has never been anywhere near those levels anytime in the last 5 years.

They will demand and take the maximum they can. If they don't get their demands fulfilled, like a rotten spoilt child, they will throw a tantrum (i.e. strike).



> All things being equal, I think the union request for 2 points year for a three year deal is reasonable.


Read the news article again...that is what management offered.
The CAW union has turned it down...they want more.
I bet they are drooling over what the OPP, Teachers, and other unions have been able to negotiate recently, and they want equal or better.


----------



## fraser

I don't have a problem with the collective bargaining system. And I certainly do not blame the unions when they negotiate an attractive contract. Their goal is to do the best for their members, just as management's goal is to do the very best for the employer. It works most of the time. And when it does not, there is always the option of back to work legislation, forced mediation, etc.


----------



## Eclectic12

HaroldCrump said:


> ... Termination benefits are also quite generous compared to regular private sector, such as 1 week of pay per year of service (leaving aside the executive levels in the private sector).


Are you saying that the gov't pays a generous compared to the private sector - 1 week of pay per year of service to the terminated gov't employee?


If so, as part of another thread - there was the claim that a small enough company avoids the more expensive severance pay and pays termination pay - that is one week per year of service.

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/...ermination.php

Most in the private sector who have been willing to share their severance pay numbers with me are quoting between two to four weeks per year of service. 

There must be more than just the one week involved here to be "generous".


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

MoneyGal said:


> But isn't the evidence that public sector workers are (on average) a special *kind* of people that use more sick leave than non-PS workers? ...


The question is - what is anecdotal and what is evidence?

Some of the numbers listed in this thread are mild compared to the sick leave taken at private companies I've worked for. 

With some objective numbers - it is far to easy to prefer one's bias.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

Four Pillars said:


> brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> My employer recently reduced the number of paid sick days, and the complaints posted to the corporate blog revealed that a lot of parents use their sick time not so much for themselves, but when their kids are sick ...
> 
> 
> 
> I know people who do this and I always thought it was wrong. Sick days are for yourself and that's it. .
Click to expand...

Maybe ... I'd say it depends on the policy. 

At my work - the policy explicitly states that a valid use of sick days is to take care of sick kids. In fact, the new time recording system has a separate code so HR can tell how many were for the kids versus teh employee.


Cheers


----------



## fraser

I worked for a large multinational company that has been downsizing/outsourcing for the past 15 years.

Severance packages for all employees ranged from 2-3 weeks per year for each year of employment. Those with short tenure got considerably more-something like a minimum of 2 or 3 months. Longer term employees were essentially getting 2.5- 3 weeks per year of employment up to a maximum of 18 months. Long tenure employees in senior management roles often negotiated more-4 weeks per year to a max. of 20 months or so. Benefits were included. 

I know from conversations with my peers in other similar organizations that their termination policies were very similar.


----------



## MoneyGal

All y'all have never worked in or owned startups, or been responsible for hiring/firing people in small private sector companies?


----------



## MoneyGal

Eclectic12 said:


> The question is - what is anecdotal and what is evidence?
> 
> Some of the numbers listed in this thread are mild compared to the sick leave taken at private companies I've worked for.
> 
> With some objective numbers - it is far to easy to prefer one's bias.
> 
> 
> Cheers


I was referring to, for better or worse, the figures published in the news articles linked here. I don't know whether they are correct or incorrect; objective or biased. They are the figures that were reported!


----------



## m3s

The pay raises were not to match inflation for 1 year... considering there are no pay raises for years at a time

The 1-week-per-year severance no longer exists for the public service.

The gradual move from 30 to 50% contributions has already started.

My pension was completely overhauled without any negotiation or grandfathering

I've heard many reasonings for these adjustments but none ever had to do with what the private sector does or doesn't pay...

If a private sector company wants to pay their employees a living wage or as little as legally possible that's entirely up to them


----------



## donald

I have money gal and i am so glad i changed my business approach(use to have all hourly employees)Though to be fair the pay/skills/market of employees i was looking for was on par with walmart ect(entry level)
I Now bid out entire jobs @ a fixed priced and my sub(s) have to give me a quote(they are responsible for the labour)This has been the best method i have found(so many less headaches though i do take care of all safety and legal ect)Essentially i'm like a broker farming out the labour.
In my own business(and construction as a rule)We operate in contracts-you eat what you kill and if your sick or whatever and don't show that is on you(tough ****)....such a clean/striaght-foward structure!
We all sign up for it.


