Its all Greek to Quebec

[Brad Sallows]

Teachers had a wage zone that was pretty established 40 years ago, and it was not what it is today (relative to everything else).  Give the ECEs a union and some time; I am sure they will do well.

I lament the loss of neighbourhoods in which the preschoolers could simply be turned out of the house to play with neighbouring preschoolers (as was the case in my own).

 

[QORvanweert]

I have been reading with much interest the link provided earlier in this thread to a book explaining the effects of separation on Canada. To save you the time searching for it here you are:
http://global-economics.ca/dividing%20the%20house.pdf

An absolutely fascinating read. You can imagine my surprise when I came across this nugget...

"Jean Charest, the interim leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party, apparently not having learned any lessons
from his party's disastrous defeat in the last federal election,
has called for a "third option" of renewed federalism. Charest's
plan includes making power-sharing deals with Quebec and other
provinces in such areas as manpower training and entrenching them
in the constitution."

Incredibly prescient for something written in 1995.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

On top of oldboatdriver's post. Native internal politics are complex and shifting constantly. My guess is that any band that accepts being part of a soverign Quebec would demand a pricey pound of flesh for that support. In fact there might even be a bidding war for their support between Canada and Quebec. Not to mention that some bands might even decide that it's a good time to cede from both Quebec and Canada. It would be very interesting.... 8)

Cans containing wriggling tube shaped animals are ... better left unopened.

 

[Jed]

:goodpost:

 

[Remius]

Teachers had a wage zone that was pretty established 40 years ago, and it was not what it is today (relative to everything else).  Give the ECEs a union and some time; I am sure they will do well.

Teachers also didn't need a bachelor's degree 40 years ago either.

ECE are already represented by a union in QC. 

It stands to reason that if you require more certifications and training, salaries will rise.  But they will never be on par with what a teacher makes.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm not sure what the on-paper requirements were, but 50 years ago a bachelor's degree was common enough.  Certainly my father and my mom's sister and her husband all had one.

I don't dispute the creep of credentialism, or that some people are prone to thinking their salary has to be some rough multiple of someone else's.

Salaries don't have to rise with certifications.  Ask any journalist, who needs about the same level of education as a teacher.  Salaries rise with labour monopolies and political clout, particularly if there are political parties which tend to bend the knee to organized labour.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Fifty plus years ago, in some jurisdictions, it was possible to become an elementary school teacher by attending something called "Normal School" for (I think) two years after high school. But, fiftyish years ago was the last gasp of that old programme, common in the first half of the 20th century ~ most people who wanted to be teachers were taking bachelor's degrees, which were becoming easier to get (universities were expanding) and which could, therefore, be required.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, now you're talking about the generation of teachers in my family before my parents.  Born shortly after the turn of the past century and "finished" in normal school.

 

[a_majoor]

For people who are advocating State child care as a cure all, consider the Abecedarian Early Intervention Project. The program was able to achieve results through long term and sustained intervention from age 4 months to 5 years, five days a week and 6-8 hours/day. This is far different from what passes for child care in most of the world and would certainly cost far more than most parents would be able or willing to pay (and the cost of subsidization would be right through the roof).

The other factors to consider are the small size of the study and the lack of follow up: there is no firm foundation to suggest implementing this on a large scale yet. There should also be some consideration to the student teacher ratio of this experiment; scaling and quality control will be very hard.

As a very targeted program with strict guidelines and limited scope, I would say this would be a far better expenditure of resources than "universal" state run child care.

 

[Remius]

Well, now you're talking about the generation of teachers in my family before my parents.  Born shortly after the turn of the past century and "finished" in normal school.

My mother started teaching in the early 70's and she went to "La normal" some "40ish" years ago. In Ontario.

Teacher's salaries are directly proportionate to their levels of education as well as at what levels they teach.  You have a masters, you will make more that someone with a BA.

