Pct2017

I never saw the actual language that was contained in the infamous E80/E81, but as I understand it, it was a clause that would have allowed EITHER party to reopen the contract once the appeals had run their course. Now, again, I have no access to the proposed deal that the whiny teachers are voting on toady, but news reports have it that there is a clause in the settlement that will allow EITHER party to adjust the contract once the appeals have run their course. What am I missing here?

In my discussion about winners/losers in this strike, I forgot one group. The NDP. I would give them a temporary losing grade. Why? Well, they stayed absolutely silent throughout the strike with nary an NDP MLA to be seen at any teacher rally. But, then as the end of the strike neared, they finally broke their silence. And what hill was so important for them to die on? Well, they argued in favour of binding arbitration for the teachers salary and benefits demands. In true NDP fashion, they shouted at the top of their lungs that fiscal management of the public purse should be turned over to an unelected, unaccountable third body. Basically, put the whole pot on red and let it ride. This is why NDP governments tend to hard to find and also tend to be of a very short duration when they are elected. Now, I said they were getting a temporary losing grade. This is because the next election is a couple of lifetimes away and all of this will be long forgotten by the electorate.

Let's have a look at how all of the various groups involved did at the end of the day: GOVERMENT - They did OK. First, they did things differently than before. They stood their ground on behalf of the taxpayers of the province. They held the teachers wage increase to an acceptable level which will not trigger problems with the other PSU's. They did not have to pay out the $1200 bonus which was on the table in June. They got all existing grievances extinguished for $108 million, which is less than what they saved in salaries in June. They did give up $480 million over five years to address class composition. BCTF - they did alright, but only alright. They did get the $480 million for class composition, but $80 million of that is dedicated to CUPE workers. So $400 million over five years at a loaded cost of about $100k per teacher works out to about 600 new members. A small amount of this gain will be lost to the migration of students to private schools during the strike. Their handling of the strike, strike pay and the negotiations should have the membership asking a lot of questions, but that script has yet to be written. They appeared dazed and confused by the government strategy of saying no. They did gain the $108 million, but had to give up all previously lodged grievances. In fairness, this money should go to the teachers, but.... STUDENTS - minimal damage at the end if the day. The last two weeks in June is useless play time, so no impact there. Government exams were written and marked. First week or two in September is generally pretty laid back, so again limited harm. And depending on how pouty the teachers are when they go back, whatever time was lost can be made up with increased class time intensity. And any kid in grade 8 or above will never face another strike by their teachers. PARENTS - again, minimal damage as the $40/day for younger students offset child care costs. PRIVATE SCHOOLS - big winners. Enrolment up and not likely to ever reverse this trend. TEACHERS - this was the group that lost big time. Financially, they lost five and a half weeks salary for absolutely no return, unless you figure the quarter of one percent over six years as a victory. And, quite frankly, they consolidated their reputations as whiny, greedy non- professions for a great many of us. They will increase their ranks by about 600 as stated above, but that works out to about 10 per school district which will do little to create less work for most teachers. Another way of looking at it is one extra teacher for every 830 kids or so. Will they get any of the $108 million is up to their union. Am very happy that this sorry saga is over, and for our family it means that we will never have a teacher strike that affects us ever again as both kids will be long gone in five years.

So that is why an employer does not play roulette in the form of binding arbitration. Well played Mr Fassbender and Mr Cameron, well played.

If you want to stay on the payroll, do not do on strike. Seems pretty simple. And, if you do choose to go on strike, do not bemoan that you no longer get a pay cheque. What part of this is confusing you?

So, if you are going to view this settlement in terms of one side winning and the other side losing, can you give us a benchmark to work with. What set of wages and benefits deem a win for the teachers? What clause regarding class composition and teacher workload would you term a win for the government?

So they reached a tentative agreement early this morning. Now what do you guys want to talk about?

Now there is a strange coincidence. Iker is the only one of the three amigos who is not getting paid and Iker is the only one of the three amigos who is on strike. Good hard hitting news reporting by CKNW.

Maybe you cannot see it, but those words could have been written by Young Socialist verbatim. OK, regurgitating may be a little advanced for his vocabulary, but the tone and the arrogance is extremely similar. I swear that if there were not headers on the messages identifying the writer, there would be times when your messages and his would be indiscernible. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Bob, you keep saying read the article. I do really wonder if you have actually read the article. I quote "A brief melee broke out at a parent, teacher and student pro-teachers rally at the Vancouver Art Gallery Sunday...." Yet, to your words, it was almost a riot. And chaos was evident. I do sometimes wonder if you are actually Young Socialist's father. Same writing style in that the minute anyone criticizes you, you immediately launch a full out offensive, usually composed entirely of air. You do not rely on useless citations from loopy left wing websites as much as he does, but your style is definitely similar. Interesting theory.

A riot I tell you. For a guy who just lives to be able to nitpick to death the remarks of others, that was pretty dramatic.

So,is it the fact that he held three or four press conferences that makes him idiotic in your esteemed view, or did he actually have a quote that infuriated you so much that you labeled him an idiot. You are sounding a tad desperate. It really is OK to admit that you beaked off with no justification and we will all think better of you. If you continue down this path of providing no evidence to your allegation, then you simply look foolish. Your choice. Am I 12? Sure, if that makes you feel better, we will go with that.

I am so confused. Earlier today, you stated in reference to yours truly, and I quote "you belittle the teachers and their leadership, you belittle me..." yet later in the same day, you say, and again, I quote "It's not that you belittle anyone....". Wow, is that ever a consistent statement. Sure am glad that it is Peter Cameron that you feel is making an idiot of himself. Now, back to the core question. Do you or do you not have a quote from Peter Cameron that justifies your labeling him as idiotic? This is a pretty simple request. Type as quickly or as slowly as you wish, just give the citation for all of us to judge.

Wow, of all the excuses that you could have come up with for not being able to follow through with a valid example, this is about the last one that I expected. So, to summarize, it is OK for you to call Peter Cameron an idiot, but it would be kind of scary if I were to belittle you for saying so. Hmmmmm Now, I am plunking away on my key board with my left hand as my right hand is currently raised in oath that I will no mock you or belittle you on this matter if you can come up a valid example of Mr Cameron saying something that is truly idiotic, not merely out of synch with your ideology.

Can you give an example. Please remember that if his statement simply does not line up with your particular ideology, that does not necessarily make it idiotic. I await your example.

OK, fair enough. So, if you believe that a legislated contract would affect that court case (BTW, if all the legislation affects is wages and benefits, this argument in crap, but oh well), then the other arrow in the governments quiver is essential services legislation. Legislate the greedy whiny little piggies that we call teachers here in BC back to work without a new contract. Let the appeals play out over the next two or three years all the while kids are getting educated and the membership is getting paycheques. There are lots of ways to skin this cat, but the government has shown great refrain to date in providing the union with the opportunity to get its head out of its collective rear end. And thank you, no, I am not a lawyer. By your very self righteous statement above, I have to assume that you are one. Did they not teach writing skills in your lawyer school?

Oddly enough, yes I am saying just that. There are two reasons for this. First, reigning in the single most repugnant union in the province is well worth some criticism, particularly when the most vocal of critics were never going to vote Liberal anyway. I mean, did you or Mrs Wilber really vote Liberal last May? But secondly, and more importantly, the Liberals will never face the BCTF in an election. They will face the NDP, and right now I could not even tell you their leaders name. How many NDP MLAs are you seeing at the whiny teachers rallies etc. No, the NDP will stay as far away from the teachers as they can, which nullifies any public opinion in 2017.

Man, he looks like he has aged about ten years this summer. Maybe he is better suited to tending six year olds than what he is doing now.

I have read your post several times, and I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are saying. Is it a good thing for the teachers and the students to be out of school? Or are you saying that it is logical to keep the students out of school in order to get the exact same contract as you could have now. And, as I have said many, many times, who cares what the public thinks. The next election if a couple of lifespans away. And the BCTF could not give a rats ass about what the public thinks. So what does public sentiment have to do with this?

So, put yourself in the shoes of Jim Iker for a minute. The employer has telegraphed the message that your members will be legislated back to work at the beginning of October. Now, do you think they are going to give you: A. Everything you have asked for in wages and benefits or B. Everything that they have previously offered you in wages and benefits. OK, now also consider that your members have just voted very overwhelmingly that their singular concern is getting something, anything in the way of an increase to their wages and benefits and have said that class size and composition can wait for the court rulings. Now, with these facts in mind, do you: A. Wait until you are legislated back to work in October, causing a further three week disruption to the students that you purport to care so much about, or B. Sign now for the same wages and benefits that you are going to be forced to take in three weeks, thus allowing students back into class. Man oh man, poor old Jim is really going to have to think hard on this one to come up with the right answer.

Probably won't happen.

This fellow wrote a very compelling op-ed piece for the Victoria Times Colonist. Very thoughtful and seemingly full of good ideas. I would endorse him to co-mediate along with Vince Ready. http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-education-system-needs-changes-to-thrive-1.1349934

Wilber, you are so wrong, you should run for mayor of Wrongsville. The government holds a mighty big stick in all of this and Byran is correct. There very well could be replacement teachers in our schools in very quick order. I would not have thought so until I read about the Ikea strike in Richmond. There has to be some provision in the labour code which allows for replacement workers. I have no idea what it is, but google the Ikea strike and you will see what I mean. So, think about it. Replacement teachers are able to teach our kids while the BCTF teachers who choose to stay with that union stay outside on strike for the rest of their lives. Our kids get the education that the current teachers are denying them, the BCTF eventually goes broke and disappears, the court case dies with the BCTF and eventually the replacement teachers join an existing union like CUPE. I am not saying this will happen, but I would not have thought it was possible in the case of the Teamsters at Ikea for it to happen either.

You and a few others are putting a lot of emphasis on a poll which stated that 60% of the public supported binding arbitration. Have you wondered what the results would be if the same people were polled about a legislated end to the strike? Probably 60%. What about if they were asked about a negotiated end to the strike mediated by Vince Ready or anyone else. Wow - look at that - 60% in favour. This is definitely conjecture on my part, but I have to believe that the respondents to the poll were expressing their desire to get the teachers back teaching rather than the method used. I would hazard a guess that a great deal of the 60% could not summarize what arbitration actually means.