----------



## HaroldCrump

m3s said:


> The pay raises were not to match inflation for 1 year... considering there are no pay raises for years at a time


The pay raise is 2% per year for 3 years.
Inflation is (must be) a factor for default COLA raises.
If the pay raises are neither for COLA nor for performance, then what is it for?
Just for showing up for work every day (sans the 20 days of "sick" time)?



> The gradual move from 30 to 50% contributions has already started.


That's good to hear...better late than never.
It's headed in the right direction.



> I've heard many reasonings for these adjustments but none ever had to do with what the private sector does or doesn't pay...
> If a private sector company wants to pay their employees a living wage or as little as legally possible that's entirely up to them


Yeah, let them eat cake.


----------



## Eclectic12

MoneyGal said:


> All y'all have never worked in or owned startups, or been responsible for hiring/firing people in small private sector companies?


I'm not clear on where you are going with this. 

The guy who posted in the other thread said he was a small business owner and was touting this as an advantage where employees were being fired after the probationary period. He said that for a small business (as defined by a payroll of under $2.5 million), the only requirement was notice pay of 1 week per year of service. The examples in the link pretty much match up to this.

After he outlined that a payroll of over $2.5 million triggers another set of rules for severance pay - I am not aware of anyone who disputed the comments for the situation of a small business owner.


Are you are disagreeing with him (and the link)?


Cheers

*P.S.* 

Without more information changing the situation - it seems doubtful that the gov't paying a terminated employee the same as a small business would pay (and less than a corporation pays) could be called "generous".


----------



## Spidey

There's no arguing that public sector benefits are generous and I would have been jumping in with both feet to complain about it a few years ago. Self-interest does affect one's opinion. layful: However, there are some benefits we don't get. When I was in the private sector, I received an annual bonus of anywhere between $500 to $2000. There was an annual Christmas party paid for by the company. Occasional lunches were paid for by the company. And incidentals such as coffee, tea, etc. were provided. None of that is available in the public service. I realize this won't be enough to have you wiping tears from your eyes over the plight of public servants but just saying there are some things we don't get as well. 

I also think we don't want to start getting into a "race to the bottom". To me 3 days sick leave from a fairly successful company borders on being abusive by sometimes forcing employees to work when they are not well. Although, I am mostly fiscally conservative in nature, I think in a modern society we need more "pressure valves". I would like to see 6 days sick leave and 4 weeks vacation as the mandated minimum for all employees. The Scandinavians seem to manage even more generous leave benefits than this and still maintain strong economies. Obviously nothing is free, so it may mean a little less take home pay - but I wonder what the savings would be in health costs, day care, family life and stress.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Spidey said:


> When I was in the private sector, I received an annual bonus of anywhere between $500 to $2000.


There are no bonuses in the public sector, eh what?
There are _bonuses galore_.
In fact, the bonus program is what the McGuinty administration used between 2010 and 2012 to award huge lumps of cash to the Ontario public service workers.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...bonus_raise_despite_call_for_wage_freeze.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...onto-ontario-government-bonuses-reaction.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-sector-wage-freeze-that-wasnt/article564866/



> Occasional lunches were paid for by the company. And incidentals such as coffee, tea, etc. were provided.


There is lots and lots of that going on in the public sector.
Remember the Ministry of Health debacle in '09?
They were ordering in catered lunches for any meetings between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm.


----------



## Spidey

Re: Bonuses, coffee, tea, lunches, etc. I was speaking of the rank-and-file federal government worker. Where I work we get our pay and benefits but absolutely nothing extra -we all have to chip together if we want a coffee maker or a kettle. But perhaps those cushy provincial workers have it more soft.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Here is a new paper from the CFIB on another of these outrageous benefits in the public sector - the bridge benefit.

_public employees who retire early are eligible to collect a bridge benefit that can be as much as $105,000 per retiree_
...
_"The way the rules are structured, public servants would be foolish not to retire early," said Marvin Cruz, a CFIB research analyst and author of the study. 
"The bridge benefit is an outrageous perk and a perverse incentive that should be eliminated." 

In 2011, the federal government was on the hook for $2 billion in pension benefits to public servants who retired before the age of 65, according to the study. 
That is 44% of the $4.6 billion in total annual pension benefits payable to retired federal public servants."_

http://www.benefitscanada.com/pensi...l-pension-plan-2-billion-annually-study-40428


----------



## HaroldCrump

Spidey said:


> But perhaps those cushy provincial workers have it more soft.


You just picked the wrong gravy train, Spidey


----------



## Spidey

> In 2011, the federal government was on the hook for $2 billion in pension benefits to public servants who retired before the age of 65, according to the study.


