kpicott@alias.UUCP (Socrates) (11/08/89)
Normally I try to stay away from union-type issues (being allergic to them) but the latest rumor I heard has really yanked my chain. I heard that if the teachers remain on strike another (n) days (n>7) then the entire year will be cancelled for the students. I consider my time much more valuable than money since you can never reclaim lost time. Were I one of these students and this _did_ happen to me I would consider it no less an offense than if I were mugged and robbed. Even though the tuition fees will probably be returned how can you ever make up for an entire year of your life being thrown away for what amounts to nothing? A year, that is, for those who can afford to stay out on their own or live with their parents until the course is offered again next year. Some will not be able to hang on for financial or personal reasons. Those that do will get a lower quality education due to larger class size (since there will now be two years worth of students in the same classes). Will someone from the teacher's side please explain to me what possible justification they could have for doing this? (Last time this almost happened it was the government that stopped it from happening, not the teachers, if I have my facts straight.) While I'm at it, will someone also please explain to me why the above situation should even affect classes such as the animation program, where the teachers (1) are not greatly in favour of the strike, but are obligated to the union and (2) run their courses so that students *can* work on their own, so a protracted strike will not put them seriously behind in the year's work? <grumble, grumble>
mark@watnext.waterloo.edu (Mark Earnshaw) (11/11/89)
In article <606@alias.UUCP> kpicott@alias.UUCP (Socrates) writes: [TEXT DELETED IN AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE NET BANDWIDTH] >Will someone from the teacher's side please explain to me what possible >justification they could have for doing this? (Last time this almost >happened it was the government that stopped it from happening, not the >teachers, if I have my facts straight.) No one else seems to be responding to this yet and most if not all of the college teachers probably don't have access to the net right now (or even a computer terminal) so I'll throw in my $0.02 worth. My father happens to be one of those walking the picket line, and I've got most of my information from him since there doesn't seem to have been much in the news (DISCLAIMER: the only newspaper I read is the Saturday Globe & Mail). The strike began on October 18 so has been going on for 3.5 weeks now. As far as I know, the main issue is that of salaries. Currently, the maximum possible salary for a college teacher is below that of every school board in the province (secondary and elementary). Either we're overpaying the sec./ele. teachers or underpaying the college teachers (take your pick). There was also a rumour that they were trying to steal some of the accumulated sick leave days, but I don't know if that's true or not. Before they walked out, there were rumours from the president of the college (the one where my father works) that they were preparing for a long strike, and that seems to be what has happened. There don't sound to be any talks going on or even the intention of holding any talks. Both sides are probably waiting for the government to do something, but David Peterson seems to have maintained his popularity by refraining from doing anything. Maybe he expects to get more votes from the teachers than the students (based on my experience, university students have a very low turn-out at the polls). I agree that I would certainly not want to be a college student faced with the prospect of losing a whole year. However, my father is also losing about $1000 per week (before taxes, probably much less afterwards!) so neither side is really winning (the colleges maybe since they don't have to pay the teachers). What I see as a solution to the problem would be for the government to get involved which they should have done already. Rather than see the students lose their year, I would rather that the government legislate the teachers back to work and then begin mediating contract talks. Since the two sides aren't talking to each other now, someone has to take some action or they'll still be on strike next spring. One additional note. I seem to recall that the strike vote was only about 55% so a lot of the teachers don't really want to be on strike. That's one reason why I think that legislating the teachers back to work would not cause as much bad feeling as the previous time (that worked out okay in the end since the teachers ended up getting what they wanted in mediation). Anyway, that's all that I know along with some of my opinions. If anyone else has additional info or corrections or even their own opinions, feel free to post.
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) (11/12/89)
Why do people always blame the union for protracted strikes? Certainly it must at least sometimes be the management's fault! Of course the union could end the strike at any time by giving in on all issues, but so could the management.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/12/89)
In article <12258@watcgl.waterloo.edu> mark@watnext.waterloo.edu (Mark Earnshaw) writes: >What I see as a solution to the problem would be for the government to get >involved which they should have done already. Rather than see the students >lose their year, I would rather that the government legislate the teachers back >to work and then begin mediating contract talks... How about this for an idea... Teachers are legislated back to work. They get the colleges' last pay offer. The colleges, however, pay out amounts equal to the teachers' last pay demand. The difference goes to a group that both sides despise -- the students -- until the two sides get together and reach a compromise. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) (11/13/89)
In article <1989Nov11.143948.15365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: > >Why do people always blame the union for protracted strikes? Certainly it must >at least sometimes be the management's fault! Of course the union could end >the strike at any time by giving in on all issues, but so could the management. I'd hate to say that I would always blame the union, but in most cases I would. I see too many people who would be eager and willing to take a job, and work hard at it, to have sympathy for people earning far beyond what their ambitions (read effort) warrant. This is obviously true for the TTC. The union here artificially maintains the cost of workers well above that which is actually earned. I'm not down on 'working' people, rather, I would rather see the jobs go to *working* people. Need I even mention Canada Post? :^) I'm not so sure about the collage strike, partly because I am ignorant of most of the details. I can't really understand why college teachers would make less than high-school teachers. If so, why is there not a shortage of college teachers? (ie. they *should* obviously be well qualified to teach high-school??). Is there a college teacher to answer this question? I also find it questionable (frightening?) when a supposed "auto workers union" now represents every worker under the sun, and is still growing? My personal feeling is that a union allows groups of related employees to bargain together, thereby promoting efficiency in the bargaining process and providing some degree of 'security' for workers which may have little or no bargaining power individually. Sounds good. This allows the workers to retain the benefits of more highly skilled workers, who have the ability to bargain individually (ie. if I don't like an job, I quit, and find a better one), and change jobs easily. Thus, when bargaining, the company has to consider the value vs. payment for *all* of its (experienced) sheet-metal workers, rather then single ones. It is relatively easy to do without one worker in a field of many, but it is pretty difficult to lose all at the same time. However, just as an employer could decide me to not be worth what I think I am, and tell me to shove it; if the membership is as-a-whole is not worth it's salt, I don't see any reason for the management to be required to retain it (Are you listening Canada Post? Too bad it doesn't really work that way). I'm especially down on union management. In my home town they convinced the membership to strike (about 18 months) a barely-above-water foreign-owned industry for higher wages. Need I explain the outcome? There are now 2000 less people working there. Contrast this to one of the smartest union moves ever (Chrysler), where working with the company caused better fortunes for all (This required both union and management *co-operation*). To sum up what I said before, a union provides collective bargaining, but if the collective is not a bargain, I say start interviewing again. Regards, Mike. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hutton University of Waterloo, Computer Science. mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu
riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) (11/13/89)
In article <1989Nov11.143948.15365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: > >Why do people always blame the union for protracted strikes? Certainly it must >at least sometimes be the management's fault! Of course the union could end >the strike at any time by giving in on all issues, but so could the management. Is it possibly related to the fact that it is usually the *union* that proposes new working conditions which favour itself, rather than *management* that proposes new working conditions favouring itself?
rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) (11/13/89)
In article <12258@watcgl.waterloo.edu> Mark Earnshaw writes: >The strike began on October 18 so has been going on for 3.5 weeks now. As far >as I know, the main issue is that of salaries. Currently, the maximum possible >salary for a college teacher is below that of every school board in the >province (secondary and elementary). Either we're overpaying the sec./ele. >teachers or underpaying the college teachers (take your pick). [...] >[M]y father is also losing about $1000 per week [on the picket line]. I couldn't let this pass: the man is making _at least_ $50K a year and is on strike for more money! As I understand it, this is in the middle range for university professors: who are primarily charged with _research_. It is certainly outrageous for secondary and elementary teachers, and, as I understand it, community college teachers are not in the research business either; thus this salary is purely for their instructional talents. If pressed, I could probably name three or four professors worth this as instructors; I could name _no_ secondary teachers worth this. As a reference, I have taken graduate and undergraduate courses in at least 9 different departments (ranging from fine arts to engineering); involving 5 for courses at least at the third year level (spread over 5 Canadian universities). (I've been rectifying a deficient secondary education!) Also, based on the quality of the students I have met coming into university from secondary school, a good chunk of these $50K secondary school teachers are incompetent (i.e. only worth $20K). Perhaps, though, these community college teachers are the hidden stars of our educational system. Dubito. For your amusement I have appended a table showing where Canada ranks internationally on public educational spending (1987). United States ...................... 4900 per pupil Canada ............................. 4700 per pupil West Germany ....................... 3200 per pupil France ............................. 2900 per pupil Japan .............................. 2900 per pupil Britian ............................ 2300 per pupil In US dollars (+/- $100/pupil) Regrettably, I wasn't able to come up with the statistics on how Canadians rank internationally in terms of skill and ingenuity. My impression is that it is at least below West Germans (generally), and probably above Britians. Any concrete statement would be quite welcome, however. R. -- Ray Tigg | Cognos Incorporated | P.O. Box 9707 (613) 738-1338 x5013 | 3755 Riverside Dr. UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp | Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4
kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates) (11/13/89)
In article <18113@watdragon.waterloo.edu> mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) writes: >In article <1989Nov11.143948.15365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >> >>Why do people always blame the union for protracted strikes? Certainly it must >>at least sometimes be the management's fault! Of course the union could end >>the strike at any time by giving in on all issues, but so could the management >> Always? Maybe it's just that the well-publicized cases involve unions who are just crying out for attention, instead of the well-justified cases where workers are exposed to unhealthy conditions. (My mother went on strike once due to absence of ear protection on a factory floor.) Union workers wanting more money is the most unjustifiable excuse for striking that I can think of. This seems more like organized blackmail than an attempt to get their just deserts. >I see too many people who would be eager and willing to take a job, and work >hard at it, to have sympathy for people earning far beyond what their >ambitions (read effort) warrant. > Exactly. I could never in my life imagine a job where 100 different people are all worth exactly the same amount for the work they do. Isn't capitalism supposed to be the opposite of communism. (ie, *to* each according to his ability) >My personal feeling is that a union allows groups of related employees to >bargain together, thereby promoting efficiency in the bargaining process and >providing some degree of 'security' for workers which may have little or >no bargaining power individually. > This is the ideal. However, I might change 'allows' to 'forces' and 'efficiency' to 'added power' to come closer to what really happens. I have never heard of a union that will allow non-union labour in the same shop. (After all, it threatens the security of the workers who don't want to keep up with their competition.) IMHO unions are mostly out of date (like income tax, but that's another story :-) ). They have long since reached the point where they are doing more harm than good. It is no longer the case that a single company has no competition and can treat its workers poorly without losing business in the long run. The idea of an organization to protect workers rights is good, but the ridiculous extreme to which it is carried by modern unions ruins most of the benefit.
robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) (11/14/89)
In article <18113@watdragon.waterloo.edu> mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) writes: >I'm not so sure about the collage strike, partly because I am ignorant of >most of the details. I can't really understand why college teachers would >make less than high-school teachers. Better yet, why do carpenters, brick layers, GM assembly line workers, etc. make more than teachers and nurses? Like all occuptions where there is also a non-monetary reason to work (teaching, nursing, school board trustee's (uhmmm, bad example :-)) the employers tend to rip off the workers. There is also a reluctance on the part of the public to pay these people more: "Teachers get summers off so their salary should lowered accordingly". This leads to situations like the current nursing crises (look in the careers section, practically every hospital is looking for nurses). I firmly believe that nurses and teachers are *grossly* underpaid, I certainly want the person teaching or healing my children to be making more than person slopping mortar on the bricks of my house! >If so, why is there not a shortage >of college teachers? (ie. they *should* obviously be well qualified to teach >high-school??). Is there a college teacher to answer this question? I think that most college teacher's have industry back grounds and have decided to teach because they enjoy teaching. I don't think they would necessarily have to be qualified to teach high school. (I want the person teaching X-ray technicians to be a VERY competent X-ray technician, not somebody who just got out of teachers college). >However, just as an employer could decide me to not be worth what I think >I am, and tell me to shove it; if the membership is as-a-whole is not worth >it's salt, I don't see any reason for the management to be required to >retain it (Are you listening Canada Post? Too bad it doesn't really work >that way). I think all of Canada Post, provincial, and federal civil services should be fired and the useful 50% hired back. I really hate the attitude that if somebody hires you they are somehow indebted to you for life (sort of an "indentured master" :-). Rob. -- Robert A. Osborne ...uunet!mnetor!lsuc!isgtec!robert (Nice sig Bruce mind if I steal it :-) ...utzoo!lsuc!isgtec!robert ISG Technologies Inc. 3030 Orlando Dr. Mississauga. Ont. Can. L4V 1S8
tony@yunexus.UUCP (Tony Wallis) (11/14/89)
robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) : [a] | ...why do carpenters, brick layers, GM assembly line workers, | etc. make more than teachers and nurses? ... [b] | I certainly want the person teaching or healing my children to be | making more than person slopping mortar on the bricks of my house! ------------- I think the above is excessively emotional. [a] Rewarding people according to the "social" (as opposed to ecomomic) value of their work as judged by an elite group (e.g. you and me) ? People tend to vote against that after a while - with their feet if necessary. Those people pouring through the Berlin Wall are not after superior education or medical care. Freedom and democracy is not all pluses - it has its price. What you are complaining about is part of that price tag. I don't like it either, BTW. [b] I compared the brickwork on my house against the basic "mindwork" on my (university) students alleged to have been done in high school, and the "carework" of the nurses who sample my blood every couple of months. IMHO, the brickwork is better, *in general*, than either. I want competent bricklayers, carpenters, etc. to make more than sloppy teachers and nurses. -- Tony Wallis tony@yunexus.UUCP (York U. Toronto Canada)
mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) (11/14/89)
In article <1989Nov12.015326.8233@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > How about this for an idea... Teachers are legislated back to work. They > get the colleges' last pay offer. The colleges, however, pay out amounts > equal to the teachers' last pay demand. The difference goes to a group > that both sides despise -- the students -- until the two sides get together ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ This sounds to me like a (potentially inaccurate) generalization. What's the evidence that this is true? I know only two community college teachers (neither of whom I've seen in several months, so I have no idea what their opinions about the strike are), but both of them enjoy their work and are quite fond of their students. Are they exceptions, rather than the rule? How do you know? Mark Bartelt UUCP: {utzoo,utgpu,lsuc}!sickkids!mark Hospital for Sick Children BITNET: mark@sickkids.utoronto 598-6442 INTERNET: mark@sickkids.toronto.edu
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (11/14/89)
In article <617@alias.UUCP> kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates) writes: >In article <18113@watdragon.waterloo.edu> mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) writes: >>In article <1989Nov11.143948.15365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >>> >>>Why do people always blame the union for protracted strikes? Certainly it must >>My personal feeling is that a union allows groups of related employees to >>bargain together, thereby promoting efficiency in the bargaining process and >>providing some degree of 'security' for workers which may have little or >>no bargaining power individually. >> >This is the ideal. However, I might change 'allows' to 'forces' and >'efficiency' to 'added power' to come closer to what really happens. I have >never heard of a union that will allow non-union labour in the same shop. >(After all, it threatens the security of the workers who don't want to keep >up with their competition.) There are several states in the US where this practice has been legislated, they are colourfully known as "free states", i.e. it is against the law to write a contract that prohibits non-union workers to work for the company. IMHO this is EXACTLY the right way to limit the powers of current unions without totally destroying them. After all, unions do serve some purpose, even though they make it very difficult to remember that some times. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "We have to keep pushing the pendulum so that it doesn't get stuck in the extremes--only the middle is worth having." Orwell, Videobanned -- Kim Kofmel
brian@jtsv16.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) (11/14/89)