My is that in the Daycare world, universal or not, an certified ECE will make more than the person with zero credentials.  And daycare workers will never come close to the salaries of a teacher.  Education, qualifications, and teacher's unions will never allow for it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You may be thinking about likely practical conditions.  However, education is not a necessary condition for setting a wage - plenty of well-paying jobs require less education - and teacher's unions have no say unless childcare workers choose to be represented by a teacher's union.  As to whether the teacher's unions can have their say by demanding higher salaries to keep their envelope at some higher multiple, good luck.

 

[Remius]

You may be thinking about likely practical conditions.  However, education is not a necessary condition for setting a wage - plenty of well-paying jobs require less education - and teacher's unions have no say unless childcare workers choose to be represented by a teacher's union.  As to whether the teacher's unions can have their say by demanding higher salaries to keep their envelope at some higher multiple, good luck.

Education is not always a necessity in setting wages, but not in this case.  The teacher's scale in ontario for example is based on experience and post secondary courses taken.

Daycare workers have unions already as I've mentioned.  What you have to look at is the education field as a whole.  Daycare workers, ECEs, Teachers etc.  Not unlike the medical field.  Paramedics, Nurses, RPNs, RNs, Doctors etc. 

Daycare workers will never have the same salary as a teacher just like nurses will never get teh same as a doctor.  Too many things come into play.  Unions and associations have a huge say.  They lobby and apply pressure even against each other. 

Elementary school teachers tried to get an increase to be closer to their high school colleagues.  No dice.  The HS teachers would have likely asked for a comparable hike.  The government knew this and stopped it.

 

[AmmoTech90]

I have always wondered about the cost of day care, not having had to put any kids through it.  An earlier post lists a ratio of 1 carer to 4-8 kids.  Now if a carer takes the lower end, and is fully accredited/insured/etc to me the minimum fair wage would be 20,000 per kid/per year.  I would judge that before expenses (training, insurance, supplies) a 80,000/year gross salary would be the minimum to allow for a fair after expense/tax wage.

Does that scenario hold water with those of you who put kids in daycare?  Does that sound like a fair wage for someone who looks after other people's children for 6 to 8 hours a day?

I would shudder to hand over 25% of my pre-tax income.  If day care does indeed cost that much out of your pocket, I salute you for whatever other sacrifices you've made to pay for it.  If not then to me it looks like the carer is getting screwed over unless the day care is subsidized somehow.

 

[Loachman]

IIf day care does indeed cost that much out of your pocket, I salute you for whatever other sacrifices you've made to pay for it.  If not then to me it looks like the carer is getting screwed over unless the day care is subsidized somehow.

"Subsidized" just means that less is coming out of the pockets of those benefitting and more is coming out of somebody else's pocket.

Salute them, too, for their sacrifices.

 

[GAP]

Quebec is no different than those countries that do their budgets based on the amount of aid dollars coming their way..........

Time for Quebec to end equalization addiction: Montreal think-tank
Tristin Hopper  May 29, 2012
Article Link

Quebec may not be able to keep its gold-plated welfare state, but either way, it is time to break the province’s 55-year “welfare trap” addiction to equalization payments, according to an economic note by the Montreal Economic Institute.

“Quebecers are well aware that we’re a have-not province, and there’s no pride in this,” said Yourri Chassin, an economist with the Institute.

The four page note, released Tuesday, calls for Quebec to ramp up oil, shale and electricity development, while simultaneously calling on Ottawa to grant the province a five to eight year “grace period” before clawing back equalization payments.

“There’s a bit of incentive needed to kickstart this process,” said Mr. Chassin.

Under the current equalization regime, Quebec stands to lose 50 cents in equalization payments for every dollar it collects in resource revenues. Mr. Chassin argues that the formula is subtly hindering the province’s willingness to approve mines and oil drilling projects.

Quebec is effectively stuck in a “welfare trap,” claims the report, referring to an economic conundrum in which welfare recipients have no incentive to find work, since a minimum wage job would pay just as much.

The issue came up during the Alberta election when Wildrose leader Danielle Smith joked that a “Quebec colleague” told her the province had imposed a moratorium on shale-gas development in order to keep its revenues low and its equalization payments high.

