Pct2017

Look, I get it that when you see a public opinion poll that seems to support your view of the world, you grasp it and hold it tight against your bosom, cherishing the feeling of warmth that it give you. But, in actual fact, there are two basic problems with polling in regards to this labour dispute. First, why would the duly elected government give a rats ass about the poll results? They were unexpectedly re-elected just over a year ago, and still have almost three years left until their next election. To put this into prospective, now is about the same timeline as the public furor regarding the HST in the Liberal's last mandate (about a year after the election). Did that cost them the next election? Then there is the slight problem of the poll reliability. On May 14, 2013, Ipsos Reid released the results of their final public opinion poll for the provincial election. NDP 45% and trending up. Liberals 37% with no change in trend. http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6113 For those of you who do not live in BC, well the actual election results from later that same day were NDP 40%, Liberals 44%. So, no we do not put much faith in public opinion polls out here in the west.

Just exactly what part is confusing you? It is obvious to all but the most ideologically blinded that the teachers wage and benefits package is going to be the same as all the other PSU's who have already signed. This can come via negotiations or legislation, but it will be thus. So, with that in mind, what risk would arbitration present to the teachers? Anything that is above the current offer that the arbitrator may present is an unexpected windfall for the teachers. Zero risk. As for the strength of the vote from the teachers, it is very much akin to taking a vote of third graders asking them if it should be sunny or rainy tomorrow. Would it surprise you if 99% of them said sunny and do you actually think that the outcome of their vote would actually affect whether is will be sunny or rainy tomorrow.

In this truly bizarre negotiation, the BCTF has just trumped all of its previous lows in stupidity. So, they ask for arbitration, but only on the bits that are advantageous to the teachers. The government gives the obvious answer - "No". So, today, the BCTF announced that it is going to take a vote to the membership on - wait for it - arbitration. So, apparently, no means yes in teacherland. Completely and utterly bizarre. The only thing I can guess is the BCTF wants to get a vote of any description going so as to take the pulse of the teachers. That is likely wishful thinking on my part as it would require thinking on the part of Jim Iker.

That would seem to be about correct. However, the taxpayers of BC contribute just under $12,000 to that same teacher's pension. I am sure this is fairly consistent with other public workers, but it shows you why there is growing discontent amongst those of us in the private world who have to pay the tax bill for this perk and then turn around and fund our own define contribution pensions.

Well, we have found something that we can agree upon. Yes, the union does appear to have the upper hand on the class composition and teacher workload at this time, which is why they withheld these items out of their proposed arbitration. But this is what I have been saying all along. What the teachers have proposed for arbitration (wages and benefits only) is an obvious sham as they are playing entirely with house money only. They stand to loose nothing. And, the government has the flush hand on these issues, as they can legislate wages and benefits in October (or before if they wished, but they do not wish). So, in your own words, why would the government risk that position. No, the only way arbitration makes sense is if both sides agree to putting everything on the table so both sides expose themselves to risk and reward.

Bob, all I can suggest is that you read justice Griffins second ruling in this case. What she stated was that the governments legislated settlements which undid the 1998 class size and teacher workload provisions were not defendable in her court. She stated that in lieu of the previously legislated settlements, that staffing levels would have to revert back to 2001 levels unless the two parties could come to an agreement in a collective agreement. Nowhere did she discuss retroactive pay or any form of restitution. The government is challenging her ruling in that they do not believe that staffing levels, particularly those that could include other union members do not belong in a collective agreement. In other words, management reserves the right to manage.By the way, the next judge who saw this case stayed her ruling, effectively parking her decision until it has run its way through the Appellant Court and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada. That could be up to three years from now. So, it behoves the teachers to come to a negotiated settlement on these issues now. But, alas, teachers unions are not capable of coming to agreements with any governments.

Ah, now I get what you were trying to say. It is really a moot point as there will be no chance that the union puts class comp and teacher workload into the pool for arbitration, but I really do not think you understand the case which is making its way through the court system. The only way it touches retroactivity is the grievances previously filed. Just out of curiosity, how would you envision "the gov't must compensate the teachers for the unilateral...."? Do you really think that each teacher is going to get a cheque for the last 12 years if they win the court case. You must be watching a different case if that is what you believe.

I was listening to the news about a "major" teacher rally in downtown Vancouver where upwards of 300 teachers out of the 41,000 available got together. One teacher stated that the government simply must enter the binding arbitration as it is for the future of all children in the province. So, let us dissect that thought. Jim Iker proposes biding arbitration that only deals with the greedy demands of the teachers of BC, but excludes class composition and teacher work loads. And yet, teachers are still using the mantra that the arbitration is for the students. I just do not know how to connect those particular dots.

Quick update on this initiative. There has now been just over $17,000 donated. Sounds like a huge win for the BCTF does it not. But hang on, nearly 75% of eligible families have signed up for the $40/day, which in itself speaks volumes to the support for the whiny teachers. And there have been four days missed, so by my math, roughly $36 million was available to be donated to the poor, poor teachers. So, divide $17,000 by $36,000,000, hmm, I have to move the decimal point over on my calculator to get a fraction that small. But, look at the bright side, $17,000 divided by the BCTF membership is quickly approaching 35 cents per teacher.

Bob, I have read your post above and reread it, and I must admit I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. I am familiar with every single word you use, but cannot figure out what you are saying when you string them together the way you have. Future arbitration affecting past actions? How can anything affect past actions as a past action has already occurred, so it cannot be affected by anything. This is simply a good old fashion guess, but I think that what you are saying is that if the teachers included class composition and teacher workload in the arbitration and they did not like what the results were, then they still would proceed with the court case. If I am correct, then this is the point that I was trying to make. If those items were to be included, then once the arbitrator makes his or her decision, both parties have to agree to the contract and that would extinguish the teachers court case. Once class size and teacher workload is agreed upon in a contract, there is nothing to quibble about in court. I apologize if this is not what you were trying to say, but .....

This latest attempt by the teachers and their dinosaur union to call for arbitration is ludicrous. I mean, why would the government agree to arbitration for wages and benefits only? Look at it this way, what risk does the union have in this scenario? If the arbitrator agrees with the government, then the teachers get the wages and benefits that they are destined to get in any case, which is the same as the rest of the PSU's. Nothing lost there. But if the arbitrator gives them one dime more than that scenario, then it is all unexpected gains for the teachers. Again, no risk on their part as the government has to shoulder all of the risk. So, why then is the union not including class composition and teacher workload in the arbitration? Well, even Young Socialist would be able to piece this one together and figure out that they would then have to assume some risk in the arbitration. The arbitrator just may say that the current class composition and teacher workload is just fine, which would in effect extinguish the teachers court case, particularly if they are stupid enough to not include clause 80. Thus, the teachers would actually have some degree of risk at stake. No, my friends, this is a total sham, and a fairly desperate one at that. Iker has screwed his membership every which was but Tuesday, and he cannot figure out a way out without looking the total idiot that he is, and vicariously making 86% of the teachers look like idiots as well. I had said earlier that it would be the second week in October before this gets solved, but with Iker cracking, it just may be over sooner than that.

So, if I have your logic figured out, you are saying that because the government has made blunders with our tax dollars in the past, that makes it OK to make a really big blunder and give the teachers everything they want? Strange logic. BTW, the court ruling that you refer to is only the Appellant Court. Either side can take the upcoming decision on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, so this sorry affair is literally years away from closure. I am curious, what does your teacher wife think of the infamous clause 80? The only reason I can see why the BCTF would not want it in the contract as a way of getting kids back into class is if they figure on loosing the next level of appeal. Think about it. Sit down with pen and paper and chart out just what that clause does, and I think you will agree with me that it is pretty well thought out. Both sides can agree on some moderate compromise regarding class composition and teacher workload in this contract, and then if the Appellant Court slams one side or the other, then the "winning" side can reopen those clauses and use the court ruling to get what they wanted in the first place. As I said above, the only reason to oppose it is if the BCTF is fully expecting to loose the next level of appeal.

