JT's not the only one handing out free money... | Page 14 | GTAMotorcycle.com

JT's not the only one handing out free money...

We don't allow them to make law. They interpret it.
 
The magic
backmarkerducati said:
EI is 55% of insurable earning up to around 60K these days. At 39K average insurable earnings that is ~$3600 for two months laid off.... Not $4500 to $6800. Math matters....

Or about $415 per week on EI. That misleading $15 and hour and 20 hours a week for strike pay is $300 per week (like you noted), less but not back breaking, they can just pick up some paper routes...., again poor leverage never mind it is not workable in the real world.
Click to expand...
The magical $39K is fun with numbers.

That average includes all CUPE part-time and casual workers. If you want to understand the $4.5-6.8EI draw, peek at a CUPE CBA, check the pay scales then do the math.

If you did the average wage at a Bank or McDonalds, where a large number of staff work part time hours, you'd also get a number far lower than the compensation drawn by FT employees.
 
Baggsy said:
We don't allow them to make law. They interpret it.
Click to expand...
They make law, it's just done through interpretation rather than legislation. The main point here is provinces have the NWC to protect their constituents and the democratic process from the whims of the court.
 
Mad Mike said:
The magic

The magical $39K is fun with numbers.

That average includes all CUPE part-time and casual workers. If you want to understand the $4.5-6.8EI draw, peek at a CUPE CBA, check the pay scales then do the math.

If you did the average wage at a Bank or McDonalds, where a large number of staff work part time hours, you'd also get a number far lower than the compensation drawn by FT employees.
Click to expand...
I used $39K because it was the number you noted... And it gets no where near what you calculated per summer.

Also, max on EI is $638 per week for those that make $60,300 (max insured earnings) or more per year. Anyone making less get less, anyone making more tops out at that... Depending on the year it will be ~10 weeks, 10 X 638 BTW is $6,380 not $6800, but again only the top gets that. Your $4500 is no where near the low end. Pay-scale or not. It is all just math.

Again YOU quoted $39K in your post/math... that is where I got it from.
 
backmarkerducati said:
I used $39K because it was the number you noted... And it gets no where near what you calculated per summer.

Also, max on EI is $638 per week for those that make $60,300 (max insured earnings) or more per year. Anyone making less get less, anyone making more tops out at that... Depending on the year it will be ~10 weeks, 10 X 638 BTW is $6,380 not $6800, but again only the top gets that. Your $4500 is no where near the low end. Pay-scale or not. It is all just math.

Again YOU quoted $39K in your post/math... that is where I got it from.
Click to expand...
The 39K and $60,300 are red herrings in this argument - they have zero bearing on the EI draw.

EI Max insured earnings is calculated based on the actual average of one's best paid weeks over a given time period, not annual earnings. You are correct that 10 weeks x 638 is $6380, I used an average of 10.8 weeks as the 10mo employee contract is for 195 of a 249 work day year. The remaining 54 days is 10.8 weeks.

Anyhow, I think the key point in this is that CUPE conveniently leaves out the fact they include casual and temp workers in their average pay, do not count the EI top-up, or the value of a generous tax-payer-funded benefit program. Add all these in and the average full-time CUPE worker, whether 10 or 12 mos, is considerably ahead of the national average in their field of work.
 
Mad Mike said:
The 39K and $60,300 are red herrings in this argument - they have zero bearing on the EI draw.

EI Max insured earnings is calculated based on the actual average of one's best paid weeks over a given time period, not annual earnings. You are correct that 10 weeks x 638 is $6380, I used an average of 10.8 weeks as the 10mo employee contract is for 195 of a 249 work day year. The remaining 54 days is 10.8 weeks.

Anyhow, I think the key point in this is that CUPE conveniently leaves out the fact they include casual and temp workers in their average pay, do not count the EI top-up, or the value of a generous tax-payer-funded benefit program. Add all these in and the average full-time CUPE worker, whether 10 or 12 mos, is considerably ahead of the national average in their field of work.
Click to expand...
The issue here is being above the national average why does you math keep hitting 5% to almost 20% high? Wouldn't it be better to be on point to prove the point?

BTW $60,300 is not a red herring, it is the maximum insured earnings.... Sort of matters on the max EI draw, just sort of./s
 
backmarkerducati said:
The issue here is being above the national average why does you math keep hitting 5% to almost 20% high? Wouldn't it be better to be on point to prove the point?

BTW $60,300 is not a red herring, it is the maximum insured earnings.... Sort of matters on the max EI draw, just sort of./s
Click to expand...
It's a red herring - you'd have to explain how that $60,300 insurable earnings would impact the $638/week max draw. It really has nothing to do with the central point of the argument.
 
Mad Mike said:
That's a pretty wide net you're casting, when comparing wages you should look at the individual segment of the market to get an apples-to-apples comparison. Using your logic, should teachers be 120% above the average $43K?

Now on the $39,000. If you dig into that number you'll find schools require lots of casual and seasonal workers, CUPE includes them in the 'average' to bring the overall number down. If you did the same math for a large retail store, you'd probably see annual earnings of $20,000 or less. Also, remember CUPE fails to include $4500-$7000 in their averages -- the annual UI payments collected by a large number of 10 month workers.

At the end of the day, taxpayers cover these costs. The question remains the same - should taxpayers have to foot the premiums over industry-standard compensation?
Click to expand...
Do you have the source for the UI of 4500-7000? Was having a chat with a buddy and casually mentioned it.

Shocking he called me out on it.
 
mimico_polak said:
Do you have the source for the UI of 4500-7000? Was having a chat with a buddy and casually mentioned it.

Shocking he called me out on it.
Click to expand...
Employment Insurance: Unit 1 - CUPE puts out a number of publications that help their members understand EI for layoffs (10 mo workers) and TAs with assignments.

They follow the same calculations as everyone -- average of best weeks pay, eligibility limits etc. Look at a CBA pay grid, the lows are around 22/hr, highs $32/hr for 10-month workers. Then it's just EI math.
 
ifiddles said:
@Mad Mike those hourly rates are for TAs which work in universities, not the CUPE staff in elementary schools...they top out at $26/hr (at least with my board) and we're all pretty similar...

regardless, the strike has been averted so hopefully the members are happy with what they tentatively agreed to...
Click to expand...
That link was just an example of CUPE guidance. The have similar stuff for all the locals.

EA undrr current CBA is $28.58/hr with 4 years experience. $28.58*40*.55 =$628/week EI.

$44600 for the 10mo (195 days) contract and +$6200 for EI. $50,800 is a bit off the infamous $39000.
 
@Mad Mike again, no idea where you're pulling these numbers from...according to my board's 2019-2022 CA, EAs start at $23.83 and max out at $25.45 at year 4...if they work in a JK/SK class, they start at $22.31 and max out at $24.73...the casual (supply) rate is $23.83...$3.13/hr (based on your hourly posted and my max) is a HUGE difference in the grand scheme of things...

their contract states they get paid for 6 hours 55 minutes per day...so about 34 hours and 35 minutes per week...that's roughly $878.03/wk...40 weeks is $35,121...plus EI which would be definitely a lot lower than your purported $6200...

please get the facts straight before spewing off numbers...
 
ifiddles said:
@Mad Mike again, no idea where you're pulling these numbers from...according to my board's 2019-2022 CA, EAs start at $23.83 and max out at $25.45 at year 4...if they work in a JK/SK class, they start at $22.31 and max out at $24.73...the casual (supply) rate is $23.83...$3.13/hr (based on your hourly posted and my max) is a HUGE difference in the grand scheme of things...

their contract states they get paid for 6 hours 55 minutes per day...so about 34 hours and 35 minutes per week...that's roughly $878.03/wk...40 weeks is $35,121...plus EI which would be definitely a lot lower than your purported $6200...

please get the facts straight before spewing off numbers...
Click to expand...
First, casual work is different - not just at a school board, but everywhere.

I also said the pay rate was forcsomeone early in their career "4 yrs experience". Under the CBA, an ECE pay is $28.58/hr. We are both off on hrs/week, it's 35 in the CBA I'm reading. I made a mistake, didn't notice EAs had a shorter week.

So... let's make those adjustments.

Regular pay, $40000. (Sorry I forgot to add in $1000, a week's pay during Mar break, didn't realize that was paid, thought it was vacation.)EI draw, $5500. $45500 for 195 day work year.

 
@Mad Mike this is my last post for the evening as I'm going to bed (I have a long week ahead with report cards due and parent interviews)...

according to the contract you linked in, EAs make max $26.74/hr (page 120 or 124 if you include the front matter)...35 hours/week...40 weeks...$37,436/yr (again, no idea where the $1000 for March break is coming from and no it's not paid, it is paid from EI as the two weeks at Christmas are there 2 week waiting time)...

on page 123 (or 127 again with the front matter), ECEs max out at 28.58...35 hours/week...40 weeks...$40,012/yr...

every school board has different local terms (central terms are the same across the province), so in this case, the hours and wages I quoted were for my board...the board you linked obviously pays more (although I looked at the ECE contract and it too has the same rate as yours)...

anyways, I'm off to bed...good night...
 
jc100 said:
Looking forward to my backdated cheque!
Click to expand...
That's another interesting part of the problem. Court struck down 1% but afaik, because that was there meaningful salary negotiations never really happened. You could try and re-open but government will argue that in exchange for 1%, they made other concessions. Probably a load of crap but almost an impossible argument to find where the truth lay as both sides will just present propaganda. My guess is both sides may decide to move forward. Government doesn't want to pay back wages, salaries in three years are no longer douggies problem. Use retraction of 124 to allow gov't to grant a higher percentage for the next contract with a solid one-time excuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom