This is a newly revised + expanded guest blog from our OSSTF Activist readers:
The
Memorandum of Settlement is not a net gain as would appear on first glance. Consider the following realities of accepting
the proposed contract:
Why it may
be worth “gambling” on a NO vote:
It
means agreeing to a continued decline in our real incomes!!!
The “lump sum” of 1% during the 2015-2016 does not work to increase our
base salary.
In effect, our salaries are s for another year.
That set-back will be compounded for the remainder of our respective careers (i.e. we lose that 1% for each year following the 2015-2016
year).
In 2012 our salaries were frozen for three years – that
set-back is already “in the mix”.
In comparing our salary to the Cost of Living Increases since
2012, and an estimated yearly increase of 1.6% over the duration of the
proposed contract we will observe significant gross losses in salary.
(See Calculation Summary below)
If we account
for the cost of living over the 5 years (2012 - 2017)
we will have worked ¼ of a year for free!!
we will have worked ¼ of a year for free!!
THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO A HALF SEMESTER FOR FREE!
Here
are two examples of a teacher on the salary grid:
“Level 3” Teacher who started working in 2003
School Year
|
Gross Earnings
(incl. delayed grid movement)
|
Contract Gain %
|
CPI %
|
Salary with grid movement and indexed to CPI
|
Difference
|
Total Loss
|
2011-12
|
$80, 256
|
We’ll use
this salary as our base value of the last negotiated salary.
|
||||
2012-13
|
$81, 641
|
0
|
1.5%
|
$85, 111
|
$3, 470
|
$3, 470
|
2013-14
|
$85, 651
|
0
|
1.2%
|
$89, 826
|
$4, 175
|
$7, 645
|
2014-15
|
$87, 449
|
0
|
2%
|
$91, 622
|
$4, 173
|
$11, 818
|
2015-16
|
$88, 323
|
0 + 1% Lump
|
1.6%*
|
$92, 539
|
$4, 215
|
$16, 033
|
2016-17
|
$88, 544
|
1% + 0.5% on 98th
day
|
1.6%*
|
$94, 019
|
$5, 475
|
$21, 508
|
*
Estimates based on the average of the CPI% from previous three years.
“Level 4” Teacher who started working in 2005
School Year
|
Gross Earnings
(incl. delayed grid movement)
|
Contract Gain %
|
CPI %
|
Salary with grid movement and indexed to CPI
|
Difference
|
Total Loss
|
2011-12
|
$76, 600
|
We’ll use
this salary as our base value of the last negotiated salary.
|
||||
2012-13
|
$78, 063
|
0
|
1.5%
|
$81, 460
|
$3, 397
|
$3, 397
|
2013-14
|
$82, 055
|
0
|
1.2%
|
$86, 132
|
$4, 078
|
$7, 475
|
2014-15
|
$85, 861
|
0
|
2%
|
$91, 622
|
$5, 971
|
$13, 446
|
2015-16
|
$90, 140
|
0 + 1% Lump
|
1.6%*
|
$96, 345
|
$6, 205
|
$19, 651
|
2016-17
|
$94, 007
|
1% + 0.5% on 98th
day
|
1.6%*
|
$101, 753
|
$7, 746
|
$27, 397
|
*
Estimates based on the average of the CPI% from previous three years.
It fails the fairness test:
Teachers have been
told that wage increases for us would be unjust to taxpayers.
Given that real incomes are
rising across the province, and are expected to continue to do so, this
austerity-based reasoning questionable.
We have already paid through a
5% decline in our real incomes between 2012 and 2014. Under the proposed contract, the total
decline in our real salaries (2012 and 2017) would, in all likelihood, exceed
10%.
If we continue to bear the financial
burden, through decreasing real wages, the Provincial Government has little
incentive to resolve its cash flow problem in other ways.
Agreeing to this deal sends some troubling messages about
what we think is OK:
Shocking us with blatantly
unacceptable demands (and then removing them) works, because we are so shocked
that we will then accept anything.
It is OK for the Province to
arrive at the bargaining table empty handed.
The enforced contract strips
from 2012 will become permanent.
There is a viable alternative:
The negotiation process is
equipped to cope with the rejection of a tentative deal.
When negotiation recommenced,
OSSTF would return with a mandate to raise the bar.
Suggested Contractual/Bargaining Position(s) in terms of Compensation:
Suggested Contractual/Bargaining Position(s) in terms of Compensation:
Immediate Lump Sum to
off-set the freeze since 2012.
A provision of a cost of
living adjustment as the minimum salary adjustment.
(See the accompanying Excel file to track
other examples, noting that the calculations do not adjust for movement across
grid levels or leaves of absence.) [Ed: Most regretfully, Excel documents are not compatible with my blog program. Ditto embedded charts and varied indentation features. In solidarity! David C]
COMMENTS: