Province short teachers to mark diploma exams.....

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by The Big Chill

They're not whining. The issue is that there are not enough teachers signing up to do the marking. They are making their choice, and the majority of them are deciding not to sign up. The decrease in pay was too much and is no longer market value.

I think you need to read the article again. The majority are signing up. They are only short 30% of the markers they need, and diplomas are a month off. This is the union whining prematurely - they'll get the people they need.

Also, the pay is unchanged at $200 per day for teachers working holidays and weekends. They are already paid their regular rate for normal business days plus an extra 100 dollars. It's a great opportunity to earn some extra money and as you can clearly see, seven out 10 spots are already filled and they still have a month to fill the remaining few spots.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Sigh....please read the article. Or any of the posts that have accurately countered you. Non Alberta Education employees (i.e. almost all teachers in this province, who are employed by their local boards) are not required to mark the diplomas. Whether they mark tests 24/7/365 is not relevant. This is not a job requirement. They VOLUNTEER to do it, and are compensated for their time. The province wants to pay less, fine. They have less available help, the direct consequence of choosing to pay less. The only person whining in here is you.

Senator Clay Davis you have misread every single one of my posts (unless you quoted me by accident). I know it's a volunteer position. I know it is compensated. I know everything you said, but I'm not the one whining. Teachers calling this an "insult" are the ones whining.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by redforever

Actually, teachers salaries are for 10 months but the teachers have voted to have that spread over 12 months.

Sooo.....they'd make the same money whether it be over 10 months or 12?

Its a yearly salary, it doesnt matter if they got it all up front on their first day or paid out regularly.

[Sliver]

nm

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Sliver

WTF are you talking about? Teachers mark stuff every week if not every day. It's kind of a big part of what they do. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they teach kids stuff, then test the kids, then mark the tests to see how well the kids did? That's exactly what they're being asked to do here. Nobody is asking them to fly a plane. Your post is bizarre.

I don't know what your company does, but think I could start a business and have your employees come work for me, doing work for some customer that you don't already have?They will have time to do work for your customers in the evening, or make it up when my customers are satisfied.

I will give them some cash on top of it, and even pay for their food.

I mean, its what they are doing anyway, and you would fire them if they didn't do it, so I am pretty sure I could count on them to do a good job.

Thanks in advance.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I don't know what your company does, but think I could start a business and have your employees come work for me, doing work for some customer that you don't already have?They will have time to do work for your customers in the evening, or make it up when my customers are satisfied.

I will give them some cash on top of it, and even pay for their food.

I mean, its what they are doing anyway, and you would fire them if they didn't do it, so I am pretty sure I could count on them to do a good job.

Thanks in advance.

My employees are more than welcome to take extra work on the side if they want to. Still failing to see your logic.

[The Big Chill]

Originally Posted by Sliver

My employees are more than welcome to take extra work on the side if they want to. Still failing to see your logic.

More then welcome to, but if they don't, they're fired.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Sliver

My employees are more than welcome to take extra work on the side if they want to. Still failing to see your logic.

No, you said that you would fire them if they didn't want to help the customers like the teachers were not wanting to help the students by working for another company.

I want all of them to come work for me.

Thanks

[V]

Calling the 100 bucks an insult is definitely whining, but I don't see an issue outside of that. They should have had a better idea where to set the price to ensure an adequate amount of teachers were willing to volunteer.

[Flash Walken]

Here's the issue as I see it:

They cut the funding to pay these teachers. Now there is the potential that there may not be enough teachers to do the work.

To combat this, the alternatives are doing away this sort of marking and instituting multiple choice type exams to expedite the process of marking.

All of this has a detrimental effect on the quality of learning of the children who don't get to make any decisions in this regard.

It is another case of not paying the appropriate costs for the appropriate work, and sacrificing portions of children's education to budgetary concerns of their parents and the political entities they elect.

Healthcare and education cost money. To get appropriate levels of service from either you have to pay to get them. This seems like a pretty standard 'free market' approach, and yet, the answer from some seems to be "forego the services" instead of "fund them appropriately".

Ass backwards.

You get what you pay for, and in this instance like just about any other, cheap out now, pay more later.

If you switch to standardized tests that can be marked via scantron, you're going to graduate large swathes of children who can't communicate properly, indebting private and public interests when they attempt to use these children who are now adults to fulfill roles in society. Implementing such a system will cost money as well, hiring consultants, specialists and private firms to implement a new curriculum that can be 'adequately' measured via multiple choice. This will affect how the school board is able to market their curriculum at other boards and the fee they will be able to get as a result, which further erodes their bottom line.

It's a race to the bottom.

In education, quality should be the most important factor.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by fotze

Ya that's the only part that bothers me in this. Macdonalds is offering $10.50 for a job, its not insulting to me, I just choose to not go work there.

Teachers really want to send a message, have zero sign up to volunteer. If 70% have signed up already.....

There is all sorts of motivation to do this job that isn't money. It's pretty much the same motivation as extra curricular sports teams.

If they don't do it, no one will, and unfortunately with teachers, their desire to help children is often taken advantage of.

No one is forcing teachers to buy basic stationary for their classrooms, but they do it because they care and if they don't, the child will suffer.

Money is money, but cutting it in half is a slap in the face.

[WinnipegFan]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think you need to read the article again. The majority are signing up. They are only short 30% of the markers they need, and diplomas are a month off. This is the union whining prematurely - they'll get the people they need.

Also, the pay is unchanged at $200 per day for teachers working holidays and weekends. They are already paid their regular rate for normal business days plus an extra 100 dollars. It's a great opportunity to earn some extra money and as you can clearly see, seven out 10 spots are already filled and they still have a month to fill the remaining few spots.



Senator Clay Davis you have misread every single one of my posts (unless you quoted me by accident). I know it's a volunteer position. I know it is compensated. I know everything you said, but I'm not the one whining. Teachers calling this an "insult" are the ones whining.

7/10 spots are filled because we want our students to have a fair chance at applying to university. We also mark as we are required for our students.

This marking is very different, if you understood the process I hope you would understand it better. It is not as simple as putting stickers on a bottle. It requires an expertise beyond what most teachers come across naturally. It takes years of work within the area to do well at it and the senior markers are the ones not going. The majority are new markers and this is worrisome as this assessment is valued at 50% of a grade 12 students mark as they apply for university. It carries consequence and that is why we are marking. Comparing it to you staying late to put stickers on a water bottle is simply ridiculous.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by fotze

So they would just let the exams sit unmarked, if the teachers didn't volunteer?

Who is going to mark them for free?

It's weeks of work.

Maybe some TFWs can come over to grade the essay portions?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by fotze

So they would just let the exams sit unmarked, if the teachers didn't volunteer?

I think he mentioned that in the past it's been outsourced to university students and the results weren't good.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Senator Clay Davis you have misread every single one of my posts (unless you quoted me by accident). I know it's a volunteer position. I know it is compensated. I know everything you said, but I'm not the one whining. Teachers calling this an "insult" are the ones whining.

So what you're basically saying, as I interpret it, is that as public sector workers, they should simply accept this offering half as much for a volunteer position, because they're public sector workers and if they were in the private sector blah blah blah. In the private sector, if your employees had a volunteer committee they sat on, and one day you decided they would make half as much to sit on that volunteer committee, you would notice many fewer employees sitting on that committee. And if your response to that is you'll fire them for refusing to make half as much to undertake a volunteer task, you'll likely lose all your good employees ASAP, as they would view such a move as very petty and probably wouldn't want to work for a company like that.

Now if you wanna force people to sit on that committee, or force teachers to mark then that's obviously quite different. But as long as these are volunteer positions, you cannot complain about them refusing to do it for less. The whole "I do blah blah blah above and beyond my job" is not relevant, they aren't going above their job. They are undertaking a task unrelated to their job responsibilities that their employer, the school board, dictates. They're essentially contractors for the purposes of marking the papers. If they don't want to do it for a certain price, they won't. Free market at work.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think he mentioned that in the past it's been outsourced to university students and the results weren't good.