In article <207@isgtec.UUCP> robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) writes: >In article <18113@watdragon.waterloo.edu> mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) writes: >>I'm not so sure about the collage strike, partly because I am ignorant of >>most of the details. I can't really understand why college teachers would >>make less than high-school teachers. >Better yet, why do carpenters, brick layers, GM assembly line workers, >etc. make more than teachers and nurses? Like all occuptions where there >is also a non-monetary reason to work (teaching, nursing, school board >trustee's (uhmmm, bad example :-)) the employers tend to rip off the >workers. Umm... I tend to look at this from the opposite direction. Teachers are getting good pay, but the auto workers and brick layers are getting about twice as much money as they deserve. Mostly due to monopolization of labour. "Closed shop". > There is also a reluctance on the part of the public to pay >these people more: "Teachers get summers off so their salary should >lowered accordingly". This leads to situations like the current nursing >crises (look in the careers section, practically every hospital is looking >for nurses). I firmly believe that nurses and teachers are *grossly* >underpaid, I certainly want the person teaching or healing my children >to be making more than person slopping mortar on the bricks of my house! Hey, your teachers must be making radically different amounts than the teachers at my schools. They were the best paid occupation in the area, short of the lawyers and doctors and a handful of entrepreneurs. They were all (with the exception of the few rookies fresh out of college) in the $35,000+ bracket, department heads more and other officials still more yet. And back in Temiskaming, housing costs are a *LOT* lower than Toronto... I'll certainly agree with your comments on nursing, however. That is one sector that should get a raise. NOT a single lump increment, but an increment of, say, 4% above inflation for the next three to five years or so. So that we *taxpayers* will be able to absorb the costs gradually. Most of the "underpaid" people are NOT underpaid in most areas of Ontario; in Toronto, however, where my rent for a basement apartment is twice as much as my parents' mortgage payment for a 160 acre farm, yeah, Toronto-based workers are likely underpaid. I understand Ottawa isn't much better, although I haven't any first hand information on that. But I don't see why my tax money should be given to someone for the luxury of living in Toronto... [...some text deleted...] >I think all of Canada Post, provincial, and federal civil services should >be fired and the useful 50% hired back. I really hate the attitude that >if somebody hires you they are somehow indebted to you for life (sort of >an "indentured master" :-). Amen. >Rob. -- Brian A. Jarvis, J.T.S. Computer Systems, brian@jtsv16.jts.com, Downsview, Ontario ...jtsv16!brian Canada M3H 5T5 (416) 665-8910 History is all too frequently the study of the worst case scenario.
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) (11/15/89)
mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) writes: >I'm especially down on union management. In my home town they convinced the >membership to strike (about 18 months) a barely-above-water foreign-owned >industry for higher wages. Need I explain the outcome? There are now >2000 less people working there. This attitude is what I was talking about. I'm sure it's true that the union held out for those 18 months, but so did the management. People on tor/ont.general always forget this, and I was asking why (or asking them to stop forgetting this). ajr
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) (11/15/89)
>flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >>Why do people always blame the union for protracted strikes? Certainly it >>must at least sometimes be the management's fault! Of course the union could >>end the strike at any time by giving in on all issues, but so could the >>management. riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: >Is it possibly related to the fact that it is usually the *union* that >proposes new working conditions which favour itself, rather than *management* >that proposes new working conditions favouring itself? I don't think this is true. Often strikes are the result of the management proposing CHANGES which are bad for the workers. For example, in the Toronto TTC strike one of the biggest issues was that of the management INTRODUCING part-time workers. The management wanted to change the existing situation, and the union wanted it to say the same. This was one of the big strike issues, and without it I don't think the workers would have gone on strike. ajr
lamy@ai.utoronto.ca (Jean-Francois Lamy) (11/15/89)
An interesting statistic tossed out during last week's premier's conference was that Canada's spending on education per student is second only to Sweden among Western nations. I'd love to see independent confirmation / denial of this, cause if that is so I'm really wondering where it is all going... Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@ai.utoronto.ca, uunet!ai.utoronto.ca!lamy AI Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
laredo@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Alain Laredo) (11/15/89)
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: >>Is it possibly related to the fact that it is usually the *union* that >>proposes new working conditions which favour itself, rather than *management* >>that proposes new working conditions favouring itself? >>flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >I don't think this is true. Often strikes are the result of the management >proposing CHANGES which are bad for the workers. For example, in the Toronto >TTC strike one of the biggest issues was that of the management INTRODUCING >part-time workers. The management wanted to change the existing situation, and >the union wanted it to say the same. This was one of the big strike issues, >and without it I don't think the workers would have gone on strike. I like when people believe that one example is enough to prove their statements and disprove other's. Probably using the TA's strike where the *union* was asking for better conditions I can disprove Alan's assertion. Next time why don't you use some statistics to make your statements? Jim Laredo.
jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) (11/15/89)
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >>flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >>>Why do people always blame the union for protracted strikes? Certainly it >>>must at least sometimes be the management's fault! Of course the union could >>>end the strike at any time by giving in on all issues, but so could the >>>management. >riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: >>Is it possibly related to the fact that it is usually the *union* that >>proposes new working conditions which favour itself, rather than *management* >>that proposes new working conditions favouring itself? >I don't think this is true. Often strikes are the result of the management >proposing CHANGES which are bad for the workers. I don't think it is really important which side of a labour dispute is proposing change. A strike/lockout can be called by either party to ensure or prevent change, depending on the situation. What I do think is important in this case is the fact that students, who are not involved in the labour dispute, are being hurt by a strike initiated by one of the parties in this dispute, namely, the teacher's union. IMHO, this is inherently unjust. Students are not at the bargaining table; they should not be punished for what happens or fails to happen at that table. This 'punishment' is not slight - in some cases, it could ruin a student's education. (e.g. Mary Smith can't afford to spend an extra year in school, but she needs an extra year to finish because of the strike. Therefore she can't get afford to get her diploma.) Note that this works both ways. If the administration had called a lockout, it -- and not the union -- would be harming students by suspending their educations. Before either party in a labour dispute decides on strike/lockout action, that party should consider very carefully the effect of such action on innocent third parties. John -- John DiMarco jdd@db.toronto.edu or jdd@db.utoronto.ca University of Toronto, CSRI BITNET: jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (416) 978-8609 UUCP: {uunet!utai,decvax!utcsri}!db!jdd
stewartw@warpdrive.UUCP (Stewart Winter) (11/15/89)
In article <12258@watcgl.waterloo.edu> mark@watnext.waterloo.edu (Mark Earnshaw) writes: >In article <606@alias.UUCP> kpicott@alias.UUCP (Socrates) writes: >>Will someone from the teacher's side please explain to me what possible >>justification they could have for doing this? (Last time this almost >>happened it was the government that stopped it from happening, not the >>teachers, if I have my facts straight.) >One additional note. I seem to recall that the strike vote was only about 55% >so a lot of the teachers don't really want to be on strike. That's one reason Equally as interesting is that it's the Toronto teachers that are really on strike. They make up the majority of the teachers in the union. The teachers outside of Toronto are satisfied with the proposed deal. However, the Toronto teachers want more money to make up for their higher cost of living. I know that students in Ottawa are not very happy about this. The teachers aren't even bothering to picket here any more (too cold); they just leave their signs posted. Also, rather disturbing is the lack of information available to the students whose year is in jeapardy. Most have no idea whether or not they will get their tuition back and just how long their school year might drag on until (important for summer jobs). -- Stewart Winter Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3830 FAX: (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Drive UUCP: uunet!cognos!stewartw Ottawa, Ontario "The bird for the day is .... parrotlet." CANADA K1G 3Z4
gbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Gideon Sheps) (11/15/89)
In article <18113@watdragon.waterloo.edu> mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) writes: > >I'm not so sure about the collage strike, partly because I am ignorant of >most of the details. I can't really understand why college teachers would >make less than high-school teachers. If so, why is there not a shortage >of college teachers? (ie. they *should* obviously be well qualified to teach >high-school??). Is there a college teacher to answer this question? > Have you perhaps applied for a job as a high school teacher recently ? If so.. where was it - many people are currently looking for *the* opening in Ontario. Ok.. I exagerate slightly... but only slightly. -- Gideon Sheps I am not a number ... ...I am a free variable ! /// UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!utgpu!gbs \\\/// BITNET: gbs@utorgpu INTERNET: gbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca \\\/
gbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Gideon Sheps) (11/15/89)
In article <255DCAC0.7630@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) writes: >In article <1989Nov11.143948.15365@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >> >>Why do people always blame the union for protracted strikes? Certainly it must >>at least sometimes be the management's fault! Of course the union could end >>the strike at any time by giving in on all issues, but so could the management. > >Is it possibly related to the fact that it is usually >the *union* that proposes new working conditions >which favour itself, rather than *management* that proposes new working >conditions favouring itself? No not really possible... when contract time rolls around both sides sit down with their proposals ... favouring, as you said *themselves*. Note: BOTH SIDES. and then the bargaining begins. Strikes happen when the bargaining process breaks down - as do lockouts.. which are "management strikes" so to speak. -- Gideon Sheps I am not a number ... ...I am a free variable ! /// UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!utgpu!gbs \\\/// BITNET: gbs@utorgpu INTERNET: gbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca \\\/
mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) (11/15/89)
In article <89Nov14.122901est.2783@neat.cs.toronto.edu> lamy@ai.utoronto.ca (Jean-Francois Lamy) writes: >An interesting statistic tossed out during last week's premier's conference >was that Canada's spending on education per student is second only to Sweden >among Western nations. I'd love to see independent confirmation / denial of >this, cause if that is so I'm really wondering where it is all going... > >Jean-Francois Lamy lamy@ai.utoronto.ca, uunet!ai.utoronto.ca!lamy >AI Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 I read in a newspaper clipping a while ago that tuition (referring to university students) was subsidized by 84% by the government. It also mentioned that part of the funding problem could be caused by a lack of accountability by the provinces for federal education money (ie. the province eats some of the federal spending increases in every round). Unfortunately I don't even know what paper this was in, so all you get is my second-hand recollection. I think that OSAP (Ontario Student Loans Program) might be able to provide some interesting statistics. I would personally be interested to see the correleation between students on full grant, and those who drop out of University without a degree. This (unsupported in any way) hypothesis is why I would support universal access to loans instead of the current loan and grant system. Mike. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hutton University of Waterloo, Computer Science. mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu
jstewart@sce.carleton.ca (John Stewart) (11/16/89)
I think the underlying problem is the large debts accumulated by the federal and provincial governments in combination with our high interest rates. The result is higher taxes AND spending cutbacks at the same time. Salary increases for public sector employees, beyond the usual cost of living increase, cannot be provided without additional tax increases. Governments which are already taking heat from the taxpayers for recent tax increases have little incentive to provide more money for salaries. I think we are going to see this situation arise more frequently in the future. Nurses are the first example I can think of, but I'm sure there are many other groups of public sector employees who will be looking for more than cost of living increases. There is also pay equity coming soon which will result in some groups of employees receiving real increases beyond the cost of living. -- "Support the President's War On Long Usenet Signatures"
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/16/89)
In article <339@sickkids.UUCP> mark@sickkids.UUCP (Mark Bartelt) writes: >> ... The difference goes to a group >> that both sides despise -- the students -- until the two sides get together > ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >This sounds to me like a (potentially inaccurate) generalization. What's >the evidence that this is true? I know only two community college teachers >... both of them enjoy their work and are quite fond of their students... Possibly I am being overly cynical, but I would have a much higher opinion of the teachers' views of the students if they had been on strike for better facilities and smaller classes, rather than simply more money. It may well be the case that individual teachers care for their students and deplore the situation, but the union management clearly doesn't share those feelings. -- A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates) (11/16/89)
In article <1989Nov14.111855.27329@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
^
^I don't think this is true. Often strikes are the result of the management
^proposing CHANGES which are bad for the workers.
^
This is a veritable minefield of a statement. It implicitly states that if
the workers feel a management decision is bad for them they will go on
strike. What about long-range planning that the workers are unaware of?
What about cut staff or die situations? There must be a middle ground
between management axing workers for no reason other than to shake things
up and workers being kept on staff who are dragging the company under.
I see the ideal situation proceeding as follows:
(1) Management proposes some (unpopular) changes.
(2) Workers decide if they need/want the job enough to go along
with said changes.
(3) If not, then management had better come up with a compromise
or lose a good portion of their staff.
(4) If management can accept (3) then the workers who disagree
with the changes will not be happy at the job and should in
any event look for a new one.
This way workers only remain where they are happy, and management always has
the concerns of the worker in the upper priorities. Of course in the real
world (3) and (4) means sacrificing the sacred "job security" that everyone
looks for (and by looking for it ensure that they never find it).kpicott%alias@csri.utoronto.ca (Socrates) (11/16/89)
In article <89Nov14.122901est.2783@neat.cs.toronto.edu> lamy@ai.utoronto.ca (Jean-Francois Lamy) writes:
^was that Canada's spending on education per student is second only to Sweden
^among Western nations. ... I'm really wondering where it is all going...
^
Into inefficient education, bureaucracy and the government's pockets. Ask
any secondary school teacher what they would have to go through to make a
change in the curriculum of a course. I also see the government's role in
education as following to the letter "providing an education to all".
Notice that it never says "good education" or "useful education". Millions
can still be cut from the education budget before it starts to become
inaccessible. In the mean time we can just sit back and wonder why high
school graduates are illiterate, ignorant (in the "untaught" sense of the
word) and incapable of learning anything 2 years after they leave school.riehm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm) (11/16/89)
In article <1989Nov14.111341.27052@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: >mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) writes: >>I'm especially down on union management. In my home town they convinced the >>membership to strike (about 18 months) a barely-above-water foreign-owned >>industry for higher wages. Need I explain the outcome? There are now >>2000 less people working there. > >This attitude is what I was talking about. I'm sure it's true that the union >held out for those 18 months, but so did the management. People on >tor/ont.general always forget this, and I was asking why (or asking them to >stop forgetting this). But the situation is *not* symmetric, as you seem to be assuming implicitly. If *management* asked the workers to take a cut in pay, benefits, or working conditions, and then proceeded to lockout the workers when they refused to accept the "offer", then we would have the analogous situation, but with the roles of the union and the management reversed. And in this case you could reasonably expect us to complain about the management rather than the union, in order to be consistent.
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (11/16/89)
In article <1989Nov14.232239.5289@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> gbs@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Gideon Sheps) writes: >Have you perhaps applied for a job as a high school teacher recently ? >If so.. where was it - many people are currently looking for *the* >opening in Ontario. > >Ok.. I exagerate slightly... but only slightly. Well, as I understand it, you completely miss the mark. The demand for high school teachers seems to cycle severly on a 5-year cycle. 5 years ago, if you wanted a teachers job, you had to go to Moose Jaw. Now, if you can teach math, computer science, or French, or can fake it :-) then you're hired, in just about any city you want. This is according to three teaching students/recent grads in teaching. I assume that the high price for teachers at this time refelects fair market value (supply:demand ratio). At a later date, when the cycle falls, the union will preserve the teachers wages at an unfairly high rate, forcing school boards to do unreasonable things to class size/recent hires/municipal taxes. >-- >Gideon Sheps >I am not a number ... ...I am a free variable ! > /// >UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!utgpu!gbs \\\/// >BITNET: gbs@utorgpu INTERNET: gbs@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca \\\/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "We have to keep pushing the pendulum so that it doesn't get stuck in the extremes--only the middle is worth having." Orwell, Videobanned -- Kim Kofmel
lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) (11/16/89)
In article <7470@cognos.UUCP> rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) writes: > >Also, based on the quality of the students I have met coming into university >from secondary school, a good chunk of these $50K secondary school teachers >are incompetent (i.e. only worth $20K). Perhaps, though, these community >college teachers are the hidden stars of our educational system. Dubito. > >For your amusement I have appended a table showing where Canada ranks >internationally on public educational spending (1987). > >United States ...................... 4900 per pupil >Canada ............................. 4700 per pupil >West Germany ....................... 3200 per pupil >France ............................. 2900 per pupil >Japan .............................. 2900 per pupil >Britian ............................ 