“Grace period” programs were implemented in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to entice the provinces into developing offshore oilfields without seeing immediate clawbacks in their equalization cheques. Thanks in part to the arrangement, Newfoundland and Labrador became a “have” province in 2008 for the first time in its history.

Nevertheless, Sonya Gulati. a senior economist at TD Bank, suspects that a Newfoundland-style program for Quebec would be a hard sell to the rest of Canada, particularly since Quebec already takes such a large share of federal dollars. Besides, she said, “we’ve already seen a lot of money and interest in development, it doesn’t seem like they’re taking equalization payments into account.”

Quebec has received equalization payments consistently since the program was established in 1957, the only major province to do so.

The aim of equalization, as entrenched in the Canadian constitution, is to “provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.” When the rates are calculated, auditors focus on “fiscal capacity,” Quebec’s ability to raise revenues,” and ignores the province’s actual rates of tax revenue – which is among the highest in Canada.
Resource revenues are different, as the money is automatically counted towards fiscal capacity at a ratio of 50%.

In the 2012-2013 fiscal year, equalization payments constituted $7.4 billion of Quebec’s $70.1 billion budget, roughly accounting for 11% of all government spending.

In 2010, a paper by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy advocated scrapping equalization entirely, arguing that it allowed “have not” provinces to fund robust social programs at the expense of “have” provinces. “The evidence presented in this paper strongly suggests that, in many important areas, levels of government services in donor provinces such as Alberta and Ontario are significantly below those that exist in the major recipient provinces,” it read.

The province’s tuition fees, currently the focus of a massive three-month student strike, are the lowest in Canada. Quebec students pay only $8,672 towards a four-year university degree. Quebec taxpayers kick in $39,000 and, all things being equal, the rest of Canada is on the hook for the remaining $5000.

Mr. Chassin remained skeptical that without some form of austerity, energy and mining dollars would be enough to sustain Quebec’s gilded welfare state. “By itself, resources may not be enough to get Quebec totally out of the equalization payments,” said Mr. Chassin. “But it’s a good first step.”
end

 

[Edward Campbell]

I often find much with which I can agree when Jeffrey Simpson sticks to his knitting ~ central Canadian politics; this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is informative because Simpson doesn't have any answers. He has no answers because no one has, yet, asked the right questions:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/searching-for-the-political-heart-of-quebec/article2448710/

Searching for the political heart of Quebec

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jun. 01, 2012

A week ago, the Quebec polling firm CROP asked people in that province for their views on the government’s law regulating demonstrators.

By a narrow 51-49 margin, a majority said it approved of the law that has been described by its critics as the greatest assault on civil liberties since the War Measures Act.

When people were asked their opinion of the specific provisions of the act, to each provision a majority of more than 70 per cent said they agreed.

Confused? Conflicted? What were Quebeckers saying? Quite likely – and polls are always subject to interpretation – they were saying: We’re tired of this whole student affair, we want the two sides to end it, but the government has to govern and if this is what it takes, get on with it.

What the poll did not show was support for the students’ position or their pot-banging and trade-union supporters. Although the issue of a modest increase in student fees was long ago sidelined in the public debate, polls consistently showed steady majority support for the government’s position and not that of the striking and demonstrating students.

The silent majority of Quebeckers were therefore both silent and in a majority against the students’ position. And most Quebec students continued to attend classes. (Talks between the student leaders and the government broke down on Thursday.)

The poll illustrates the dangers of generalizing about “Quebec” or any other collective group. The media in the province focused on the street demonstrations, for they were colourful, “new” in the classic definition of out of the ordinary and were tailor-made for television. The student leaders were handsome and charismatic, much more presentable than the poor old politicians.

Much of the written press expressed outright or indirect support for the striking students. Yet despite this sympathetic coverage, the students never convinced more than a minority of Quebeckers of the correctness of their position. “Quebec” could not intelligently be generalized about, although day after day it was, especially outside the province.

The only generalization that might make some sense about Quebec these days, politically speaking, is that attitudes on many issues are conflicted. Of course, some voters are solidly anchored in certain political positions – secessionist/federalist, Parti Québécois/Liberal – but these seem fewer than before. A very large number of Quebeckers are searching, politically rootless, for something that is perhaps not clear even to themselves.

Secession remains a dream for some, but it has receded as impractical, unnecessary or at least something not for now. When the aging bullhorn of the movement, Jacques Parizeau, says the street demonstrations suggest something is bubbling under the surface for secession, he is kidding himself (again). Support for his Parti Québécois was hurt by the PQ’s alliance with the students.

Premier Jean Charest’s Liberals are tired, baffled by how to handle the protests, out of gas and led by someone now trying for his fourth term in the widely anticipated fall election. He lost his education minister and chief of staff in the dispute, having previously lost (for personal reasons) his deputy prime minister. The Liberals, like the PQ, hardly turn anybody on in the province except, one supposes, their most ardent supporters.

The new party, the Coalition pour l’avenir du Québec, was all the rage for a while, with its mixture of conservative and liberal policies and its promise to let debates about secession rest for a decade. The CAQ has now faded into third place, albeit a rather close third.

Federally, the Harper government is seen as the least caring, most out-of-touch federal government vis-à-vis Quebec since John Diefenbaker’s stumblebum governments of 1957 to 1963. The Harper government displays a tin ear in the province. Its capacity to function in (Quebec) French is limited. The government is seen as somewhere between irrelevant and malevolent. The federal Liberals are nowhere.

Only the federal NDP remains in good odour, but Thomas Mulcair and company are consigned to opposition. That a bunch of NDP MPs got mixed up supporting the student protest, however, sends an important and sobering signal outside Quebec of where this party’s heart lies. A party seriously preparing to govern would never have aligned itself with the students.

Where the political heart of “Quebec” lies, apart from with itself, is unknown in a period of volatility, turbulence and disappointment.

The real question is not "whither Quebec?" or "what does Quebec want?" Both questions are, largely, irrelevant; the real question is "under what constraints must Quebec operate?" That's what the Charest government and the students are debating. My guess is that Charest is going to fold and lose but the real loser will be Quebec itself because it cannot afford what it wants. In this respect the original article is correct: Quebec = Greece in that it is thrashing about to avoid the economic coils that are crushing it. The Harper government is not "out-of-touch,' it s, rather, just waiting for the inevitable, trying not to make things worse by throwing good money after bad.

But Quebec is not, really, Greece. Instead it is, to Canada, what Spain is to the Eurozone: too big to rescue but, also, too big to fail.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Mr. Charest should pull all funding for the Universities starting immediatelly and watch the Profs., et al, wrestle with this student uprising.........

 

[ModlrMike]

Mr. Charest should pull all funding for the Universities starting immediatelly and watch the Profs., et al, wrestle with this student uprising.........

Sadly that would punish the good for the actions of the bad. There's still plenty of students who want/need to learn.

 

[Remius]

Mr. Charest should pull all funding for the Universities starting immediatelly and watch the Profs., et al, wrestle with this student uprising.........

Maybe not that but along the same lines.

Cancel the school year.  Done.  No re-dos.

Calculate the cost of all this. ie police overtime, damge to public property etc etc.  Send the bills equally to all the universities in Quebec.  Or substract that from the funding.

Tell it like this.  Either you accept the tuition fee increase or face the prospect of having the spots funded at universities cut in half.  You want to keep tuition where it is at? Fine.  Only half of you can go because that is all we can afford at that price.

End ex.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Sadly that would punish the good for the actions of the bad. There's still plenty of students who want/need to learn.

Agreed, but maybe a good life lesson that needs to be hammered home. If you don't pay attention to any organiztion you are a part off, the idiots and radicals will take it over.  I'm forced to swallow that crow myself with something I heard yesterday from my Unions convention about needing to save money in the worst way and last night I recieve an email touting all kind of stuff like this.