the irony is that all of this discussion and political back and forth does not even matter.....OPP and OPG are Ontario public employers...in 2019 they both got 2% annual increase...no arbitrator or court is ever going to grant the teachers less than that....all of the unions need to go on long term strike which Ford can legislate back to work after a week and into mandatory binding arbitration...its the usual cycle...let's get on with life
- Mar 11, 2016
- 2081 posts
- 836 upvotes
- Deal Addict
- Jan 9, 2010
- 1558 posts
- 709 upvotes
I think we can agree to disagree. It's a matter of priorities and what each individual taxpayer values and what kind of balance we want to maintain amongst our priorities on spending and how much we want to tax our populace whether it be for health care, education etc.OntEdTchr wrote: ↑ I can see why you interepted my statement that way. I was just putting a polite end to a conversation that I'm not informed enough to continue. Let me clarify. It's a fair point that the things I'm listing are relatively small expenses. Is my list a comprehensive account of all of Ford's expenses? No. The cost of breaking the green energy contracts is not a small amount. The potential cost of breaking the Beer Store contract is not a small amount. I'm not sure what the total cost of the 20% housing allowance increase is. The reason I don't mention these things is that I don't know enough about them to be able to have an informed and educated conversation about the specifics. And you should know that reducing expenses isn't the only option here. What was the potential revenue from cap and trade? What about taxes? Or what about redistributing our priorities? How much money does this province spend to subsidize university programs that give us overqualified and underemployed graduates swimming in debt? You've got the Minister of Labour singing the praises of the applied trades and making committments to address the stigma related to applied trades, and good on him for doing that, while at the same time the Minister of Education is making decisions that have already resulted in the cancellation of courses which support those types of career pathways.
The first step is to recognize the value of investing in education. If we can agree on that, then the question becomes what we can afford and what we can't. But it doesn't end there, because once we've come to a list of things that we value but can't afford, then we need to ask: 1 - are there efficiencies that can be found or frivolous spending that can be curbed to get is part of the way there? 2 - are we spending money on things that are less important and less valuable than the things we can't afford in education? 3 - have we explored all options of generating revenue to cover whatever is left after 1 and 2?
I'll also point out that, to my knowledge, OSSTF isn't asking for more money for their benefits. They're asking for a 2% wage increase and for everything else to remain as is. Why will it cost more to provide the same high school class average and the same optional e-learning model next year than it did last year? That's what I'm really confused about here. They're speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They claim that they've invested more in education than any mother government yet refuse to commit to items that leave things as is. I don't get it.
However on the benefits front, I think we've already had this discussion before. It's true that the union is asking to maintain the same level of benefits as before, but due to the funding shortfall in the ELHT this would need an increase of more than 10% per teacher. I believe you were the one that posted an excerpt of the union email that confirmed this, and the recent article in the globe and mail (link below) also touches on this but is not as detailed. Therefore it's a bit misleading to suggest to the public that you guys aren't asking for anything more.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theglo ... ing-talks/