For all you Matheletes out there who think the teachers compensation demands equal 14.5%, here is a little refresher for you.
"May a commune of gay, Marxist Muslim illegal immigrants use your tax dollars to open a drive-thru abortion clinic in your church."
The bigger issue here is the government fucking with the people. Twice they have been found guilty of breaking the law by tearing up a contract and they just carry on with no regard for law. What do you think would happen if you did that to employees? How has it that we are able as people, to just accept this? Not only accept it but you PAY for it! People should stand behind them for that alone. Who knows when you are next.
I'm just going to keep quoting this until its gets drilled in.
Well put Heavy
"May a commune of gay, Marxist Muslim illegal immigrants use your tax dollars to open a drive-thru abortion clinic in your church."
For all you Matheletes out there who think the teachers compensation demands equal 14.5%, here is a little refresher for you.
I hope who made that video doesn't teach if they can't even comprehend such a simple statement.
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
I hope who made that video doesn't teach if they can't even comprehend such a simple statement.
Care to point out a specific mathematical error with the video?
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
^whomever made that video, should not get a raise at all. OMG LOL HAHA
Care to point out a specific mathematical error with the video?
The basic assumptions that went into her example were flawed. Do you really believe that the total cost of benefits are 1/10th of the cost of wages? The rule of thumb that I have always seen in cost estimation (granted, this is for private sector) is that total cost is 1.5-2x of direct labor cost.
Second, she attempts to say that the two years of the previous contract that they didn't get a raise should go against this. That is deceitful at best. Perhaps if she understood economics (a concept that appears to be lost on most) she would realize that everything up to this point is a sunk cost, something that does not have any bearing on the future.
That's the problem with cities, they're refuges for the weak, the fish that didn't evolve.
I don't want to google this - sounds like a thing that NSMB will be better at.
Care to point out a specific mathematical error with the video?
Mathematics are correct. Sources for her wage/benefit numbers please?
Apologies in advance for re-entering the discussion and asking a question, please accept that I do understand that by asking the above question, it's clearly understood that I hate children.
Mathematics are correct.
Sources for her wage/benefit numbers please?
yes and yes - finally someone that gets BOTH accounts right.
i tend to agree with farmer here that the numbers presented in the vid are not accurate in relation to bc teacher's cost to the taxpayer. it would be nice to know exactly what those numbers are and then do the comparison on that. i've been looking but there's a mound of data to pur over to find the right numbers. have found some other interesting stuff though.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
The basic assumptions that went into her example were flawed. Do you really believe that the total cost of benefits are 1/10th of the cost of wages? The rule of thumb that I have always seen in cost estimation (granted, this is for private sector) is that total cost is 1.5-2x of direct labor cost.
Benefits are a contractually imposed or negotiated cost and distinct from the direct employment cost (and hence "benefits"). Benefits in this case appear to amount to about 25% on top of salary …. so a 6.5% increase in benefits amounts to a 0.25X6.5%=1.625% overall increase in gross income. My understanding is that this math doesn't change whether you work for a pizza joint, an aerospace company or an investment bank.
Second, she attempts to say that the two years of the previous contract that they didn't get a raise should go against this. That is deceitful at best. Perhaps if she understood economics (a concept that appears to be lost on most) she would realize that everything up to this point is a sunk cost, something that does not have any bearing on the future.
You are blindly quoting microeconomic theory here. Sunk costs matter if the outlay (in this case the wage) appreciates over time (as wages tend to do in response to inflation). They matter because increases paid out in previous years not only add up, but are compounded on into the future raises.
Whether you think their wage increases are deserved or not is another issue altogether.
Second, she attempts to say that the two years of the previous contract that they didn't get a raise should go against this. That is deceitful at best. Perhaps if she understood economics (a concept that appears to be lost on most) she would realize that everything up to this point is a sunk cost, something that does not have any bearing on the future.
I'd argue that those sunk cost carry some weight when negotiating wage increase in a contract dispute.
Mathematics are correct. Sources for her wage/benefit numbers please?
