Election soon in Ontario - alien kitten eater looking better

[kourama]

For the upcoming elections in Ontario, I plan on spending a few hours next sunday online looking carefully at each party's position on things, and then make a decision.

One thing, though, is for sure: I am not voting for the Tories.

For those of you who are not in ontario, the tory party has been doing a lot of mudslinging, which included a release to the press where the liberal oponent was referred to as a kitten-eating lizard from another planet. f*cking brilliant.

But the truth is, I don't really care about that, politics is a dirty business, after all. What I DO care about is that Ernie Eves wants to sell the LCBO to private interests.

My position on selling financially viable public property to private interests: he should be thrown in jail for it.

Look what happened with the 407 highway - taxpayers paid for it, and now we can't use it without paying exhorbitant fees to a private company! why? Because a crooked politician needed to pay back some sleazy friends fo his for who-knows-what sleazy back-door shenanigans.

So what's left? Liberal, NDP & other. swell. :rolleyes: I'll read up on their positions and decide, but it's be like deciding on my own method of execution....ugh.

[soccer_ref]

Originally posted by kourama
.....
But the truth is, I don't really care about that, politics is a dirty business, after all. What I DO care about is that Ernie Eves wants to sell the LCBO to private interests.

....

Look what happened with the 407 highway - ....
....t
So what's left? Liberal, NDP & other. swell. :rolleyes: I'll read up on their positions and decide, but it's be like deciding on my own method of execution....ugh.

A better place to look might be the Alberta experience in selling off its Province-run liquor stores. I have no idea whether the decision to do so has worked out but you should look at Alberta's experience before judging the vote on just one issue.

Carefully watch the promises all parties will make to special interest groups. When the NDP came to power (a long ago fluke) they owed so many groups, especially big labour, that the first year of their mandate was a disaster. Later years brought about "Rae Days" and other jolly remedies as they tried to fix what they had done in the first year.

My thoughts:
These days governments really don't have a lot of room to move. Deviations from a middle of the road path brings the wrath of the money merchants down on them and forces corrections.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by soccer_ref

Carefully watch the promises all parties will make to special interest groups. When the NDP came to power (a long ago fluke) they owed so many groups, especially big labour, that the first year of their mandate was a disaster. Later years brought about "Rae Days" and other jolly remedies as they tried to fix what they had done in the first year.

This isn't really that correct or fair. The NDP came into power right at the start of a recession - one that hit both Canada and the United States. The recession can't be laid at their door. However, the recession meant that provincial tax revenue went down in the first year of their mandate for the first time in X number of years, where X was a large number. So, they made a bunch of promises that were impossible to keep when the economy bent them over.

[soccer_ref]

Originally posted by Thanz

This isn't really that correct or fair. The NDP came into power right at the start of a recession - one that hit both Canada and the United States. The recession can't be laid at their door. However, the recession meant that provincial tax revenue went down in the first year of their mandate for the first time in X number of years, where X was a large number. So, they made a bunch of promises that were impossible to keep when the economy bent them over.

Some of the promises were rash. An example that comes to mind was revamping the Labour Code. As I recall, that had to be undone by successor governments.

I have to admit I was not living in Ontario at the time - still don't (lucky me) - but it seems to me that Ontario's problems were made MUCH worse by the Rae government's actions in the first year in office. The promises they made bound them to spend a lot of money at a time when the Province's revenues were bound to take a hit.

It was too bad that the NDP came to power in this fashion. As I recall, EVERYONE was shocked that they were actually elected. Even the NDP. They had made promises they did not expect to have to fulfill. I think there's a couple of messages here:

As a political party, always expect to win and never promise what you can't (or should not) deliver.

As an electorate, never vote for a "protest" party. Always vote for the party you think will do the best job if elected. In Ontario, that year too many people voted for the third party "in protest" and they ended up governing. It wasn't pretty.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by kourama

For those of you who are not in ontario, the tory party has been doing a lot of mudslinging, which included a release to the press where the liberal oponent was referred to as a kitten-eating lizard from another planet. f*cking brilliant.

Could you provide more info on this please? As a kitten-eating lizard from another planet I may look into a defamation lawsuit.

[kourama]

When Bob Rae got elected, he killed the nuclear power plant...damn, can't remember the project name...he put a lot of people out of work, but the really stupid thing is that we ended up burning more coal to produce power and importing more power that was produced from coal-burning plants, and this was supposed to SAVE the envioronment! Also, the no-fault insurance thing was so hair-brained..ugh, don't get me started.

Could you provide more info on this please? As a kitten-eating lizard from another planet I may look into a defamation lawsuit.

you mean being associated with the liberal party? Hmmm, the suit may have merit...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by kourama

But the truth is, I don't really care about that, politics is a dirty business

Kourama

I didn't expect this comment coming from somebody who quotes "The Epitaph" of Thucydites to his signature :)

Politics is our attitude towards society;our participation or our abstention constitute a political position, a political attitude, a lifestyle.

Don't claim innocence!!! :)

Keep us updated please, this is interesting!

[kourama]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

But the truth is, I don't really care about that, politics is a dirty business

Kourama

I didn't expect this comment coming from somebody who quotes "The Epitaph" of Thucydites to his signature :)

Politics is our attitude towards society;our participation or our abstention constitute a political position, a political attitude, a lifestyle.

Don't claim innocence!!! :)

Keep us updated please, this is interesting!

What's wrong with the statement? Politics is a dirty business because of, in my opinion, the very nature of human beings. We all generally agree that mudslinging, being evasive, and making promises you know you can't keep is both dirty and an integral part of politics, don't we?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by kourama

We all generally agree that mudslinging, being evasive, and making promises you know you can't keep is both dirty and an integral part of politics, don't we?

Of course we do and guess what; we have the power to change it too!!!

[Blondin]

The exact words were:evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet This is grossly unfair. Dalton McGuinty will have no trouble proving he was born right here on Earth. Also I'm pretty sure they were rabbits not kittens.

Seriously, though. You would think the Tories would have learned something from Kim Campbell's disastrous campaign tactic of a few years ago.

[TruthSeeker]

But of course, this name calling and drama leads one to divert attention from the issues. Eves cannot justify what has been done to health care, education (and undoubtedly others) and scandals like Walkerton and Aylmer. Even his flip-flop on same sex marriage is without logic. Name calling is his only hope.

We are doomed because I strongly suspect he will be elected.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Could you provide more info on this please? As a kitten-eating lizard from another planet I may look into a defamation lawsuit.

For those members not familiar with the Ontario election (or the kitten-eating remark):

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030912.wonta0912/BNStory/National/


The bizarre insult, contained in a statement e-mailed to media representatives shortly before lunchtime, immediately deflected attention from the health-care agenda that the Conservatives had hoped to pitch Friday.

"Dalton McGuinty," the statement said. "He's an evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet."

Conservative Leader Ernie Eves blamed the release on a staffer who apparently "had too much coffee this morning ... too much time."


Ok, a, well, interesting thing to state. But, most people would recognize it as a joke (although a bad one which might negatively reflect . But keep in mind that the liberals have also been guilty of 'name calling' (for example, comparing Eves to a used car salesman).

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
But of course, this name calling and drama leads one to divert attention from the issues. Eves cannot justify what has been done to health care, education (and undoubtedly others) and scandals like Walkerton and Aylmer. Even his flip-flop on same sex marriage is without logic. Name calling is his only hope.

We are doomed because I strongly suspect he will be elected.

Lets see...

On health care, Ontario hasn't been perfect, but keep in mind that the provincial government wasn't responsible for cutting back health care spending, it was the federal government.

The liberal party wants to 'fix' health care by eliminating all 'private' clinics (does that include abortion clinics? who knows.) They also want to form some sort of medical 'teams' to make up for doctor shortages, without saying where those doctors would come from.

Education? The conservatives tried to stop waste in the educational system (and I believe it needed it), by removing the power to raise taxes from school board representatives and requiring they stay within a budget. They also brought in standardized curriculum/testing, and they want to ban teacher's strikes. (Both of which make sense to me.) The Liberal government doesn't want to ban teacher strikes (yet they claim that they want to make students the 'first' priority.)

Walkerton? Hmmm... The problems with the water were due to the bungling of 2 public employees who had been working there long before Harris got into power. The province privatized water testing, but the testing was done properly and reported to the government; it was the civil servants and local government who were more to blame.