2300 per pupil > >In US dollars (+/- $100/pupil) These are interesting figures, especially when you consider that the average salary for a US high-school teacher with 8 years experience is in the mid-to-high twenties. Let it be pointed out that in a national exam administered to US high school teachers in 1987-88, an exam based on the Grade 9 curriculum, fully 25% failed. In the US high school teachers come from the bottom third of the class. After all, why would an ambitious college graduate want to work for$ 20-30 K in a profession accorded little respect and much responsibility? Paying low salaries is a prime deterrent to the bright and the competent. So where is all the US money per pupil going? Is it analogous to the medical system, where the well-off (in this case,schools) have it very very good, and the poorer have it horrid? Note also that in a recent survey, US students ranked at the bottom of a long list of developed countries in such skilled tasks as finding their own country on a world map. They ranked way below such powerhouses of education as Britain, Portugal and our own country, but shared the lowest rung of the ladder with none other than the Soviet Union. (A nice twist of political irony.) Sweden of course came first. I don't remember the exact issue that published these figures, but they were in an article in the Economist, a conservative British magazine. This same conservative British magazine published an article a few months back relating Sweden's exceptional worker productivity to its education programmes. The view of the article was both admiring and a touch surprised. I believe the point here is "you gets what you pay for", although my favourite such quote comes from the Rector of Concordia University in Montreal. A few years back, when Bourassa decided to cut yet more funds from the Quebec universities, on the grounds that they were "too costly", while meanwhile forbidding them to raise tuition, the head of Concordia wrote an open letter to the Premier, in which he said: "If you think education is expensive, M. Bourassa, you should just try ignorance for a generation". Underpaying our teachers is like paying slave wages to child care workers. We're shortchanging our children, just because we may have been shortchanged. What's the point of that? Montreal
mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) (11/16/89)
In article <1989Nov14.232239.5289@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> gbs@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Gideon Sheps) writes: >In article <18113@watdragon.waterloo.edu> mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) writes: >>I'm not so sure about the collage strike, partly because I am ignorant of >>most of the details. I can't really understand why college teachers would >>make less than high-school teachers. If so, why is there not a shortage >>of college teachers? (ie. they *should* obviously be well qualified to teach >>high-school??). Is there a college teacher to answer this question? > >Have you perhaps applied for a job as a high school teacher recently ? >If so.. where was it - many people are currently looking for *the* >opening in Ontario. > >Ok.. I exagerate slightly... but only slightly. What are you getting at, I only see two implications of the statement 1. Some College teachers are high-school teachers who couldn't get a job? 2. College teachers wishing to teach high-school are not as qualified as people graduating from teacher's college, and can't compete for jobs. But neither of these could be true. I am *assuming* that to be a college teacher, one would be more highly educated and qualified, thus granting easier access to teacher's college. I don't see any barriers to college teachers entering high-school positions, (besides not wanting to - in which case maybe they are choosing their position?). Maybe the high-school teachers union is too strong and refuses to let more qualified people in :^) Regarding what someone else said about salaries, it does seem like college teachers are trying to surpass University professors when they want upwards of 50 000 pa. And they don't have research responsibilities. BTW: I have heard that Southern Ontario is now approaching a shortage of teachers, as enrollments are climbing - contrary to the way it has been the last several years. Can anyone confirm or dispute this? Mike. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hutton University of Waterloo, Computer Science. mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu
mark@watsnew.waterloo.edu (Mark Earnshaw) (11/16/89)
In article <7470@cognos.UUCP> rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) writes: >For your amusement I have appended a table showing where Canada ranks >internationally on public educational spending (1987). > >United States ...................... 4900 per pupil >Canada ............................. 4700 per pupil >West Germany ....................... 3200 per pupil >France ............................. 2900 per pupil >Japan .............................. 2900 per pupil >Britian ............................ 2300 per pupil > >In US dollars (+/- $100/pupil) I would be interested to know where these statistics came from. As some one else has already pointed out with reference to another posting, some of this money seems to be getting lost between the government and the universities/ colleges/etc. In the five years that I've been at university, I keep hearing about underfunding and how Canada ranks very poorly in terms of money committed towards education. Since education is a provincial matter, perhaps this is the money transferred from the federal government, some of which then gets diverted into other areas before actually reaching educational institutions? In particular, I thought that the US was much further ahead of us in spending than shown. Of course, a lot of this money goes on research (e.g. SDI) so maybe this hasn't been factored in? -- Mark Earnshaw, Systems Design Engineering {uunet,utai}!watmath!watsnew!mark University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada mark@watsnew.waterloo.{edu,cdn}
mark@watsnew.waterloo.edu (Mark Earnshaw) (11/16/89)
In article <7470@cognos.UUCP> rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) writes: >In article <12258@watcgl.waterloo.edu> Mark Earnshaw writes: > >>The strike began on October 18 so has been going on for 3.5 weeks now. As far >>as I know, the main issue is that of salaries. Currently, the maximum possible >>salary for a college teacher is below that of every school board in the >>province (secondary and elementary). Either we're overpaying the sec./ele. >>teachers or underpaying the college teachers (take your pick). > > [...] > >>[M]y father is also losing about $1000 per week [on the picket line]. > >I couldn't let this pass: the man is making _at least_ $50K a year and is >on strike for more money! As I understand it, this is in the middle range >for university professors: who are primarily charged with _research_. It >is certainly outrageous for secondary and elementary teachers, and, as I >understand it, community college teachers are not in the research business >either; thus this salary is purely for their instructional talents. If >pressed, I could probably name three or four professors worth this as >instructors; I could name _no_ secondary teachers worth this. As a reference, >I have taken graduate and undergraduate courses in at least 9 different >departments (ranging from fine arts to engineering); involving 5 for courses >at least at the third year level (spread over 5 Canadian universities). >(I've been rectifying a deficient secondary education!) First of all, my father has 20 years of seniority so is at the top of his pay scale. Secondly, college teachers usually have a significantly higher teaching load than do university professors. Not only do they have to teach more courses per term (I'm not sure, but it might be 4 or 5? as compared to 1 or 2 (or even none) for a university prof), but they have no TA's so also have to mark all of the assignments and exams themselves. Conversely, university professors often receive additional income from external research contracts and consulting. If you examined the *total* income for a college teacher versus a university professor, you would probably find that the latter's was much higher. Because the emphasis is more on research than teaching at universities, not all professors are suited for instructing. I noted that you have not thought much of some of your (university) teachers and I will certainly agree with you here (although a number of mine have been quite good). You do not indicate that you have taken any college courses so how can you judge their teaching aptitude? One additional note which I don't think that I made clear in my earlier posting. There are some other issues in this strike besides salaries (e.g. management trying to "steal" accumulated sick leave). One thing is evident though. This is only the second time that the college teachers have been out on strike which tends to indicate that they would not do so unless they really did not feel that the Council of Regents contract offer was acceptable. -- Mark Earnshaw, Systems Design Engineering {uunet,utai}!watmath!watsnew!mark University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada mark@watsnew.waterloo.{edu,cdn}
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/17/89)
In article <1989Nov12.015326.8233@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >How about this for an idea... Teachers are legislated back to work. They >get the colleges' last pay offer. The colleges, however, pay out amounts >equal to the teachers' last pay demand. The difference goes to a group >that both sides despise -- the students -- until the two sides get together >and reach a compromise. I am not addressing the validity (or lack of, as the case may be) of the college teachers demands, that's merely a related topic. I like your idea in principle. I only have one problem with it. The extra money that will be paid out has to come from somewhere. Unless colleges have a magic source of revenue that escapes the rest of the free world, methinks the funds come from taxes and tuitions. Certainly each one of us would like to pay more taxes, and I'm just as certain that students want their tuition raised. >A bit of tolerance is worth a | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >megabyte of flaming. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu Ed. A. Hew, SCO Authorized Technical Trainer, XeniTec Consulting Services edhew@xenitec.on.ca -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew
mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu (Mike Hutton) (11/18/89)
In article <12313@watcgl.waterloo.edu> mark@watsnew.waterloo.edu (Mark Earnshaw) writes: >In article <7470@cognos.UUCP> rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) writes: >>United States ...................... 4900 per pupil >>Canada ............................. 4700 per pupil > >In particular, I thought that the US was much further ahead of us in >spending than shown. Of course, a lot of this money goes on research >(e.g. SDI) so maybe this hasn't been factored in? If we were going to count US defence research, perhaps we need a few more 0's in their column. :^) But for many, including myself, that :^) should really be a :^(. Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hutton University of Waterloo, Computer Science. mdhutton@violet.waterloo.edu
rayt@heraclitus.UUCP (R.) (11/22/89)
In article <12309@watcgl.waterloo.edu> lyn bartram writes: >This same conservative British magazine [The Economist] published an article >a few months back relating Sweden's exceptional worker productivity to its >education programmes. The view of the article was both admiring and a touch >surprised. I believe the point here is > "you gets what you pay for" ... Interesting that you should bring Swedish productivity up; the same (liberal!!) British magazine just this week noted that: "On an average day in Swedish industry, at least one out of four people is absent from work. Some have respectable reasons (illness, holidays), but others stay away because of the disincentives to work built into the tax system." [Nov 11;59] Evidently, while worker productivity is up, it is not necessarily channeled into areas they are paid for. I think that this is important for Canada: as it becomes increasingly more socialistic and paternalistic, one has to decide what what point the overhead and the cotton wool defeats the objective - promoting creativity and, if not wisdom, at least a modicum of maturity. >A few years back, when Bourassa decided to cut yet more funds from >the Quebec universities, on the grounds that they were "too costly", while >meanwhile forbidding them to raise tuition, the head of Concordia wrote an >open letter to the Premier, in which he said: > "If you think education is expensive, M. Bourassa, > you should just try ignorance for a generation". The fallacy of the excluded middle is one of the oldest rhetorical tricks: one presents a position favourable to the conclusion desired and gives the opponent the choice of this or something which you know _must_ be rejected (governmental agencies and their minions are the modern masters of this). While this may get you points in a formal debate, it is really an _impediment_ to undertanding. What is education _suppossed_ to do? Why? Is it being achieved? If not, why? If it is, is it _worth_ it? What are the alternatives? etc. etc. >Underpaying our teachers is like paying slave wages to child care workers. >We're shortchanging our children, just because we may have been shortchanged. >What's the point of that? Formal training is probably the _least_ important aspect of a person's education. Modern art, for example, is stuffed with good journeymen - kitch and decoration we have enough of. _Can_ one train a person to be creative and independently motivated? That is the question. Such a teacher or guide would be worth the wage we pay the modern drillers and dispensers of facts - more. Anyone with a modest amount of patience, concern, and respect for their students can be an instructor - these are average qualities, why pay an above average price for them? (Yes, I have done this myself with some success.) R. -- Ray Tigg | Cognos Incorporated | P.O. Box 9707 (613) 738-1338 x5013 | 3755 Riverside Dr. UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp | Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4