It may have made more impact if it said before 55. Until 2008 it seemed even most folks in the private sector seemed to retire before 65. 

That being said, I can't deny the public sector pensions are an attractive feature. My problem is I got in too late to see that much advantage. When I was younger I should have taken a government job (they were easier to get back then) rather than studying in college.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Another load of crapola from the CFIB, which doesn't believe in any pensions for anybody. (Note how they torpedoed any idea of the federal government improving CPP.)

It is not an outrageous "perk". It is a legislated part of the Superannuation Act; it is paid for by employer & employee contributions; it is actuarially accounted for in determining contribution rates; and it is common practice for most public pension plans in the broadest sense (municipal, provincial, federal; health care, teachers, etc.) It would not surprise me if some large private plans had such provisions. 

The CFIB, along with its camp followers, would like the government to tear up its life-long contracts with government employees, rather than meet its financial obligations, because it is no longer "convenient" to pay its bills.

Guess what:
- I didn't write the Superannuation Act;
- I didn't decide the government should pay 70% of contribution costs for all those years ( now being gradually reduced);
- I didn't decide there would not (until recent years) actually be any "invested" funds. Only bookkeeping accounts, credited with interest at the going central bank rate. So the government essentially lent the money to itself at low rates of interest, thus benefitting the general taxpayer. If the CFIB would like to get into its time machine, go back and invest all that "paper" money as a "prudent" pension fund manager would have done, I would be happy to live on the result in lieu of my current "outrageous" pension benefit;
- I didn't take $30B in "surplus" funds from the Superannuation account about 10 years ago to help pay down the deficit, (ie. paying off the debts of all taxpayers) I don't recall the CFIB members having their pension plans or RRSPs skimmed by the government this way.).


----------



## fraser

I am in a private DB plan.

Yes, we do have a bridge benefit in the plan. Alas, I did not qualify. You need 90 points (age plus service) which I did not have. The monthly amount is calculated based on years of service. 

My impression from others is that this is not an unusual benefit in DB plans but I think 80 or 85 points is a more common threshold.


----------



## sags

A lot of pension plans have early retirement provisions. Sometimes, the pensions are unreduced and sometimes they are not.

They can be known as "bridge benefits, transition benefits, supplemental benefits", or some other wording.

They are only temporary benefits that end at age 65, when CPP and OAS begin.

The CFIB greatly exaggerates the cost of those benefits..........and I agree with the points made about the government seizing pension surpluses and borrowing from the pension plans at a preferred rate.

Unions warned that what is happening today...........is exactly why they were conducting legal fights against employers helping themselves to the pension surpluses and granting themselves pension contribution holidays.

"Don't worry" said the employers..........."this won't affect the retirees"

And now..........they cry and cry.........and don't feel they have any responsibility.

If pensions are in such bad shape.......why are insurance companies lining up to take them over?


----------



## fraser

I view pensions the same as I view salary/wages. It is part of the pay packet. People earn their pension entitlement every day that they work- just as they earn their wage. 

What many people forget is that organizations with DB plans had, for many years an easy and sometimes a free ride. The company that employed me for many years made less contributions, and in some years made no contributions, to the DB plan because the market was doing so well that the DB plan asset pool funded itself. We never heard any complaints during those years!

In fact some were doing so well that they adjusted to include additional benefits. In our case, the retirement age was 65 but an unreduced pension was made available at age 62 and bridge benefits were added from age 55. In the not too distant past there has been a good number of legal battles over who is entitled to DB pension surplus monies-employer or employees. Some of those cases are still before the courts. Some companies became acquisition targets in part because of large DB pension surpluses. 

The only complaint then was from companies who had difficulty accessing the surpluses to enhance their bottom lines. Now they scream-they of course wanted to surpluses yet they want relief on the deficits. 

There are some Canadian companies that have very well funded pension plans. CN Rail is one. There are others. MoneySense had a good article a few years ago listing the largest Canadian plans and their then current funding level. Some, like Air Canada, were in bad shape.

There are lots of good employers in Canada. They have DB plans and they are honouring their obligations. We tend to only hear about the few who are in trouble or who go bankrupt. Our insolvency rules help some of these companies run away from their obligations. Unfortunately, the current trend is to DC pensions-even the responsible employers have become spooked. And with shorter employment periods with the same employer, some people prefer DC plans.


----------



## like_to_retire

Teachers should make do or find new work.

_The province’s largest teachers’ union is putting parents and the province on notice that they intend to strike. The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario has voted 98% in favour of strike action as the union says negotiations have stalled.