As for his 'flip flop' on same sex marriges, I can't comment on that because I don't really know (or care) what his position is; but, before you criticize him for 'flip flopping', why don't you start with the federal liberals, who have 'flip flopped' more than anyone else on the issue. (I'm not saying that same sex marriges are 'wrong'; however, our prime minister has been more inconsistent than anyone.)

We have had a totally incompetent federal government for quite a while. (Tax increases, constant scandals, government waste, failure to act on important events like SARS) The only reason why Canada hasn't been screwed up more than it should be is that we had a provincial government that was reasonably responsible fiscally. (They figured out that if you cut taxes and spending, you can actually improve the economy and thus collect even more tax revenue.)

If we get both a federal and provincial liberal left-wing government, then we are really doomed.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by kourama
For those of you who are not in ontario, the tory party has been doing a lot of mudslinging, which included a release to the press where the liberal oponent was referred to as a kitten-eating lizard from another planet. f*cking brilliant.


Before you start complaining about the tory party 'mudslinging', remember that the Torys are not the only ones who are guilty. As I mentioned before, the liberals have made comments comparing Eves to a "Used Car Salesman". (Now, you may claim 'if the shoe fits...'; however, if you want to be consistent, you can't complain about mud slinging by one party but ignore it when it is done by a party you agree with.)

Originally posted by kourama
But the truth is, I don't really care about that, politics is a dirty business, after all. What I DO care about is that Ernie Eves wants to sell the LCBO to private interests.


Why is that such a big issue with you? Do you think they'll give it away and not get anything back?

If they can sell off the LCBO, get a good price, and end up with stores that have better service, then why not? (Remember, it wasn't too long ago that the LCBO stores actually started to offer good service.)

Originally posted by kourama

My position on selling financially viable public property to private interests: he should be thrown in jail for it.


Why should the government be involved in business like selling alcohol? And if you think that government does a good job selling alcohol, why stop there? Grocery stores make a lot of money. Maybe the govenment should step in and take them all over. (They'd be financially viable.)

The fact that it is financially viable should have nothing to do with it. The issue should be whether services could be improved and/or costs to the consumer reduced by selling them off.

Originally posted by kourama

Look what happened with the 407 highway - taxpayers paid for it, and now we can't use it without paying exhorbitant fees to a private company! why? Because a crooked politician needed to pay back some sleazy friends fo his for who-knows-what sleazy back-door shenanigans.


Maybe the reason you have to pay fees is because roads are expensive to build and maintain, and paying tolls is viewed by many as a way to pay for the const of construction.

Originally posted by kourama

So what's left? Liberal, NDP & other. swell. :rolleyes: I'll read up on their positions and decide, but it's be like deciding on my own method of execution....ugh.


Lets see...

Liberals? Remember, we have a liberal government in Ottawa, which is probably the dirtiest ever. Even if you make the claim that the provincial and federal liberal parties are two different organizations, there is a lot to be wary of the liberals over. I think they'd be too friendly to the teachers for example (they refuse to outlaw strikes).

NDP? Can you say 'tax increase'? I think they deserve a severe beating for their proposed $10 a day daycare. Quebec has the same type of system, which is A) very expensive, and B) is poorly run.

[kourama]

Segnosaur,

You make some good points, but I want to make clear that I'm not currently for any party. The mudslinging fills me with ennui, but not any more loathing for tories.

As far as the LCBO is concerned, I don't trust the government to get a good price or make an honest deal, no matter who is in charge. The amount of money involved makes it too easy for politicans to practice pork-barrel politics. Whether private interests can do a better job was not part of the argument.

As for the 407, true, we would have paid to use the highway anyway, BUT, once it was paid for, the tolls would/should have ended. Since it's being run for profit, the tolls will never stop.

We agree on the quality of the choices.

Cleopatra: I agree we collectively have the power to change politics somewhat, but I think human nature is such that when power is distributed non-uniformly over humanity there will be corruption. I don't think there is a utopian solution (sorry, shanek) but I do think things can get better in general if we follow a few philosophical guidelines:

1) power should be as evenly distributed as possible - constitutions, laws and other organizations secular and non-secular should seek to prevent over-accumulation of power in small groups of people

2) war should be made unprofitable - I confess I have only begun to think about this, but I have seen evidence of profits of several companies increasing in times of war, and it strikes me as quite scary and suspicious

3) individual liberty should be as important as personal responsibility. How can we enforce 1 without interfering with the other...tough problem.

I'm sure there's more, but I got too many managers walking by my cubicle at the moment...

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Why is that such a big issue with you? Do you think they'll give it away and not get anything back?

If they can sell off the LCBO, get a good price, and end up with stores that have better service, then why not? (Remember, it wasn't too long ago that the LCBO stores actually started to offer good service.)

Why should the government be involved in business like selling alcohol? And if you think that government does a good job selling alcohol, why stop there? Grocery stores make a lot of money. Maybe the govenment should step in and take them all over. (They'd be financially viable.)

The fact that it is financially viable should have nothing to do with it. The issue should be whether services could be improved and/or costs to the consumer reduced by selling them off.

Just regarding the LCBO - I think that the LCBO kicks some serious @$$ and there is no way it should be sold off for some quick cash to make a government's books look good for a year.

The service that I get at the LCBO is second to none. They will order in to any location any product that is in its listing at no additional charge. The new stores have great services and programs (like cooking classes and wine tastings) that further enhance the experience. The LCBO makes money for the province - it is not a fiscal drain in any way.

As for prices, most of the price of beverage alcohol is tax. That will not change in a new regime. And any new private regime will not have the same sort of purchasing power as the LCBO - which is the single largest purchaser of beverage alcohol in the world. If they can't get a "volume discount" from alcohol manufacturers, no one can.

In terms of "why alcohol? why not groceries?" the answer is simple. Alcohol is a legal product, but only to non-intoxicated adults. The LCBO, as a government run entity, has no profit motive that may cause them to sell to these individuals. A private retailer would have such an incentive.

Basically, I see many reasons for Ontario holding on to the LCBO and no reasons for selling it.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by kourama

You make some good points, but I want to make clear that I'm not currently for any party.

But you specifically said you would not support the conservatives. Which is almost the same.

Now, I don't mind that, but I felt your reasoning about why you were against them was very flawed. (You know, I'm always amazed at how people will go out of their way to find reasons to not support the Conservatives, or the Alliance/Reform party.)

If you want to vote against them, fine.. But at least be honest about the reason (you are against tax cuts, you want more government control, whatever.)

Originally posted by kourama
The mudslinging fills me with ennui, but not any more loathing for tories.


But, you specifically mentioned some 'mud slinging' by the Tories, without mentioning similar (if not worse) comments by the Liberals. That implies a strong bias against the tories.

Originally posted by kourama
As far as the LCBO is concerned, I don't trust the government to get a good price or make an honest deal, no matter who is in charge. The amount of money involved makes it too easy for politicans to practice pork-barrel politics.

Ok, so you want to vote against the conservatives, because you fear the LCBO sale will lead to more pork-barrel politics. However, the conservative government has shown a desire to cut the size of the government, whereas the liberals and NDP will increase it.

Now, whenever you increase government spending, you increase the chances of pork-barreling. So, if that's your main concern, you are being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Originally posted by kourama
Whether private interests can do a better job was not part of the argument.


But it should be part of the argument.

Originally posted by kourama
As for the 407, true, we would have paid to use the highway anyway, BUT, once it was paid for, the tolls would/should have ended. Since it's being run for profit, the tolls will never stop.


The highway itself is still being paid for. (Heck, parts of it are still being built.). Its a bit early to complain about them earning profits on it when it still hasn't recouped its costs.

[Agammamon]

"kitten-eating lizard from another planet"


Why can't our politicians come up with stuff like this. As the WSJ has it
"The communists in North Korea managed to call John Bolton, the undersecretary of state who bluntly criticized them, "rude human scum" and a "bloodsucker." How is it that colorless apparatchiks in backward regimes can come up with such colorful locutions . . ."

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz

Just regarding the LCBO - I think that the LCBO kicks some serious @$$ and there is no way it should be sold off for some quick cash to make a government's books look good for a year.


Shouldn't you wait and see what deal was made before you complain about it being sold off for 'quick cash'?

Right now, LCBO profits go back into govenrment coffers. However, if its sold (for a decent price), the money can be used to pay down part of the debt (or, if its sold after the debt is removed, the money can go into investments, etc.) So, not only would the sale make the government's books look good now, it would have a longer term impact. (That's assuming the government doesn't blow it on day-care programs, or short term frivilous projects.)

Originally posted by Thanz

The service that I get at the LCBO is second to none. They will order in to any location any product that is in its listing at no additional charge. The new stores have great services and programs (like cooking classes and wine tastings) that further enhance the experience.

Glad to hear that you're so happy with LCBO services. (Remember, it was only a few short years ago that they didn't even open on Sunday.)

Glad to hear that you're so happy with their service. But, not everyone is so pleased. Many wine growers in Ontario are upset because they can't get their products listed with the LCBO.

Now, you pointed out their special programs. Guess what? You're paying for those programs out of the higher prices that you pay at the LCBO. (So people who don't use them subsidize those who do.) And why do you think that those programs will disappear once its privatized? (2 stores that I use regularly... PetSmart and Home Depot, have courses at them too, and they aren't run by the government.)

Originally posted by Thanz
The LCBO makes money for the province - it is not a fiscal drain in any way.


I never said it was a drain. But, the markups mean that booze costs more than it should. (more on that below)

Originally posted by Thanz
As for prices, most of the price of beverage alcohol is tax. That will not change in a new regime. And any new private regime will not have the same sort of purchasing power as the LCBO - which is the single largest purchaser of beverage alcohol in the world. If they can't get a "volume discount" from alcohol manufacturers, no one can.


Lets look at some figures here...
- In 2001-2002, the LCBO had 2.9billion in sales, and had 900million profit. That's a profit of around 30%. Hey, maybe taxes account for the remainder of the 70%. But a 30% rate of profit in any other industry would cause a lot of complaints. (Remember, you are paying for that when you go to the LCBO)
- Now, that's just profits. There are some very high costs associated with There are a lot of people earning a lot more money than they should from the LCBO... Many beaurcrats earn over 100k per year, the 'regular' employees are unionized and earn much more than a regular retail employee would, and they've spent a lot more money renevating stores when they didn't need to.

Now, you mentioned the LCBO has this 'purchasing power' because it buys in large quantities. However, there is no reason to believe that a privatized LCBO (whether it is kept as a large scale corporate entity or set up as smaller chains) cannot also get bulk discounts. (Whether you buy 1 million or 10 million bottles, you'll probably get the same discount.) In fact, depending on the terms of sale, you could still have the province buying the booze, but relying on privatized companies to sell it.

(Even if there were "volume savings", they'd have to be pretty remarkable to make up for the 30% profit markup. Especially if, as you said, most of the price is taxes.)


Originally posted by Thanz

In terms of "why alcohol? why not groceries?" the answer is simple. Alcohol is a legal product, but only to non-intoxicated adults. The LCBO, as a government run entity, has no profit motive that may cause them to sell to these individuals. A private retailer would have such an incentive.


I suggested groceries (actually I could have suggested any product) as a counter to the argument "why sell of something that makes money". (Legal restrictions were not a concern in this argument.)

Now, lets look at your claims...
- "The LCBO (as a government entity) has no profit motive". Have to disagree here... There is a profit motive. If the LCBO looses money, there is a greater chance that the government will sell it off. That is the profit motive.
- Even if there was a "profit motive" for a private LCBO to sell to people it shouldn't, there is a strong dis-incentive... namely, the government could impose fines and/or remove liscences for selling illegally
- And lets face it, the people running it are not the ones responsible for the actual sales, it is the rank-and-file clerks, who get their paycheck whether they sell or not; they don't work under any profit motive.

Originally posted by Thanz

Basically, I see many reasons for Ontario holding on to the LCBO and no reasons for selling it.

Now, frankly, I don't know if its a good idea or not. Guess what? I would want to wait until I saw the terms of the sale before I came to a conclusion.

For more information, see:
http://www.grapegrowersofontario.com/thepress/news_views/0902_milklcbo_cashcow.html
http://www.canadiangrassroots.ca/sections.php?op=printpage&artid=2885
(I just found these in a quick google search.)

[Supercharts]

An alien tht eats cats?
Reminds me of the TV program A.L.F. This was, in fact, a series about an alien life form that ate cats. This was the best show on TV at the time it was shown. It had the moral virtue of getting rid of cats. It had humor. It was real family entertainment. Should have won a lot of Emmy's. Personally the candidate should be proud of being compared to A.L.F.:D

[tedly]

I really think that any discussion of Canadian politics should be informed by a reading from Mr GG's The Doubter's Companion (That's John Ralston Saul for proper citations) In his definitions of both privatisation and nationalisation "A method of enrichening lawyers friendly to the Government" leads off. Get the book. On my toilet tank it takes pride of place beside Ambrose Bierce.

And, just by the bye, 30% profit is not at all unreasonable. Micro$oft would sneeze at 30%, or fart in its general direction.

And while, in the world as a whole, there may not be any good reason for the government to get involved in something that business could do, in Canada distance and sparse population makes a good case for the people to pool their efforts through Government, to use the profits from the 150 mile wide corridor along the border and reinvest it so that the hinterlands have some service. Manitoba recently completed the first entirely digital phone system when Shoal Lake was hooked in, and then sold it to the private sector. Why didn't all those private sector regions in NA get there ahead of a rigid bureaucratised Socialist monolith?
To really understand the argument of sparsity I wish I could reproduce here a map fromThe Last Whole Earth Catalog which shows in black those areas of NA that are more than 5 miles distant from a road or rail line. The US is white, lightly marbled with black. Canada (95% wilderness) is black.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Why is it that the PC party is using negative ads to promote themselves? Is there some kind of universal code that conservatives and right-wing political must use attack ads in order to win? After living through the last American election in Texas, I would deduce (err induce) that.

Charlie (vote for me! I'm less evil than my opponent) Monoxide

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by tedly
I really think that any discussion of Canadian politics should be informed by a reading from Mr GG's The Doubter's Companion (That's John Ralston Saul for proper citations) In his definitions of both privatisation and nationalisation "A method of enrichening lawyers friendly to the Government" leads off. Get the book. On my toilet tank it takes pride of place beside Ambrose Bierce.


Given John Ralston Saul's current attitude and activties, I'd hardly consider him a good judge on what is proper in the government. In case you didn't know, he and the GG (along with some other 'celebrities') have flown off to some conference in Europe somewhere, to 'celebrate' winter, or some stupid thing. The trip has been criticized for several reasons, including the cost (over $1 million; why didn't they just stay here and shovel my drive way if they wanted to celebrate winter?) and for comments made by Saul (talking about how 'elite' he and the other people on trip were has been seen as arrogance.)

Personally, I'd be more likely to put his book in the toilet rather than on the tank. (I save the back of my toilet tank for Randi's Encyclopedia.)

Originally posted by tedly
And, just by the bye, 30% profit is not at all unreasonable. Micro$oft would sneeze at 30%, or fart in its general direction.


Wrong.

Microsoft is not exactly a 'typical' company. Its profits are around 50%, but all of that is based on Windows and MS Office; the rest of the company looses money.

Most companies would be extremely happy to have a profit margin of half that. For example, from: http://www.fool.com/foolish8/2000/foolish8001208.htm
According to Quicken.com, less than one out of four U.S. publicly traded companies can claim a net profit margin north of 7% over the past year.
and:
Average net profit margin for S&P 500 companies ...... 7.0%
Average net profit margin for all Nasdaq companies ... 3.1%


You also have to keep in mind that whatever profit margin a company has has to be kept in context.. A company that is a monopoly (as the LCBO is) needs to be watched more carefully to ensure its profits are not due to 'price gouging', whereas private companies with competition can try to achieve whatever profit they want, since competition will limit their ability to overcharge.

Originally posted by tedly
And while, in the world as a whole, there may not be any good reason for the government to get involved in something that business could do, in Canada distance and sparse population makes a good case for the people to pool their efforts through Government, to use the profits from the 150 mile wide corridor along the border and reinvest it so that the hinterlands have some service. Manitoba recently completed the first entirely digital phone system when Shoal Lake was hooked in, and then sold it to the private sector. Why didn't all those private sector regions in NA get there ahead of a rigid bureaucratised Socialist monolith?


Perhaps the reason that the private sector didn't get their first is that it wasn't economical.

Yes, it all sounds wonderful... "Look, everyone in Manitoba has digital phne service". But what they are doing is they are taking money from people in populated areas to give service to people in remote areas. Sorry, but there's nothing really that special about that. (Tell that to the people on fixed income in Winnipeg who have to pay higher phone rates than they normally would to give service to people 100 miles out of flin-flon.)

In fact, by getting involved, the government ends up guessing/choosing which technology will be superior, and there is no guarantee they will choose right. (Remember the Federal government's initiative to bring broad-band everywhere in Canada? Problem is, the people in the remote areas already had that via satellite.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
Why is it that the PC party is using negative ads to promote themselves? Is there some kind of universal code that conservatives and right-wing political must use attack ads in order to win? After living through the last American election in Texas, I would deduce (err induce) that.

Charlie (vote for me! I'm less evil than my opponent) Monoxide
Sometimes negative ads end up hurting the party that presents them more than it hurts their targets.

But, in the case of the provincial tories, they may have felt that the Liberal party was not geting the scrutiny that their party was, and felt that 'attack ads' (pointing out problems with their opponent's platform) was necessary.

Lets face it, with the province's biggest daily (the Toronto Star, very left-leaning), the Southam chain (owned by the Asper's, friends of Cretien), Global Television (also owned by the Aspers), the CBC (controlled by Liberals), and TVO (heavy union influence) all likely to oppose the tories and their policies, can you blame Eves for wanting to even up the field?

And in case you think the Tories are the only ones to run attack ads, think again... Although I haven't seen any Liberal attack ads in this campaign, I have seen them in others.

[Thanz]

Segnosaur -

I think that we will have to agree to disagree on the LCBO, although I admit that you have shown me that there is more to the issue than I previously believed. I don't think that it is a major part (if at all) of the PC platform anyway.

I'd like to discuss a couple of other things however. First, a minor quibble. If the PC ads were limited to pointing out problems with the other party's platform, I don't think that they would be labelled "attack ads". The ads that they do run, however, all seem to personally go after Dalton McGuinty and proclaim that he is "just not up to the job". The ads I have heard proclaim this because he disagrees with Tory policy. How disagreeing with your political rival makes you "not up to the job" is not clear to me.

Next, you said that you supported the idea that teachers would be prevented from striking. The PC platform goes farther than this, however. From their platform:So, we will pass legislation making it illegal for teachers (and other school employees) to strike or stage work-to-rule campaigns, and for school boards to lock out their employees, during the school year.
I don't have a problem with preventing all-out strikes, similar to other "essential services" like ambulance workers, police, and fire fighters.

I do have a problem with the prevention of work to rule campaigns. Teachers work to rule campaigns typically has them not doing the things for which they are not paid - extra curricular activities such as coaching sports teams, band, putting on plays, etc. When teachers "work to rule" they simply do what they are paid to do - teach - and nothing more.

By banning work to rule campaigns, you are basically instituting slave labour. If the activities are so important, pay them to do it. If they are not important enough to pay for, let the teachers decide if they are going to do them, and if they are going to stop doing them (for whatever reason). As far as I am aware, none of the other "essential services" are banned form work to rule campaigns.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz
I think that we will have to agree to disagree on the LCBO, although I admit that you have shown me that there is more to the issue than I previously believed. I don't think that it is a major part (if at all) of the PC platform anyway.


Ironically, the tories came under criticism a while ago because they had promised to sell off the LCBO in a previous election, but later decided not to.

Originally posted by Thanz

I'd like to discuss a couple of other things however. First, a minor quibble. If the PC ads were limited to pointing out problems with the other party's platform, I don't think that they would be labelled "attack ads". The ads that they do run, however, all seem to personally go after Dalton McGuinty and proclaim that he is "just not up to the job". The ads I have heard proclaim this because he disagrees with Tory policy. How disagreeing with your political rival makes you "not up to the job" is not clear to me.


I don't necessarily think attack ads are a good thing. But, a few things should be kept in mind:
- The conservatives are not the only ones who have attacked leaders of other parties. Although I haven't seen any Liberal attack ads in this election, I've seen them in other elections. And, remember, I had also mentioned McGintey's comparision of Eves with a used care salesman. If you are going to criticize the tories for their attack ads, you should also criticize the liberals for their negative comments
- What if 'attack ads' actually do have a use? Although I think a party's platform is the most important thing, the leader's abilties, integrity, and possible conflicts of interest should be kept in mind.

I just wonder if complaints about 'attack ads' are due to the fact that they are made by a party which you might not support.

To be honest, I haven't seen many election ads, and although I have seen at least one attack ad, I can't remember the exact commetns. (Ah, the joys of VCR fast forward). You don't by chance have a transcript of one so I can comment further?

Originally posted by Thanz

Next, you said that you supported the idea that teachers would be prevented from striking. The PC platform goes farther than this, however. From their platform:
I don't have a problem with preventing all-out strikes, similar to other "essential services" like ambulance workers, police, and fire fighters.

I do have a problem with the prevention of work to rule campaigns. Teachers work to rule campaigns typically has them not doing the things for which they are not paid - extra curricular activities such as coaching sports teams, band, putting on plays, etc. When teachers "work to rule" they simply do what they are paid to do - teach - and nothing more.

By banning work to rule campaigns, you are basically instituting slave labour. If the activities are so important, pay them to do it. If they are not important enough to pay for, let the teachers decide if they are going to do them, and if they are going to stop doing them (for whatever reason). As far as I am aware, none of the other "essential services" are banned form work to rule campaigns.

Ok, I don't agree that not allowing people to 'work to rule' is a good thing. But again, I have a few notes:
- Although it might be nice to say "No strikes, but you can work to rule", we don't have that option... We only have 2 possibilities - The Conservative platform (no strikes and no work to rule), or the Liberal platform (strikes allowed, and you can work to rule). Neither option is perfect, but which would you prefer? Personally, I think the conservative platform is the better one; a strike can disrupt the lives of students and parents. Teachers may not like it, but they are free to choose other professions.
- Ok, lets let teachers work to rule. But then, to be fair, lets make sure to call things both ways. I'm not sure exactly how teacher's contracts are set up, but when I used to teach at college, we got 1 term out of 3 'off'. However, technically, we didn't get the whole 4 months off; part of the time had to be used for professional development, administration, etc. However, the actual time needed was minimal, so it was used as an extended vacation. Now, if teachers get the summer off, but the actual 'contract' says that they only get 1 month off, then make them work according to their contract. (If they want to play the game where they won't do work that's not in the contract, then make sure they don't get any time off that's not explicitly listed in the contract.)
- Are the teacher's complaints valid? Lets see... they may not like the new standard cirriculum and standard tests, but it should not be their job to determine these things. Same with the change in the funding arrangements and school board changes. (Its simply not in their mandate, no more than it should be my job as a computer programmer to decide how the president of my company runs the business.) The conservatives also want to bring in tests to ensure teachers are qualified. Do you consider that a bad thing?
- Now, things like 'extra cirricular activities' aren't specifically mentioned in their contracts. But, I have to wonder if, when the government was negotiating teacher salaries, they made an 'unwritten' assumption that the teachers would be doing the extra activities. If I were running things, I'd tell the teachers "Fine, you can work to rule... However, because we have to hire new people to handle these extra actvities, we're not going to give you any pay raises for a while. Enjoy your extra time off."

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I don't necessarily think attack ads are a good thing. But, a few things should be kept in mind:
- The conservatives are not the only ones who have attacked leaders of other parties. Although I haven't seen any Liberal attack ads in this election, I've seen them in other elections. And, remember, I had also mentioned McGintey's comparision of Eves with a used care salesman. If you are going to criticize the tories for their attack ads, you should also criticize the liberals for their negative comments
- What if 'attack ads' actually do have a use? Although I think a party's platform is the most important thing, the leader's abilties, integrity, and possible conflicts of interest should be kept in mind.

I just wonder if complaints about 'attack ads' are due to the fact that they are made by a party which you might not support.

To be honest, I haven't seen many election ads, and although I have seen at least one attack ad, I can't remember the exact commetns. (Ah, the joys of VCR fast forward). You don't by chance have a transcript of one so I can comment further?
No, I don't have any transcripts.

I do, however, take exception to the suggestion that my opposition to attack ads is somehow biased due to the party running them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a disdain for attack ads no matter who runs them. The PC party seems to run them more, however. Or at least, they certainly run the most memorable ones. Who can forget the attack ad on Chretien run by Kim Campbell (you know, right before she took the majority party into the election and came out with a total of 2 seats in the legislature)?