So, as of today, roughly 63% of parents who have eligible kids for the $40/day have signed up. And today is the third day of the program, so each of those parents can figure on $120/kids to date. The donations to the BCTF as of today? $9155. Yup, do the math and the public has supported their beloved teachers to the tune of 0.03%. Yes, the decimals are correct. Not 3% or .3%. And, should the membership ever get that money, which is highly unlikely given the embezzling ways of the BCTF, they can each count on $0.23. Thank you for pointing out this program to all of us there Young Socialist. Heck of a ringing endorsement for the whiny teachers and their dinosaur union. And what is really amazing is the the straight.com site is the spawn of the old Georgia Straight magazine which was a radical, left wing weekly since the 70's. Now, read the reader comments and you would think that you were on the Fraser Institutes website. Teachers and their union are getting mutilated. So, again thanks for sharing this site with us. I really do not get why you do not read the site content before sharing, but keep up the good work. I don't have time to find anti-teacher sites all day and you are doing a fine job there young fellow. In closing there Socialist, remember to study hard this year and keep you grades up to that elusive C+ range and maybe you can become a teacher for real one day.

There is no one single reason that precludes the government from simply legislating the teachers back. Yes the upcoming appeal in the Appellants Court plays into this as part of what is being appealed was the inability for the government to reach an agreement with the teachers in the one year that Griffin decreed. Another reason is that there is simply no hurry to do so. The School Act and Regulations require that students receive a minimum number of instructional hours. That minimum can be achieved even if the strike goes on until the second week go October. And, quite frankly, I believe that the government does believe that there will be cracks show up in the BCTF if they stay out long enough. Financially, it is a wash for the government while the teachers strike, so that is not a factor. Finally, experience has shown that legislating the BCTF back to work simply prolongs the agony. This strike was a gift to the government. Fresh off an increased victory in the last election, flush with settlements with many other PSU's, sitting across from what has to be the lamest leader the BCTF has ever elected, how much better does it get against a very old foe. And the BCTF was too dumb to figure this out.

Google Teamsters Ikea Richmond strike. 14 months and counting of replacement workers. And, last time I checked, the Teamsters were not noted for being a wussy, push over union.

You are way more right than wrong. But, much like the Ikea strike/lockout, if the employer were to play extreme hardball, there would be replacement teachers hired from across Canada. Voila, schools are open again. Then, all that would happen is the remaining BCTF teachers would be left on strike forever. And poof goes the court case. I am in no way advocating for this, but please do not blindly believe it is not in the realm of possibilities.

So, could someone please explain the BCTF's "strategy" to me. On her first ruling, Justice Griffin gave both parties one year to reach an agreement that encompassed class composition and teacher workload. This did not happen, so the government once again had to legislate them back. The Judge ruled that this was not good enough. The government appealed this decision. This is all wee known history. But, now look ahead to the appeal. Do not forget what in part is being appealed, in that the government will claim that it is nigh on impossible to negotiate with the teachers, which was the crux of their argument in the first place. So, what do the teachers do? They prove that it is singularly impossible to negotiate with them, and them alone. How can this possibly help their case? Would it not have made a ton of sense for them to come to an agreement on wages and benefits as smoothly as possible and in line with all other PSU's and then agree to defer the classroom issues until after the appeal. It sure does appear to be a case of the teacher's inherent greed is getting in the way of clear thinking on their part.

Bob Mc - thanks for the clarification. The issue of docking pay went before the Labour Relations Board and was approved. You may not like it or agree with it, but the employer was well within their right s to dock pay for the level of job action conducted by the BCTF.