Teachers are well paid in Ontario: they get two months off in the summer; they get Christmas, Easter and March Break off; they get a pension most of us can only dream of. Yet, time and again, they look to use our children as bargaining chips to extract even more.

I can only speak for myself, but I think I speak for plenty of parents and taxpayers when I say that I’ve had enough. The education system is well funded and still isn’t performing properly.

If the folks at ETFO don’t like their jobs or working conditions, then they should quit and find a job in the real world with the rest of us.

You’ll see how quickly their attitude changes._

_____________________________________________

Hear, hear................

ltr


----------



## sags

I don't where Brian Lilley has been but the Ford government themselves announced they were cutting thousands of education positions back in the spring.

The Ford government took a 144 day holiday over the summer..........from June to November. Where is Lilley's outrage about that ?

The Ford government has been cutting all over and trying to deny they are cutting......but people aren't buying it and want him gone asap.

https://www.flare.com/news/doug-ford-changes-for-ontario/


----------



## Userkare

One of the issues I heard was class size, like under 30 kids? 

In my high school, each grade had 4 separate classes ( 1A,1B,1C,1D,2A,2B... ). Each class had about 40 kids. We stayed in the home-room, and the teachers moved from room to room for each period. 


I didn't think about it at the time, but holy cow, how did those teachers handle so many studints? Thats' almost 112 studints per graid for a teecher; and sum teechers taut more then won graid.


----------



## sags

This is elementary school. More than 30 students, some not speaking English very well, others with emotional or learning disabilities..........good luck.


----------



## Mechanic

Userkare said:


> One of the issues I heard was class size, like under 30 kids?
> 
> In my high school, each grade had 4 separate classes ( 1A,1B,1C,1D,2A,2B... ). Each class had about 40 kids. We stayed in the home-room, and the teachers moved from room to room for each period.
> 
> 
> I didn't think about it at the time, but holy cow, how did those teachers handle so many studints? Thats' almost 112 studints per graid for a teecher; and sum teechers taut more then won graid.


Plus, when we left school our handwriting was legible. We could also do a lot of maths in our head. Don't know how we survived. Haha


----------



## sags

I don't know about the math part. Our grandson is in Grade 5 and learning algebra already.

They also have French and computer classes. I didn't study any of that until high school.

Ask older folks a simple math question......what is the sum of 1 + 2 x 3 and they will almost always give the wrong answer of 9.


----------



## Just a Guy

I remember, after a previous strike, a teacher called the radio station. They’d supposedly gone on strike for classroom size, but wound up getting a two figure raise instead. They claimed “we never asked for a raise”, when the radio host suggested they “give it back then to reduce class size”, the teacher said “why would I do that?” In an incredulous voice...

I guess, like sags, they don’t understand the definition of words like hypocrisy.

I’m not sure how much “teaching” goes on with some “teachers” either. I remember when my daughter was in grade three, they took a test which the class failed but my daughter got 100% on. The “teacher” spent the week teaching the exact same test and testing daily trying to bring up the class mark. My daughter took the exact same text, which she originally got 100% on, 5 times. Sound like someone who couldn’t teach but had learned to “cover their ***” to hide their incompetence. She’d been a teacher a long time...money well spent obviously.

I remember a kindergarten teacher of ours who insisted the brontosaurus was a real dinosaur too. The kids all knew better, but she must have watched the flint stones to gain her education. Or, maybe she’d been around since that time and knew from personal experience. 

I moved my kids to a different school, had about 300-350 in k-9. Small class sizes, better teachers, publicly funded. Specialist in gifted kids. In high school, I put them in IB, again small classes, better teachers for the most part.

I took a little time to think about their education instead of slamming them into some school that was a few doors always which specialized in turning out lemmings.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> Ask older folks a simple math question......what is the sum of 1 + 2 x 3 and they will almost always give the wrong answer of 9.



So what are they teaching these days about the precedence of operators? 

The calculator included with Windows says "9" if I enter "1+2 x 3". If I put it in scientific mode and enter "1 + (2x3)" it says "7". One of the first things you learn in computer programming is to express the problem unambiguously, don't depend on the implied precedence.


----------



## MrMatt

Pensions are part of the pay package.
Pensions should be fully funded. 

However there is a problem, when the pension value differs from the obligations, who "owns" the difference?
Also who is responsible for the management of the fund?

My view is that the person offering the pension (ie employer) is responsible for the difference and the management.
If there is is a shortage, they should OF COURSE make it up.
If there is an excess, they should be similarlly entitled to that.
Finally they have to manage it.