Maybe the government can bring in some TFW's. This is exactly the situation that the program was established for. They can't find qualified Canadian candidates to do the job so they should bring in outside help.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Rathji

No, you said that you would fire them if they didn't want to help the customers like the teachers were not wanting to help the students by working for another company.

I want all of them to come work for me.

Thanks

You're trying to compile the nuances of half a dozen of my posts into a single, black and white statement. I fire people that can't see past their own narrowly-defined view of what is part of their job. I have higher staff morale and a better company for it.

Pretend I own a company that makes widgets. That's not far off what I do since I own a manufacturing company. When I interview people, I make it very clear that our main job is to get widgets out the door. I may be hiring you as the guy that sweeps the floor, or the guy that operates the widget press, but your "role" comes secondary to the focus of the business as a whole, which is getting widgets out the door. If I ask you to do something that furthers our goal of getting widgets out the door - even though it's different from your "role" of floor sweeper - I expect you to do it. Of course what I ask needs to be reasonable, but assume it is.

Coming back to teachers - you need to get over who is signing this $100 to $200 cheque (depending on the day of the week they come in). The job of a teacher is to educate and grade students. If they have to go to Edmonton to grade the papers, BFD. Not to mention it's a voluntary position. Firing a teacher over not volunteering is moot. A: They can't be fired. B: They're going to fill all the positions. This article is pretending there is this big crisis when in fact there isn't.

If they don't fill all of the positions by the time marking starts I'll donate $25 to the charity of Rathji's choice.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So what you're basically saying, as I interpret it, is that as public sector workers, they should simply accept this offering half as much for a volunteer position, because they're public sector workers and if they were in the private sector blah blah blah. In the private sector, if your employees had a volunteer committee they sat on, and one day you decided they would make half as much to sit on that volunteer committee, you would notice many fewer employees sitting on that committee. And if your response to that is you'll fire them for refusing to make half as much to undertake a volunteer task, you'll likely lose all your good employees ASAP, as they would view such a move as very petty and probably wouldn't want to work for a company like that.

Now if you wanna force people to sit on that committee, or force teachers to mark then that's obviously quite different. But as long as these are volunteer positions, you cannot complain about them refusing to do it for less. The whole "I do blah blah blah above and beyond my job" is not relevant, they aren't going above their job. They are undertaking a task unrelated to their job responsibilities that their employer, the school board, dictates. They're essentially contractors for the purposes of marking the papers. If they don't want to do it for a certain price, they won't. Free market at work.

Some whiny losers are complaining about not wanting to do it. But with 70% of positions filled, about 650 teachers have decided - a month early, no less - that it is fair remuneration. Publice/private is irrelevant to this portion of the argument. There is, in fact, no problem here. It's just the union and some dummies flapping their gums about a problem that doesn't exist. There will be enough teachers to mark the exams because it's a sweet deal. An extra $100 to $200 per day on top of an already professional-level salary. Some great pocket money just in time for two months off during the warmest weather our country sees.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Pretend I own a company that makes widgets. That's not far off what I do since I own a manufacturing company. When I interview people, I make it very clear that our main job is to get widgets out the door. I may be hiring you as the guy that sweeps the floor, or the guy that operates the widget press, but your "role" comes secondary to the focus of the business as a whole, which is getting widgets out the door. If I ask you to do something that furthers our goal of getting widgets out the door - even though it's different from your "role" of floor sweeper - I expect you to do it. Of course what I ask needs to be reasonable, but assume it is.

I think this really depends on what you're asking me to do. If you're paying me as a floor-sweeper but asking me to do something that's above my pay-grade because you're too cheap to hire someone else to do it then ya, I'd probably tell you to shove it (professionally of course) and happily take my severance if you fired me for it.

[Sliver]

Fair enough, but that's why I put in the "assume it's reasonable" caveat. We could have a 10-page thread on what would be considered reasonable, I'm sure, but a good boss isn't going to push somebody too hard, beyond their skill or take advantage.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Fair enough, but that's why I put in the "assume it's reasonable" caveat. We could have a 10-page thread on what would be considered reasonable, I'm sure, but a good boss isn't going to push somebody too hard, beyond their skill or take advantage.

Or Fire them "on the spot"......