Wilber, Wilber, Wilber. If you are going to take another persons words out of context, at least wait until they are buried deep on the thread. When I referred to instruction to meet the curriculum, it was in reference to no popping in videos or other wastes of time that teachers adore. If the teachers once again withdraw their out of school hours help for students as they have twice recently, then that shows just how much they believe that this is all for those students. And Wilber, you can pretty much take it to the bank that the teachers will withdraw those services if they are legislated back to work in October.

I am not sure just what you are asking. Was the government right for docking the teachers pay for the actions they had already undertaken under Level One job action? Well the Labour Relations Board felt they were. Then I reread your post and wonder if you are asking if it is a good thing that teachers were not offering out of school hours help to their students. You would have to ask the teachers what their opinion is on that I guess. Seems to me that it is quite detrimental to withdraw this support, but this is the second time in three years that the teachers have done it, so they must think it is somehow a positive. Interesting that you belittle parents (soccer moms) for parenting. Not entirely sure where you are going with that. Is it really your opinion that only a teacher can parent a child? But, again, maybe I am reading your post incorrectly. It is somewhat jumbled.

Here, share this with her. Maybe it will jog her memory. http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-teachers-dispute-cheat-sheet-1.1835717

Please take the time to do a bit of research. Look up what the BCTF told their members they could and could not do when they launched their Level One job action back in early May. Then read the terms of the government's subsequent lock out at the end of May. If you can see any differences, please get back to me. No, my good friend, the teachers had already launched into not helping students out of school hours before the lockout. All the lockout did was allow the employer (you and me, by the way) to dock their pay by 5% which was later escalated to 10% when they started rotating strikes. This should have sent a clear message to the whiny teachers that for the first time ever, the duly elected representatives of the taxpayers of British Columbia were not going to be patsies. But, alas, this eluded the teachers and here we are today. As for the idea of binding arbitration, never going to happen. We elected the government to make some difficult decisions, not to pass authority off to third parties when the going gets a bit tough.

Jeez Louise, you ask me to stop being sarcastic towards you, and then you turn around and ask exactly the same question that I clearly answered for you previously. I will use some small, fairly easy to understand words so that you can grasp it this time. The money that the government does not spend on teachers salaries ( please note that this is reduced expenses, not a source of revenue, but I am afraid that May be getting a bit deep for you) amounts to about $12 million per day. There are about 300,000 kids in BC schools who are under the age of 13. Now, here is where you are going to have to really concentrate. Divide $12 million by 300,000 kids and you get - drumroll please - $40/kid. So, no, the government is not pocketing the savings (again, note that this is not revenue), rather they are passing it onto the taxpayers who are most directly affected by your teacher heroes. Yeah, I know, more sarcasm and lack of respect. Guess I was never cut out to be a teacher, thank God.

Wilber, before quoting laws and acts, maybe read them first. The actual requirement in the School Act Regulations is for about 170 days of instruction for grades 8 to 12 and slightly less for lower grades. We are nowhere close to not being able to meet that requirement now, nor shall we be until early October. All this strike will do is render out the various forms of playtime that teachers engage in during the year. No more videos, quiet reading time in grade 9(!!), no more pro-D's, no Spring Break. Just, pure plain instruction to meet the curriculum. But please do not stop the rants. I enjoy them.

I believe that is called wishful thinking there my friend. But if you can provide any evidence of this, please feel free. You are likely confused by the fact that there will be no interim payments made to parents, only one big payment for those who applied once the teachers sober up and go back to work. It is interesting in that I had said a few weeks ago that the number of parents who signed up for this program would be a fairly accurate representation of how much support there is actually out there for the whiny teachers. If you really support them, you are not going to accept the money that takes away a ton of leverage from the BCTF. Well, yesterday was the first day that registration was available and the whole system crashed under the weight of the demand. There has also been some bemoaning about why is the funding only available to parents with kids under 13. Well, the reasoning behind that decision is obvious and only those with severe thinking limitations would not see this. But, when you think about it, any enterprising teenagers out there will certainly make themselves available for babysitting, thus they are able to cash in on the $40/day also.