The problem is, what if there is a sudden crash and the pension is severely underfunded, and the company can't make up the shortfall?
Basically the company is bankrupt over this obligation and the pension holders should negotiate the debt.

All pretty simple.
The problem is that when a company is bankrupt, it's too late.

Personally I think DB pensions a too risky for a company to offer.


----------



## sags

If you type 1 + 2 x 3 into the Google address bar the calculator shows the correct answer is 7.

That proves Google is smarter than Microsoft.


----------



## sags

Pension surpluses belong to the contributors and are not accessible to the employer.

If there is a surplus, plan administrators may decide to lower contributions or raise benefits.

If there is a shortfall, plan administrators may decide to raise contributions or lower benefits.

The best form of administration of pensions is a HOOPP structure of employer and employee representatives on the pension board.


----------



## Just a Guy

Userkare said:


> So what are they teaching these days about the precedence of operators?
> 
> The calculator included with Windows says "9" if I enter "1+2 x 3". If I put it in scientific mode and enter "1 + (2x3)" it says "7". One of the first things you learn in computer programming is to express the problem unambiguously, don't depend on the implied precedence.


To me, this is just another example of how useless unionized teachers are. In private industry, someone who taught wrong for generations wouldn’t get a pension, they’d have been fired.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> If you type 1 + 2 x 3 into the Google address bar the calculator shows the correct answer is 7.
> 
> That proves Google is smarter than Microsoft.


Actually, Google shows 1 + (2x3) on the calculator it displays as the first entry.

BODMAS... *Bracket> Order> Division > Multiplication > Addition > Subtraction

*That's why bracket is the best way to pose the problem. Do they still teach BODMAS in school? Do the kids even care?

I don't see it as an age issue... "ask an old person and they'll get it wrong", I think that "stupid" transcends age.

The old folks watch Jeopardy, the young'uns watch Cash Cab ( Jeopardy for morons ). They're asked "what do amperes measure?" They reply "power" and the host says "correct". Wrong wrong wrong!!!!
Then the host asks "Where was HMS Titanic built". I say "nowhere, that ship never existed". The contestants swapped the question, they had no clue.


----------



## sags

The question could be asked that way, but then the person asking the question would have to already know how to properly perform the calculation.


----------



## MrMatt

Userkare said:


> Actually, Google shows 1 + (2x3) on the calculator it displays as the first entry.
> 
> BODMAS... *Bracket> Order> Division > Multiplication > Addition > Subtraction
> 
> *That's why bracket is the best way to pose the problem. Do they still teach BODMAS in school? Do the kids even care?
> 
> I don't see it as an age issue... "ask an old person and they'll get it wrong", I think that "stupid" transcends age.
> 
> The old folks watch Jeopardy, the young'uns watch Cash Cab ( Jeopardy for morons ). They're asked "what do amperes measure?" They reply "power" and the host says "correct". Wrong wrong wrong!!!!
> Then the host asks "Where was HMS Titanic built". I say "nowhere, that ship never existed". The contestants swapped the question, they had no clue.


never heard of BODMAS, it was BEDMAS. back in the 80's
I think "Exponents" is more clear than "Orders"

I think if order matters, use brackets, and indentation.


----------



## peterk

^ I think "Orders" is just a different term for power functions, i.e. exponents... not "in order".

BEDMAS ftw.


----------



## Userkare

Education, at least in the early years, is supposed to be about leaning how to learn. I don't know if the school system has ever really done a great job with that; mostly just teaching how to memorize whatever was needed to pass a test, then forget.

We live now in an age where, literally at our fingertips, the entire knowledge of the World can be accessed. Yet... I bet if you ask anybody, young or old, in what geological period did T-Rex and Velociraptors exist, they will incorrectly answer "Jurassic".
They are willing to accept "facts" from unreliable sources without question or independent research.


----------



## Userkare

MrMatt said:


> never heard of BODMAS, it was BEDMAS. back in the 80's
> I think "Exponents" is more clear than "Orders".


TBH, I remembered that there was an acronym for the precedence of operators, but I had to look it up, and found "BODMAS".


----------



## andrewf

Yes, I'm used to BEDMAS. I studied math, which taught me not to use ambiguous notation. All of these black and gold vs blue and white internet controversies rely on out of date or ambiguous notation. For instance, I have not used the division symbol/obelus (÷) since I was in elementary school. It's bad form to use it, generally should use brackets and negative exponents or if you have fancy typesetting software (like LaTeX) to express as fractions.


----------

