TheyWon'tReadNoStinkingFineprintVille
_____
Update, Monday 9:30pm...About 3 hrs after this post went up this morning (and I'm sure there was probably pushback from the bctf as well) Mr. Mason told the Twittmachine that the StatsCan numbers were 'misleading'...I'll have more on this tomorrow...Thanks everyone for all your help with the digging/crowd sourcing.
_____
Why such a fuss?
Because Mr. Mason used that number, at least in part, to imply that the teachers were off their rocker to make compensation any part of their bargaining strategy.
So...
Where did the discrepancy come from?
Well, based on the spade work of readers NVG and Paul Ramsey it would appear that the good Mr. Mason used (or was steered toward?) a certain table on the StatsCan website (scroll down to Table 14 on pg 22).
And then things got interesting when other readers had a look at the fine print under the table and called our attention to the following:
Do you see what I see?
Too small?
Well, here.....Let me do a little 'stenography':
"Care should be taken with cross jurisdictional comparison. The proportion of educators (comprising a mix of teachers, administrators and pedagogical support) and their respective renumeration differs in each jurisdiction."
Gosh.
Wonder if the good Mr. Mason will clarify things for the people of British Columbia, who are hearing nothing but the wurlitzer (see the recent VSun editorial and the bleatings of Michael Smyth, for example) of how greedy and unreasonable teachers are?
(and, yes, the $7K per annum difference does matter because Mr. Mason was quoting the numbers to make a comparative case regarding where BC Teachers rank federally for their compensation)
****
So.
Why might have Mr. Mason been using those Statscan numbers rather than the actual Ministry of Education numbers that don't appear to support 'his' argument quite so well?
Well...
How 'about we go back and have a look at Mr. Mason's actual words from his teacher bashing/pile-on column, that (surprise!) came out the day 'after' the VSun Edit and the Smyth hatchet job, once again:
...Statistics Canada figures for 2010-11 have been interpreted by some, including the provincial government, as showing B.C. teachers’ salaries are the second-highest among the provinces, earning an average of $80,582, excluding benefits and an enviable pension fund...
Hmmmm...
Don't know about you but I smell the agents (and/or the ancillary flack-hackery) of Snooklandia at work here.
.
8 comments:
I notice there have been a few 'corrections' pointed out in the comments section of Mason's article online. ..none quite as carefully documented as yours' Ross, sadly.
I'm going to pour a cup of coffee and see if there's a correction in the fish-wrap version.
Mason has now redacted his salary "estimates" on the Twitterverse.
@RossK:
KA POW!!!
...and Bill Bluster Good has the "temerity" to shade the "bogus" blogosphere...
SH
Thought you'd be interested in this:
http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2014/03/02/cbc-gets-snagged-in-expense-and-ethics-issues/
SH
It's good that Gary Mason has recanted, but it would be better if he reported who suggested he use the shoddy numbers.
Social media sea levels are subsuming Mason's atoll. Moderation on Globe and Mail comment boards now, more or less blatantly, censor comments critical of the BC Liberals or critical of the G&M's totally blatant acceptance of unchecked numbers proffered by vested interests. Still, the BC Liberal Whopper tactic depends on this and other plainly bought propaganda rags as long as the Opposition doesn't contend each and every whopper, each and every day on any medium available.
Yeah, right: greedy teachers sabotage negotiations with unreasonable wage demands? Where's that put lying, breach of the Constitution and public trust, and a offer of a ten year contract?
Thanks for the updates Everyone - I was in ScienceGeek bunker all day Monday...Am just catching up now.
.
Paul--
Agreed.
Post on that subject, which is obliquely referred to in one of his tweets from earlier today, is coming...
.
Post a Comment