Underpaid careers

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by MJK

That's your opinion.

Teachers get paid a salary for the days they work during the year that does NOT include the summer. It is actually the choice of the teacher to have a portion of every cheque gets held back so in reality, not every teacher gets paid during the summer. Is that too hard to understand?

But thanks for being snotty about it anyhow.

Im not in the field yet, still in school, but I am in the Education Dept. In my EDFX class last year we took a look at the pay chart for teachers in Alberta. We were all shocked at how much they make(not that its a ton. But considering all the strikes I read about growing up, it was surprising. I guess all those strikes paid off). In a teacher's first year full time, theyre looking at around $47,000 straight out of college. And it goes up every year. By the time Im out, itll be around $50,000. And it goes up every year for the first 11 years you teach, regardless of how good(or bad) of a teacher you are. By your 11th year fulltime, you should be making in the vicinity of $72-75,000. If Im making $75,000 by the time Im 40 I will be more than content.

And if you become a principal or get in administration, according to the Alberta chart, as long as youve worked 11 years, you are making around $100,000 per year. I dont know what its like in the rest of the country. But in Alberta, teaching is a nicely paying job.

[FlamesKickAss]

i don't know if anyone has posted this or not, didnt read thread but Casino dealers are paid ridiculously low in this province.i was making just over minimun wage and raking in all this money for the owner and the province. Yes they get tips but that still doesnt make up for the low salary.

But I think all emergency personell dont get paid enough for the job that they do.

[Flames09]

Okay I have to comment on the whole teaching debate. I'm going to school to become a teacher my reason for doing that is I love kids, I love making a difference in peoples everyday lives, the money is good enough to live on and the summers off are an added bonus. When you look at a teachers overall salary over 12 months (or you can break it up into 10 months it's the same damn thing) they make a comfortable living and they have great benefits and a secure retirement. That can be said looking on the outside in, now what teachers make and what they do for society is another thing, they have great influence and are educating the future, so taking that into account they should be paid more because if their doing a great job then that means more great minds will be the make up of the future. You have to look at it in comparison to a ridiculous job like insurance companies in Calgary pay their receptionists $20-$25/per hour, and compared to a teachers salary that's ridiculous look at what a teacher does in a day and for the future and look at what the receptionist does. As of today heck a manager at Mcdonalds makes a great living but salary should be determined by skill/amount of school years/hours put in/ and contribution to society and the future.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Flames09

...... salary should be determined by skill/amount of school years/hours put in/ and contribution to society and the future.

while i agree that teachers (and doctors and EMT and police/fire) all provide a huge contribution to society, only a teacher would say the above comment.

in the business world, salary is determined by how much profit you make the hand that is paying you. and while there is an enormous level of impact teachers provide, its rather impossible to measure the profits generated by the profession.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by troutman

Social workers, by a landslide.

(and all others who posted this)

Wow lots of love here

The human services field could use some more $$, but it is a running joke that "you don't become a social worker/work in human services for the $$" which is true. This is not to make people in this field all noble etc, its just something that is generally acknowledged.

The problem comes in that if you do not have a gov't position - i.e. work in a school or hospital as the mainstays - you are not going to make big bucks, at all. And you need, I believe, a Master's degree most times to work there. Outside of those settings, a lot of people with say a Master's of Social Work are at what some with a BComm may be starting at...let's say ~$35 grand to $45 grand or so? Not saying that is the definitive salary, and not saying that a lot of BComm's start at, but keep in mind this a Master's of social work degree at that level.

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

My wife is a social worker with Children's Services, and though she is underpaid for what she does, it is not like she is paid a beggar's salary. It is still > $50,000/year, with an earnings potential of > $70,000.

See above. Unless you get a job in a school setting, hospital or potentially a gov't position (note moreso directly with the gov't, not a position with an agency funded partly or wholly by the gov't), you generally won't be making that type of coin.

Originally Posted by OilersBaby

Well Im not familar with the educational requirements for social workers in Alberta, but in California, a Masters (MSW) is required to work..and they get paid what you stated...50-70 K to begin with. Compared to a lot of professions which do NOT require master's degrees and furthur education after a Bachelor's degree, they don't get paid enough. For example, nurses with an Associates Degree here start at about 75,000. That's 3 years of school. The MSW is at least 5 years, if not 6 years. So it doesnt seem fair!

In Alberta, you must become registered to practice I believe. At the lowest education level, you must have a college diploma in social work I believe.

[Lurch]

I really don't get why people are constantly equating education required with what a person should earn. There could be an indirect link since more education required reduces the number of people willing to put in the time, but honestly, who cares what education is required.

As for overpaid, I vote for traders (not that I'm complaining, as my wife is on that gravy train!) Being paid to gamble with house money, and keeping a chunk of it when you win seems beyond ridiculous to me. It's pretty much equivalent to a geologist getting 10% of the profit when he finds a well using the company's resources. This certainly does not happen, yet a trader will feel perfectly justified telling you "I made the company this money, so I should get some of it".

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Perhaps the differences in my experience rests with the type of businesses I've worked with. I've typically been involved with small-mid size companies where the IT department consists of 1/2 people. But a lot of what you say above is true - in one company I had to convince the President that we couldn't just fire the IT guy because he "didn't know what he does all day". or because "my email is always down".

In this organization the IT guy, who was great at his job, but bad at communicating, would be a source of frustration for the President. This was the type of boss for whom "no" was never an answer you should give him. And the IT guy couldn't figure that out.

That's just one example. Coincidently as I sit here today working away, I overheard one of my bosses ranting about the IT support he's received, and at the same time. Earlier I heard our IT guy basically tell one of the other guys here that he didn't have time to look into his problem until sometime "late this week". For someone on a deadline that's not a good answer.

Thinking about this out loud, I think the challenge is that in a small/medium sized business the IT guy is undermanaged. He's the only guy here that does this - he reports to a VP, but the VP has no clue about this stuff. So he pretty much is free to "run amuck". No one knows what he does, and the guy can't seem to communicate it either.

In a larger organization you have someone in place to manage the IT department as a whole, set standard and evaluate performance (I assume).

Smaller organization should always hire older IT persons, I am surprised your IT person doesnt re prioritize based on users title/position - I know alot of IT people dont like it, but thats hwo you keep your job.

In case its unclear, I dont believe IT persons (well me at least) are under paid.

MYK