She clearly says "for example". Didn't try to present any of those figures as hard. The simple math stands. The math used in the ad paid for with your precious tax dollars is flawed. That is the point.
yes and yes - finally someone that gets BOTH accounts right.
i tend to agree with farmer here that the numbers presented in the vid are not accurate in relation to bc teacher's cost to the taxpayer. it would be nice to know exactly what those numbers are and then do the comparison on that. i've been looking but there's a mound of data to pur over to find the right numbers. have found some other interesting stuff though.
I'd be curious to see what the real numbers are as well but your chances of getting anything accurate from either side are pretty slim at this point.
"May a commune of gay, Marxist Muslim illegal immigrants use your tax dollars to open a drive-thru abortion clinic in your church."
Care to point out a specific mathematical error with the video?
I didn't say there was a mathematical error. I said they didn't understand how to comprehend a simple statement. The flaw has been pointed out by others, but it's pretty obvious when the person starts making two groups of arbitrary sizes, then points out that the numbers generated are not accurate.
This kind of logic flaw or (perhaps, purposeful) misrepresentation of the facts is what we get from politicians. An organization of professionals (or individuals in that profession) that profess to be educators who take the moral high ground should not be involved in this type of misinformation.
If the BCTF had said "we want classroom sizes fixed, a pay raise like rest of public employees (including their bonus for a good economy), and some compensation for the last couple years (contract should go from 2013 to 2018 and perhaps a small bonus for the illegal law), then I would bet the contract would likely have been completed by now.
People are missing the fact that the adjustment to "repair" the classroom sizes will be expensive. Then there's the "me too" clause with the other 150K public employees in this province that would cost a lot of teachers receive a higher salary increase. When you add that to the cost of the wage and benefit demands, it's a lot of money. The government is not going to raise the revenues via new taxes, and they are hell bent on balancing the budget, so their only option would be to cut money from other programs.
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
She clearly says "for example". Didn't try to present any of those figures as hard. The simple math stands. The math used in the ad paid for with your precious tax dollars is flawed. That is the point.
true, but by using obviously flawed numbers in her example it discredits the point she's trying to make even though it's correct. if they had used benefits at 50% of wages they still would have come out ahead. by using such a low number to try and slight the point to their side it makes it seem disinegenuous.
while i still side more with the teachers in this mess, they could be doing a far better job of selling their case.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
She clearly says "for example". Didn't try to present any of those figures as hard. The simple math stands. The math used in the ad paid for with your precious tax dollars is flawed. That is the point.
And the point is wrong because the math is correct.
The add says:
BCTF 14.5% Salary 8%. Benefits improvements 6.5%. $5K signing bonus.
What the BCTF is asking for in salary and benefits increases adds up to 14.5% over what is currently spent. So first statement is correct. When you break down this 14.5% increase, approximately 8% of it is in salary increases and 6.5% is in benefits increases. So the second and third statements are correct.
Then there's the signing bonus that is being demanded, which would cost $5K x 40K, or $200 million.
I wouldn't doubt that the if the BCTF doesn't reduce their demands enough, their employer will lock them out to recoup money and then come September legislate the teachers back to work. The Liberals are the old Socreds, and they do not like unions at all. During Operation Solidarity I thought the province was going to shut down as there was a huge outcry across the province. Unfortunately the unions under Jack Monroe leadership caved to the governments demands (doubt many people know why - maybe some bleak forecast of what would be in store for the province).
http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/141787973.html
But for a long time the BCTF has always been in confrontations, and that doesn't help their look for support.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Timeline+long+troubled+bargaining+history+teachers+provincial+government/9864912/story.html
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
I hope who made that video doesn't teach if they can't even comprehend such a simple statement.
Yeah, I agree. there was only one blonde at the 1:00 mark,not two.
Pastor of Muppets
She clearly says "for example". Didn't try to present any of those figures as hard. The simple math stands. The math used in the ad paid for with your precious tax dollars is flawed. That is the point.
Perhaps if she used numbers that weren't so completely wrong, the video would come across less disingenuous then it does. Or if she addressed that she's using an incorrect assumption on how the 14.5% number was achieved. As others have pointed out the 14.5 number comes from a calculation of the total package increase over the 5 year period. Not as an addition of two percentages.
But yes, the simple math is correct, it's the point that she's trying to make with it that is incorrect.
Forum jump:
