They did it for Loblaws, why not for schools
Central A/C may not work as schools weren't designed for it, but mini-splits in classrooms are simple with a few big MUA units for gyms/halls/offices.
|
|
|
Coronavirus
- Thread starter nobbie48
- Start date
- Status
Central A/C may not work as schools weren't designed for it, but mini-splits in classrooms are simple with a few big MUA units for gyms/halls/offices.
Last time I didn't like a job I left...maybe the gov't should actually do what's best for the majority (i.e.: parents) and if the teachers don't want to play ball then new ones will fill the void.
Kids are on a 2 on 2 off rotation (like FIFO jobs) and rotate. Parents have to figure out a way to deal with them for those 2 weeks, but camps are an option with the same 2/2 rotation.
I'd like to work in the city and have 2 weeks off every 2 weeks.
Tourist towns have no need for off peak cheap labour, just peak (July and August), they have been very vocal on this.
Interesting to know you are now onside with wasting taxpayers money. Must be becoming not just a Liberal but an NDPer.
Explain more on how this is wasting taxpayers money. What's your cheaper approach to continue education with a huge reduction in students per class?
Wasn't the school year originally set because of the need for the children to help at the farm when it was largely an agricultural economy. Is it time to reset the pegs?
I like alternating weeks better than alternating days from a logistical perspective. Alternating days are confusing to plan months ahead and harder to deal with child care (alternating weeks mean the grandparents can steal them sometimes). Alternating weeks is also better from a disease spread issue as there is a chance that an infection is identified prior to a student returning to school. Alternating days pretty much guarantees most teachers will catch it (and many are not young). I'm not sure which solution is better from a learning perspective.
All this AC equipment will be unnecessary once COVID is over and the economic pressures of needing kids off in the summer returns. Never mind the parents that will just take their kids out in the summer to go on vacation or the cottage, it is not like you guys came up with year around schooling it has been looked at and implemented in some schools, it is not as simple as the haters want it to be.
Continue with emergency learning or do a mix where the classes are split in two and half are in class and half are home online week by week, same teacher but more work for said teacher. Not rocket science.
But of course, lets just keep throwing money at the problem retrofitting schools with white elephant AC equipment. What's just a few more $Ms or even $Bs....
Cheap labour really ****es me off. If you have something to sell, a product, service or attraction it should pay its own way. Low minimum wages and wait staff wages means they need subsidized housing and food banks. In other words the tax payer is subsidizing the business owner so he can attract customers by price instead of value.
If people were paid living wages we could eliminate a lot of screwed up government housing.
CV-19 seems to have a bigger effect on the entertainment industry, major league sports, dining out and travel. Maybe too much of our economy is based on entertainment.
If people were paid living wages we could eliminate a lot of screwed up government housing.
CV-19 seems to have a bigger effect on the entertainment industry, major league sports, dining out and travel. Maybe too much of our economy is based on entertainment.
I'm still not convinced about the economic pressures of needing kids off for the summer. Sure some parents will pull their kids out for vacation (of if using MP's approach you could just plan it in the off weeks) but that happens already during the school year.
I am ok with teachers working more as a solution, I doubt that will be cheaper than A/C. If that ever got through the union, I suspect there would need to be a billion dollar topup into a pension or slush fund to compensate teachers without it showing up a politically unsavoury raise.
They have yet to confirm that it will ever be over. The goal right now is a reasonably predictable rate of infection with enough staff and equipment to take care of the affected. AC may be part of the future normal.
BTW what is normal?
We keep referring to the new normal but in reality is it not a return to the old normal of the early 1900's?
The boomer generation and forward has had it good, thinking that it is normal. That "normal" has only been for a little over a half century, hardly a blip on the history of mankind. We have been living in an above normal world and now we drop a few degrees in expectations.
Growing up in a tourist town it appears to me I obviously understand this (the economics of it) more than many here. It is not just about cheap it is also about surge. They need way more people working during the tourist season than off season. Most of the work is low wage, regrettably. Off season they even lay off many of the full time non-student workers. In the summer there is just not enough bodies to fill the needs without students.
On the plus side, I entirely paid for my own post secondary education by working every hour I could every summer. So there is a benefit to the student worker that will be taken away by year around schooling.
Of course everything is always some union's fault on here. I say make them do the on off teaching, don't give them anymore money, full stop, still working 10 months over 12. Do you really think year around working will not result in more pay for teachers? The current contract is 10 over 12, why would they not have to give every teacher a 20% raise to do 12 over 12???? union is not going to care about that,,,, lol? Just keep throwing money at it.....