Ok, I don't agree that not allowing people to 'work to rule' is a good thing. But again, I have a few notes:
Huh? I can't follow you here. Are you in favour of the ban on work to rule or against the ban?
- Although it might be nice to say "No strikes, but you can work to rule", we don't have that option... We only have 2 possibilities - The Conservative platform (no strikes and no work to rule), or the Liberal platform (strikes allowed, and you can work to rule). Neither option is perfect, but which would you prefer? Personally, I think the conservative platform is the better one; a strike can disrupt the lives of students and parents. Teachers may not like it, but they are free to choose other professions.
I prefer the platform that doesn't endorse slave labour. But I'm just funny that way.
- Ok, lets let teachers work to rule. But then, to be fair, lets make sure to call things both ways. I'm not sure exactly how teacher's contracts are set up, but when I used to teach at college, we got 1 term out of 3 'off'. However, technically, we didn't get the whole 4 months off; part of the time had to be used for professional development, administration, etc. However, the actual time needed was minimal, so it was used as an extended vacation. Now, if teachers get the summer off, but the actual 'contract' says that they only get 1 month off, then make them work according to their contract. (If they want to play the game where they won't do work that's not in the contract, then make sure they don't get any time off that's not explicitly listed in the contract.)
You are making a HUGE assumption here. What makes you think that teachers are taking more time off than they are allowed under the contract? What evidence do you have? Unless you have something to back this up, you are just arguing from fantasy land.
- Are the teacher's complaints valid? Lets see... they may not like the new standard cirriculum and standard tests, but it should not be their job to determine these things. Same with the change in the funding arrangements and school board changes. (Its simply not in their mandate, no more than it should be my job as a computer programmer to decide how the president of my company runs the business.) The conservatives also want to bring in tests to ensure teachers are qualified. Do you consider that a bad thing?
Tests for qualifications? Sure, no problem. As long as the tests themselves are valid. As for curriculum, teachers are trained in preparing lesson plans etc. and should be consulted as to what they are required to teach. After all, they are the ones teaching it.

Standard tests run the risks of just teaching to the test. Much of the learning that is done in school is really learning how to think and how to learn. It doesn't really matter to most people if they know the names of different dinosaurs or whatever. What matters is the process by which we learn and think that can later be applied as adults. There is more to school than just the "3 R's", although I agree that certain core competancies in those things must be achieved.
- Now, things like 'extra cirricular activities' aren't specifically mentioned in their contracts. But, I have to wonder if, when the government was negotiating teacher salaries, they made an 'unwritten' assumption that the teachers would be doing the extra activities. If I were running things, I'd tell the teachers "Fine, you can work to rule... However, because we have to hire new people to handle these extra actvities, we're not going to give you any pay raises for a while. Enjoy your extra time off."
This is your argument? That they are somehow relying on the teachers to do stuff for free, and if they don't do it, they should be penalized? What would you say if your boss came to you and said "Yes, I know we only pay you for 40 hours a week, but we assumed that you would voluntarily work 60 hours a week. No, we don't want to pay you for those extra 20 hours, but if you decide not to do it and we have to pay someone else to do it, we'll have to freeze YOUR salary to pay them." Does that seem fair or just in the slightest? You'd be willing to pay anyone BUT the teachers for the extra work that they do? And you would force them to do it, under financial or legal threat if they don't do it?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz

I do, however, take exception to the suggestion that my opposition to attack ads is somehow biased due to the party running them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a disdain for attack ads no matter who runs them.

Then where was your distain for the Liberals comparing Eves to a used car salesman? Where is your distain for certain liberal attack ads when Mulroney was in power?

Originally posted by Thanz
Who can forget the attack ad on Chretien run by Kim Campbell (you know, right before she took the majority party into the election and came out with a total of 2 seats in the legislature)?


First of all, the loss by the conservatives in that election had more to it than just attack ads... Vote distribution, the previous government record, etc. had a lot to do with it too.

Secondly, I think Cretien is an embarassment to Canada. Do you think he represents you well when he runs off at the mouth? As I mentioned before (but you didn't respond to) is that 'attack ads' do have a place in pointing out incompetency, conflict of interest situatinons, etc.

Originally posted by Thanz

Huh? I can't follow you here. Are you in favour of the ban on work to rule or against the ban?


I think people should be allowed to work to rule. But, as I mentioned, there are some special considerations with teachers.

Originally posted by Thanz

I prefer the platform that doesn't endorse slave labour. But I'm just funny that way.


And I prefer a platform that allows kids to get an education. I guess you don't think they should be allowed that.

And lets see.. a teacher has a choice to either a) keep working, or b) quit if he doesn't like the conditions. (not exactly slave labour, is it?) What choice do students have? Lets see, they can, a) have their year interrupted, possibly causing problems with students near final graduation who need to apply for post secondary education, or b) well, there is no b.

Slave labour when a person can quit if they don't like the terms of their employment is not slave labour.

Originally posted by Thanz

You are making a HUGE assumption here. What makes you think that teachers are taking more time off than they are allowed under the contract? What evidence do you have? Unless you have something to back this up, you are just arguing from fantasy land.


First of all, I haven't been able to find the teachers contract. But, I am basing my assumptions on 2 things: I was in an almost identical situation (as I described previously) when I taught at college (Technically we only got maybe 10 weeks off, but most people took an entire 4 months off), and the issue was covered a long time ago on a radio phone in program. (This was several years ago, so maybe the contract changed.)

Originally posted by Thanz

This is your argument? That they are somehow relying on the teachers to do stuff for free, and if they don't do it, they should be penalized? What would you say if your boss came to you and said "Yes, I know we only pay you for 40 hours a week, but we assumed that you would voluntarily work 60 hours a week. No, we don't want to pay you for those extra 20 hours, but if you decide not to do it and we have to pay someone else to do it, we'll have to freeze YOUR salary to pay them." Does that seem fair or just in the slightest? You'd be willing to pay anyone BUT the teachers for the extra work that they do? And you would force them to do it, under financial or legal threat if they don't do it?

You don't understand what I was arguing.

If I had to draw an anology, I'd say it was similar to a sports figure. Perhaps a hockey player may be worth $1 million because of his playing. But, because a particular player has a good reputation and helps out at charities, the team gives him $1.5 million. Its not listed in his contract that he has to do these things; however, the team is still paying him more. (Why? because he's doing extra stuff and it reflects well on the team.). If, near the end of his contract, he stops putting the extra work in, then his next contract should be for only the $1 million.

I feel its the same with teachers. For years, they received good pay and benefits, and at least part of that was probably done because they were putting in the extra effort in extracirricular actvities. If they decide "we don't want to put the extra effort in", then they don't have to. They should receive less money as a result though. Then, the government can support the extra cirricular activities by either a) hiring specific staff, or b) paying any teachers that want to bring their pay up to the level it used to be.

(Hey, I'd have no problem if the extra-cirricular activties were written in to the contracts. In fact they probably should have been. But then, for years it was the school boards who were running things.)

By the way, there are companies that do expect people to put in unpaid overtime. It happens in the real world. In those cases, people either accept the job, or turn it down.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Then where was your distain for the Liberals comparing Eves to a used car salesman? Where is your distain for certain liberal attack ads when Mulroney was in power?
Well, as I said, I have disdain for those tactics as well. Although I don't think that "used car salesman" is quite as bad as "kitten eating lizard from another planet".

First of all, the loss by the conservatives in that election had more to it than just attack ads... Vote distribution, the previous government record, etc. had a lot to do with it too.
Obviously there were other factors. But that particular attack ad was the worst I had seen in Canada, and it completely backfired as a technique due to Chretien's response.

Secondly, I think Cretien is an embarassment to Canada. Do you think he represents you well when he runs off at the mouth? As I mentioned before (but you didn't respond to) is that 'attack ads' do have a place in pointing out incompetency, conflict of interest situatinons, etc.
The attack ad on Chretien mad fun of his face. How is that pointing out anything like incompetancy or conflict of interest?

I think people should be allowed to work to rule. But, as I mentioned, there are some special considerations with teachers.
Thanks for the clarification.
And I prefer a platform that allows kids to get an education. I guess you don't think they should be allowed that.

And lets see.. a teacher has a choice to either a) keep working, or b) quit if he doesn't like the conditions. (not exactly slave labour, is it?) What choice do students have? Lets see, they can, a) have their year interrupted, possibly causing problems with students near final graduation who need to apply for post secondary education, or b) well, there is no b.
(b) go to a private school.

Slave labour when a person can quit if they don't like the terms of their employment is not slave labour.
They would be forced to do something that they would not be paid for, and their alternative is to quit? Come on.

First of all, I haven't been able to find the teachers contract. But, I am basing my assumptions on 2 things: I was in an almost identical situation (as I described previously) when I taught at college (Technically we only got maybe 10 weeks off, but most people took an entire 4 months off), and the issue was covered a long time ago on a radio phone in program. (This was several years ago, so maybe the contract changed.)
College employment is certainly not "almost identical". You basically have no information, but you feel free to accuse all teachers of breaching their contract.

You don't understand what I was arguing.

If I had to draw an anology, I'd say it was similar to a sports figure. Perhaps a hockey player may be worth $1 million because of his playing. But, because a particular player has a good reputation and helps out at charities, the team gives him $1.5 million. Its not listed in his contract that he has to do these things; however, the team is still paying him more. (Why? because he's doing extra stuff and it reflects well on the team.). If, near the end of his contract, he stops putting the extra work in, then his next contract should be for only the $1 million.
Not so. If the team wants him to do PR stuff, it most definitely is in his contract. Don't you remember when the Argos signed Rocket Ismail? His contract called for a ton of PR stuff that he didn't live up to.

I feel its the same with teachers. For years, they received good pay and benefits, and at least part of that was probably done because they were putting in the extra effort in extracirricular actvities. If they decide "we don't want to put the extra effort in", then they don't have to. They should receive less money as a result though. Then, the government can support the extra cirricular activities by either a) hiring specific staff, or b) paying any teachers that want to bring their pay up to the level it used to be.
No. Extra curriculars are completely voluntary. If teacher A and teacher B, with the same qualificaitons, get hired to teach at the same school, the one who stays behind everyday to coach volleyball and basketball gets paid the same as the person who goes home immediately after the last bell. If Extra curriculars are now to be required, or paid for, they should be paid extra for them. If they are to remain voluntary, and unpaid, they should not be made compulsory once a teacher volunteers.

(Hey, I'd have no problem if the extra-cirricular activties were written in to the contracts. In fact they probably should have been. But then, for years it was the school boards who were running things.)
Extra curriculars are not part of the contract.

By the way, there are companies that do expect people to put in unpaid overtime. It happens in the real world. In those cases, people either accept the job, or turn it down.
Yes, there are other industries that expect extra work. Teaching is one of them - they have to prepare lesson plans, mark, etc. It doesn't matter when they do these things, as long as they do them. They are part of the job.

Extra curriculars are not. It is like your boss came to you as a computer programmer and told you he assumed you would spend an extra two hours a day cleaning, unpaid. If you refused, do you think you should be penalized if he has to hire somebody to clean?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, as I said, I have disdain for those tactics as well. Although I don't think that "used car salesman" is quite as bad as "kitten eating lizard from another planet".


Sorry, have to disagree here.

Used Car Salesman is a faily obvious slur against a person's integrity. I doubt anyone would consider "kitten eating lizard" as anything more than a joke. (Not to mention the fact that McGuinty was involved directly in the Salesman slur, while it was one of Eve's staff who sent the kitten-eating email.)

Originally posted by Thanz

Obviously there were other factors. But that particular attack ad was the worst I had seen in Canada, and it completely backfired as a technique due to Chretien's response.



I think it backfired because it was a dumb thing to do, regardless of what Cretien did.

Originally posted by Thanz

The attack ad on Chretien mad fun of his face. How is that pointing out anything like incompetancy or conflict of interest?


The ad did more than make fun of his face; it also pointed out his manorisms and poor language skills (the joke goes Cretien isn't fluent in either offical language)

Hey, I think the ad went too far. But, do you really think someone who makes statements like "A proof is a proof, and when you have a proof, it is proven", or who talks to imaginary homless people, is really a good representative for Canada on the world stage? Do you consider good grasp of language to be important? (Remember, he sometimes serves as ambassador to the world.) And if you do think language and mannerisms are important, how would you demonstrate problems with them without it being an attack ad?

Originally posted by Thanz

(b) go to a private school.


I assume you're joking about this.

Guess what? Many people can't afford a private school. Ironically, the Tories want to bring in funding changes that will give more options to allow kids to use private schools, but I believe those options are rejected by the liberals and NDP. So, parents will have to pay double to send their kids to school; once for taxes (to go to the public system), and once to the private school. Yee ha! (You do love to spend money, don't you.)

So the only way that many parents could affort your option (b) private schools, is if they re-elect the tories; however, if they re-elect the tories, they would make strikes illegal to begin with and they wouldn't have to worry about private schools.

And do you suggest parents send their kids to private school all the time? Or just during strikes?

Or were you really joking about the private school thing?

Originally posted by Thanz

College employment is certainly not "almost identical". You basically have no information, but you feel free to accuse all teachers of breaching their contract.


Lets see....

In my case, during the school term, I had to do 'extra' work not in the contract (have advising hours, help out on team project courses, etc.) Just like teachers do 'extra' work in extra-cirriculars.

Now, the vacation time in my case was supposed to be 10 weeks, with the remainder of the time used for administration, professional development, etc. However, I (like most professors), simply took the 4 months off as vacation. Technically, the college had the right to expect me to be available for all of the off-semester (except for the 10 weeks), but they didn't. However, if I decided to 'work to rule' (by not having advising hours, helping on projects, etc.), the university would be perfectly in its rights to force me to be at school all that time.

Same with the teachers... if their contract requires them to use part of their summer vacation doing professional development and/or administrative work, and then they turned around started to work-to-rule, then the province would have the right to turn around and say "you know how you were taking the whole summer off? Well, not any more. We want you to follow the contract." (Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the terms of the teacher's contract anywhere. Hey, I could be wrong about the way the agreement is layed out; Like I said, I'm going by what was covered in a talk-radio program here in Ottawa a few years ago.)

Originally posted by Thanz

Not so. If the team wants him to do PR stuff, it most definitely is in his contract. Don't you remember when the Argos signed Rocket Ismail? His contract called for a ton of PR stuff that he didn't live up to.


No, its not always in their contract. (The Ismail contract was a special case. For one, much of it was a 'personal services' contract; secondly, its 'rare' in its terms.) For example, I have never heard of any hocky player with PR stuff in their contract. Yet, when I used to follow hockey and lived in Edmonton, I remember Bill Ranford's contract being negotiated, and many fans and commentators were urging the Oilers to resign him, partly because of all the charity work that he did. It wasn't in his contract, but it made the Oilers more willing to sign him (for more money) than he would have otherwise.

Originally posted by Thanz

No. Extra curriculars are completely voluntary. If teacher A and teacher B, with the same qualificaitons, get hired to teach at the same school, the one who stays behind everyday to coach volleyball and basketball gets paid the same as the person who goes home immediately after the last bell. If Extra curriculars are now to be required, or paid for, they should be paid extra for them. If they are to remain voluntary, and unpaid, they should not be made compulsory once a teacher volunteers.


I would have no problem with teachers getting paid more for doing extra cirricular work. What you don't seem to understand is that current salaries were negotiated when teachers were performing such work. Do you think the public would have been willing to pay as much in teacher salaries if work to rule were in place at the time of negotiations? Do you think the unions told the school boards "We plan on work to rule, so remember that in your negotiations".

Originally posted by Thanz

Extra curriculars are not part of the contract.


I never said they were.

And that's the problem. For years, the school board has been rather loose setting requirements down. (Personally I think the school boards were too pro-teacher and pro-union.) Unfortunately we have to live with some of the agreements that were made back then.

I remember that at one point a few years back the conservative government wanted to explicitly writhe
Originally posted by Thanz

Yes, there are other industries that expect extra work. Teaching is one of them - they have to prepare lesson plans, mark, etc. It doesn't matter when they do these things, as long as they do them. They are part of the job.


Sorry, but that's not 'extra work'. It is effort which is accounted for when they set cirriculums and set contracts. (For example, high school teachers are scheduled to teach smaller classes compared to public school teachers because its assumed preparation is more time consuming on a per student basis.)

Its not the same as the extra work that some business might expect their employee to do, which isn't included in their work agreement.
Originally posted by Thanz

Extra curriculars are not. It is like your boss came to you as a computer programmer and told you he assumed you would spend an extra two hours a day cleaning, unpaid. If you refused, do you think you should be penalized if he has to hire somebody to clean?

It depends.... If the average salary for a programmer is 100k, but the boss hires me on for 110k (but either tells me I have to work extra, or if I told him "if you pay me more I'll work extra"), and then turn around and say "no, I won't do the extra work", then I should be penalized. (Or not exactly penalized, but have my salary cut back to a rate that would be fair for someone who wasn't going to do the extra work.)

You don't seem to understand... being forced to do something is not fair. That I agree with. But being made to do something which you may already be paid for is certainly fair game.