On the plus side, I entirely paid for my own post secondary education by working every hour I could every summer. So there is a benefit to the student worker that will be taken away by year around schooling.
Of course everything is always some union's fault on here. I say make them do the on off teaching, don't give them anymore money, full stop, still working 10 months over 12. Do you really think year around working will not result in more pay for teachers? The current contract is 10 over 12, why would they not have to give every teacher a 20% raise to do 12 over 12???? union is not going to care about that,,,, lol? Just keep throwing money at it.....
I understand your point more now. I was thinking it more from an elementary school perspective. High school age people have some brains and could probably deal with combining distance and onsite learning into a 10 month school year. With elementary kids that is almost impossible. There is no simple answer, I am ok with different solutions for different ages.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I think Universities could do status quo, Sep to April. I think they supply most of the summer labor right now, 2 on 2 off will make it easier for seasonal employers to operate May to Oct, perhaps extending their season too as it's largely surged by the school year. I'm sure family camps and rental cottages would love to have weekday customers in May-Oct instead of Jul-Aug.
As for teachers, I wouldn't shed a tear if they were asked to work 30 hour work weeks year round with 2 weeks summer + 2 weeks winter vacation plus another 24 break/stat/PA days off during the school year. I'm guessing it would clear some old wood and make room for a new teacher cohort who would be fine with that setup.
New normal?
I think we will see this in a lot of office/companies and industries where it's possible. Some (like mine) it's impossible because we're on site 24/7 remotely, which is arguable safer than normal society given that no one comes on site sick.
A lot of my friends were informed they'll be working from home for a while moving forward, and they're all happy. Unfortunately many jobs will NOT return because efficiency hasn't really taken a dive when the workforce moved home and employers will get rid of the dead weight that was just holding on anyway.
Personally I find it tough as **** to work from home. But my work is site based, so for me it's more being tasked with small things and as long as I'm available...no one seems to mind. Hence my extensive GTAM presence!
We still have the issue of 10 over 12 vs 12 over 12, remember the government just settled contracts based on 10 over 12... It is much easier to make an argument for teachers to work harder for 10 months than to work for free for two. What you guys are talking about is pretty much an automatic 20% yearly pay raise. Just because somone doesn't like that does not mean that won't happen, it will be all but automatic based on current just agreed upon contracts.
Most companies (that people can do their job's remotely) have actually seen a bump in productivity during WFH COVID. One reason is it is new, another is people have no separation between work and home and are working longer hours. Most importantly workers are afraid of job loss so they want to be a productive as possible.
Fast forward a year or two. The last point is gone, so is the first. Second will result in burnout for many. Productivity will be way down. Some people can work well from home, many cannot due to distractions. Add in distrust by management that people are not doing their jobs.... Office centricity will make a come back but not exactly as before.
I agree entirely on WFH.
As for teachers getting a 20% pay bump, that would be interesting. Once they actually had a yearly salary instead of 10 for 12 and the sheeple realized what their annualized salary actually is, would the voting public maintain unwavering support of teachers? It's hard to argue with a straight face that the average teaching job is worth $115,000+ and almost every teacher in the province is suddenly on the sunshine list. Being able to datamine the sunshine list to get a percentage of teachers at the top of the table as opposed to the current argument of using the middle of the table as an average salary will be shocking to most.
None of that matters, contracts were just done. It is what it is. If the government wanted to do this they should have negotiated when they had the chance. Pay is 10 over 12, 12 over 12 is 20% more.
I understand that. I am saying it would be an interesting experiment to go to 12 for 12 and bump salaries 20%. As you say, a contract was just signed (and it was after Corona was well established so using that as an excuse doesn't work). It would be expensive for the next three years, but given the recession and spotlight shone on what teachers are actually paid when working a job with a similar schedule to the rest of the country, I have a feeling that the next contract would be a bloodbath.
My guess in that scenario, in three years they then go back to 10 over 12 kids in seats but instead of taking a 20% yearly pay cut they take only 10% on the yearly in the next contract.... They tell the public we just took a 10% paycut (that is your "bloodbath"), public thinks that's great, haters continue to hate....and we just handed them a 10% plus pay raise. Working harder will also push the lazy ones to leave the profession improving the overall quality of education, a short term 20% raise less so.
Back to what I said that was being poopooed earlier, this is a throw money at the problem solution. Better to have them work harder for 10 months and keep paying them the same for 10 over 12 and also save the money retro fitting schools with AC, etc.. Better than trowing money at teachers and into school retrofits.
Also remember support staff are currently paid 10 over 10, 12 over 12 means more yearly money for them as well.... on and on.
Last edited:
- Status
|
|
|
|
|