Here's a question... do you think the public, school boards and government would have been willing to pay the high salaries and good benefits to teachers if the teachers had not been engaged in extra-cirricular activities? I know I wouldn't. (But then, given your desire to pay more for booze, I wouldn't be suprised if you said you'd be willing to pay anything to the teachers.)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I assume you're joking about this.
Well yes I was, partially. I think that it is just as outlandish suggestion as yours to teachers: if you don't like it, quit.


In my case, during the school term, I had to do 'extra' work not in the contract (have advising hours, help out on team project courses, etc.) Just like teachers do 'extra' work in extra-cirriculars.
No, those are the things that come with the job. Like lesson plans and marking.

Now, the vacation time in my case was supposed to be 10 weeks, with the remainder of the time used for administration, professional development, etc. However, I (like most professors), simply took the 4 months off as vacation. Technically, the college had the right to expect me to be available for all of the off-semester (except for the 10 weeks), but they didn't. However, if I decided to 'work to rule' (by not having advising hours, helping on projects, etc.), the university would be perfectly in its rights to force me to be at school all that time.
The school would be perfectly within its rights to demand you were at the school that whole time whether you were working to rule or not. I am not sure why you are arguing your flagrant breach of a contract means that teachers in a different system must be breaching their contract as well.

Same with the teachers... if their contract requires them to use part of their summer vacation doing professional development and/or administrative work, and then they turned around started to work-to-rule, then the province would have the right to turn around and say "you know how you were taking the whole summer off? Well, not any more. We want you to follow the contract." (Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the terms of the teacher's contract anywhere. Hey, I could be wrong about the way the agreement is layed out; Like I said, I'm going by what was covered in a talk-radio program here in Ottawa a few years ago.)
Again if, if, if. I don't think that it does. But, if it does, the boards and the government should be requiring the work to be done regardless of whether they are "working to rule". To use our athlete analogy, you don't let your players come to training camp whenever they want (or skip it altogether) because it is not the regular season.

No, its not always in their contract. (The Ismail contract was a special case. For one, much of it was a 'personal services' contract; secondly, its 'rare' in its terms.) For example, I have never heard of any hocky player with PR stuff in their contract. Yet, when I used to follow hockey and lived in Edmonton, I remember Bill Ranford's contract being negotiated, and many fans and commentators were urging the Oilers to resign him, partly because of all the charity work that he did. It wasn't in his contract, but it made the Oilers more willing to sign him (for more money) than he would have otherwise.
So they sign a popular player for more money than other wise. If he then stops his charity work, does the team have a right to take back some of his money? Of course not.

I would have no problem with teachers getting paid more for doing extra cirricular work. What you don't seem to understand is that current salaries were negotiated when teachers were performing such work. Do you think the public would have been willing to pay as much in teacher salaries if work to rule were in place at the time of negotiations? Do you think the unions told the school boards "We plan on work to rule, so remember that in your negotiations".
They never plan on "working to rule" it is a tactic that is used when they don't have a new contract and want some negotiating leverage. Just like a strike. And the fact is, teachers are not paid extra for the extra curriculars. They do it because they want to. Because they care about the students. Don't turn it into an obligation.

I remember that at one point a few years back the conservative government wanted to explicitly writhe
They wanted to writhe? really? and to writhe explicitly? what kind of bar is this taking place in? Sounds like the Rhino party, who wanted to harness the heat energy from large orgies...

Sorry, but that's not 'extra work'. It is effort which is accounted for when they set cirriculums and set contracts. (For example, high school teachers are scheduled to teach smaller classes compared to public school teachers because its assumed preparation is more time consuming on a per student basis.)
Not "extra" in that sense but "extra" in the sense that it takes place outside of teaching hours, and it matters not how long it takes.

It depends.... If the average salary for a programmer is 100k, but the boss hires me on for 110k (but either tells me I have to work extra, or if I told him "if you pay me more I'll work extra"), and then turn around and say "no, I won't do the extra work", then I should be penalized. (Or not exactly penalized, but have my salary cut back to a rate that would be fair for someone who wasn't going to do the extra work.)
Your example makes no sense. You were hired at 100K to program, just like everyone else. You, however, notice that the place is becoming a sty because of all the jolt cola cans and half eaten doritos bags lying around. You start cleaning it up every day, for about 45 minutes. This goes on for a few weeks, and you get fed up and stop. Your boss then comes to you and tells you that he is not going to pay you any more money, but you have to keep cleaning up the office everyday or you will be fired. Is that fair?

You don't seem to understand... being forced to do something is not fair. That I agree with. But being made to do something which you may already be paid for is certainly fair game.
They are not paid for extra-curriculars. Period. Full stop. Whether a teacher coaches every team, conducts the band and directs the school play, the paycheque he takes home is the same as the guy who comes in, teaches his classes, and leaves at 3:30.

Here's a question... do you think the public, school boards and government would have been willing to pay the high salaries and good benefits to teachers if the teachers had not been engaged in extra-cirricular activities? I know I wouldn't. (But then, given your desire to pay more for booze, I wouldn't be suprised if you said you'd be willing to pay anything to the teachers.)
Well, the dig at me notwithstanding, the simple answer is that they already do pay teachers the high salaries and good benefits who are not involved in any extra-curricular activities. It would have been very easy to set up an extra-compensation scheem for the extra activities. But instead of that, they rely on the generosity of the individual teachers. And now they want to force them to continue to be generous.

[dissonance]

Personally, I'm voting for the evil reptilian kitten eater. My politics align closer to the NDP, but I wouldn't want me in charge of the province. That's a recipe for disaster right there. I'll be voting in a 905 riding that is currently represented by a Tory backbencher; the impression I get is that he's likely to keep his seat, so it's not like my vote will make a heck of a lot of difference, but I like the process of voting anyway.

One thing that is bothering me is one of the PC TV ads, where Ernie talks about how experience is important to be Premier, and one thing he's learned is that experience is vital, blah blah blah, Dalton is 'just not up to the job', presumably because he doesn't have experience as Premier. But by that logic, we should never elect anyone new, ever. We should just make Ernie dictator for life, since he's got experience, and no one else running has ever been Premier.

Heck, by that logic, Ernie shouldn't be Premier either. When Harris resigned, we should have gotten a previous Premier, not some new guy.

OK, so I've spent way too much time analysing superficial aspects of one particular ad. I need to get out more.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz

Well yes I was, partially. I think that it is just as outlandish suggestion as yours to teachers: if you don't like it, quit.


Just why do you think the suggestion is outlandish? In the real world, people sometimes get put into positions at work that they don't like. If they don't want to accept it, they quit. I've done it myself before. I may have to do it again soon.

Is there something magical about teachers that prevents them from quiting? Do we somehow owe them a job with an obligation to make it as comfortable as possible?

Originally posted by Thanz

No, those are the things that come with the job. Like lesson plans and marking.


Let me explain it to you as simply as possible....

NO.

Lesson plans and marking are part of the job and contract, for both college professors and teachers. Time is specifically allocated for those activities.

Advising hours, assisting with group work, etc. were not spefically mentioned in the contract at the college (just as extra cirricular activites are not part of the high school teacher's contract). In both cases, they are done outside the requirements of the job, but are done to make the educational experience better.

Originally posted by Thanz

The school would be perfectly within its rights to demand you were at the school that whole time whether you were working to rule or not. I am not sure why you are arguing your flagrant breach of a contract means that teachers in a different system must be breaching their contract as well.


YOu're right... the school could demand that I be at the school working. They do have that right. Just as I could decide not to do anything outside my contract.

Its quid pro quo... the administration doesn't enforce certain aspects when it doesn't need to, and in return they get professors who are more willing to do things outside the contract. Its not a perfect system, but it works.

Originally posted by Thanz

Again if, if, if. I don't think that it does. But, if it does, the boards and the government should be requiring the work to be done regardless of whether they are "working to rule". To use our athlete analogy, you don't let your players come to training camp whenever they want (or skip it altogether) because it is not the regular season.


Thing is, there's no real work to be done. Its in the contract that we need to be available, and they could ask us to attend meetings, but in reality no real effort is necessary. If they wanted to, they could make life miserable, but they don't. (That quid pro quo again.)

The athelete anology doesn't really fit here, since training camp is an important event.

Originally posted by Thanz

So they sign a popular player for more money than other wise. If he then stops his charity work, does the team have a right to take back some of his money? Of course not.


No, but unlike teachers, atheletes do not have guaranteed contracts, and have to renegotiate every few years (and that renegotiation could include a pay cut.)

In short:
player does good stuff -> next contract he gets more money
player does not do good stuff -> player's pay stays same or gets cut
(All that assumes his skill level remains constant, no wild inflation of salaries, etc.)

Now, I know teachers can't have their salaries reduced. That's why I never actually said teachers should have a pay cut; what I said was they shouldn't get any raises, if they decided not to do extra cirricular activities.

Originally posted by Thanz

They never plan on "working to rule" it is a tactic that is used when they don't have a new contract and want some negotiating leverage. Just like a strike. And the fact is, teachers are not paid extra for the extra curriculars. They do it because they want to. Because they care about the students. Don't turn it into an obligation.


Sorry, but I think they are getting paid extra for extra cirriculars, not in a direct form (fee for services), but in terms of higher salaries than they would otherwise get.

And if they don't want it turned into an obligation, don't use it as a threat.

What you're suggesting is the worst case... a situation where extra cirriculars are not mandated, so they can be used as a threat any time they want, while at the same time giving teachers a higher salary than they would normally get.

Originally posted by Thanz

They wanted to writhe? really? and to writhe explicitly? what kind of bar is this taking place in? Sounds like the Rhino party, who wanted to harness the heat energy from large orgies...


I screwed up the editing. (Its the Raelians who do the writhing.)

What I was going to say is that at one point, the tories wanted to write extra cirricular activites into the contract, during one particular conflict a few years ago. (I don't know what ever happened to their plans.)

Originally posted by Thanz

Not "extra" in that sense but "extra" in the sense that it takes place outside of teaching hours, and it matters not how long it takes.


But you don't understand... The time to do the marking and preparation was budgeted for previously. Its not 'extra'. (In theory, they could do their preparation work from 3 to 5 every day after classes, if they so choose. Don't be assuming that just because they have a flexible schedule that it is some sort of hardship.)

Originally posted by Thanz

Your example makes no sense. You were hired at 100K to program, just like everyone else. You, however, notice that the place is becoming a sty because of all the jolt cola cans and half eaten doritos bags lying around. You start cleaning it up every day, for about 45 minutes. This goes on for a few weeks, and you get fed up and stop. Your boss then comes to you and tells you that he is not going to pay you any more money, but you have to keep cleaning up the office everyday or you will be fired. Is that fair?


Perhaps the reason you think my example makes no sense is that you are missing the most important thing....

More money. I specifically mentioned that if I was earning more than my expected salary, then it can be expected that I do extra work. If I choose not to do the extra work, I don't get any extra money. That's why I specifically mentioned earning $110, which was more than my expected salary of $100.

Why do you keep ignoring any suggestion of getting extra money for extra work? Is that concept somehow foreign to you? Do you not understand?

Originally posted by Thanz

They are not paid for extra-curriculars. Period. Full stop.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here. Although you seem to be willing to spend lots of money, I for one expect value for my dollars. Part of that is the fact that if I'm going to have teachers get paid so well, I will expect them to do the extra work.

Their pay may be fair now, with the assumption that they'd be running extra cirriculars. If they stop running them, then I think they would be overpaid.

Can you honestly say that no teacher's union, and no school board, and no government official, has ever thought of the extra work that goes into extra cirriculars, and decided to be more generous as a result?

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, the dig at me notwithstanding

Hey, you were the one who thinks paying about 10-20% extra for a bottle of booze 'kicks *ss'.

Originally posted by Thanz

the simple answer is that they already do pay teachers the high salaries and good benefits who are not involved in any extra-curricular activities.

You're right... there are teachers that get away 'easy'. But then, there are also people in jobs where they get the same salary and benefits as a coworker, even though they are not as productive. Usually its due to the unions, since they tend to base salary on factors other than ability and work effort.

For better or worse, we have to consider the average teacher, and their involvement in extra cirricular activities.

Originally posted by Thanz

It would have been very easy to set up an extra-compensation scheem for the extra activities.

And what would be wrong with that? It would give more flexibility, and guarantee that the activities would not be subject to interruptions. Teachers can take the extra money or leave it; if they leave it, they can hire on special support staff.

Call me crazy, but I do have this idea that people can and should be financially rewarded for extra work.

Originally posted by Thanz
But instead of that, they rely on the generosity of the individual teachers.
And we see how well that works with all the work-to-rules.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dissonance
Personally, I'm voting for the evil reptilian kitten eater. My politics align closer to the NDP, but I wouldn't want me in charge of the province.

Don't worry, these days liberal and NDP politics are almost identical anyways. (For a while some liberals were slightly conservative fiscally, but that's all changed.)

Originally posted by dissonance
One thing that is bothering me is one of the PC TV ads, where Ernie talks about how experience is important to be Premier, and one thing he's learned is that experience is vital, blah blah blah, Dalton is 'just not up to the job', presumably because he doesn't have experience as Premier.

Just out of curiosity, how exactly does he say it? What's the context? Does he specifically mention experience as premier?

"Not being up for the job" can involve a lot of different things...
- Not enough time in politics (Probably doesn't apply to McGinty)
- Not enough time in leadership roles
- Indecisive as a leader/flip flops or evasive on many issues
- Easily swayed by special interest groups/bad policies
There's a very good chance you're reading stuff into the ad that's not there.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Just why do you think the suggestion is outlandish? In the real world, people sometimes get put into positions at work that they don't like. If they don't want to accept it, they quit. I've done it myself before. I may have to do it again soon.

Is there something magical about teachers that prevents them from quiting? Do we somehow owe them a job with an obligation to make it as comfortable as possible?
Forcing someone to do something that should be voluntary, and not paying them for it, with the only other option to quit, is definitely outlandish.

Sorry, but I think they are getting paid extra for extra cirriculars, not in a direct form (fee for services), but in terms of higher salaries than they would otherwise get.

And if they don't want it turned into an obligation, don't use it as a threat.

What you're suggesting is the worst case... a situation where extra cirriculars are not mandated, so they can be used as a threat any time they want, while at the same time giving teachers a higher salary than they would normally get.
But they are not getting paid higher than they would otherwise get. There is no basis for this assumption. Based on my experience, I'd say that less than half of the teachers are involved in extra-curricular activities. Do you pay everyone extra for stuff that less than half of the people do?

Perhaps the reason you think my example makes no sense is that you are missing the most important thing....

More money. I specifically mentioned that if I was earning more than my expected salary, then it can be expected that I do extra work. If I choose not to do the extra work, I don't get any extra money. That's why I specifically mentioned earning $110, which was more than my expected salary of $100.

Why do you keep ignoring any suggestion of getting extra money for extra work? Is that concept somehow foreign to you? Do you not understand?
I am not ignoring it - I am saying that it is false. They are not getting paid any more money. They are earning the 100, not the 110, and some of them are going "above and beyond the call of duty" to do the extra-curricular stuff.

Again, there is no requirement to do the extra stuff. If nobody at a school wants to direct and organize a school play, then there isn't one. If nobody wants to coach volleyball, there is no volleyball team. Less than half of the teachers do extra stuff, and they all get paid the same (usually based on seniority). You do not pay everyone extra for something that less than half do, and that if no one does it, simply doesn't get done without consequences to the teacher.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree here. Although you seem to be willing to spend lots of money, I for one expect value for my dollars. Part of that is the fact that if I'm going to have teachers get paid so well, I will expect them to do the extra work.
How is paying everyone extra for what less than half do "value for your dollars"?

Their pay may be fair now, with the assumption that they'd be running extra cirriculars. If they stop running them, then I think they would be overpaid.
The problem is that you are thinking of teachers as a group, rather than as individuals. Each individual teacher has no obligation to do any extras, and each individual teacher gets paid the same. There is nothing extra in the contract for the extras - and it would make no sense to pay it to everyone if there were.

Can you honestly say that no teacher's union, and no school board, and no government official, has ever thought of the extra work that goes into extra cirriculars, and decided to be more generous as a result?
Why be more generous to everyone, esp. the majority that don't do anything extra?

For better or worse, we have to consider the average teacher, and their involvement in extra cirricular activities.
The average teacher has no involvement in extras.

And what would be wrong with that? It would give more flexibility, and guarantee that the activities would not be subject to interruptions. Teachers can take the extra money or leave it; if they leave it, they can hire on special support staff.

Call me crazy, but I do have this idea that people can and should be financially rewarded for extra work.
Finally some agreement. There is nothing wrong with paying extra to the teachers that do the extra-curricular work, and then making it a requirement to do it (no work to rule). But what the PC are contemplating is NOT paying them for the extras, but still requiring them, which is what I object to.