Pct2017

It is certainly no secret that the government has committed to using the money not spent on the whiny teachers to fund the $40/day for parents. This information is pretty readily available, so it does make me wonder just how much effort you are making to stay educated about this strike.

Now, now Sharkman, I have asked you previously to show any evidence in anything I have ever posted which shows I have any animosity towards unions that are not run by teachers. I happen to believe strongly in unions. Having said that, do I believe that the teachers union, and by extension the teachers themselves are idiots? Well, yes I do. And I will continue to do so until they stop acting like idiots.

So, let's say that you and Mrs Sharkman decided to buy a home in Abbotsford. You check out a neighborhood that is in your price range. All of the similar homes are selling for $400,000, but the home that your sales agent took you to is priced at $1,200,000 even though it is identical to the other homes priced at $400,000. The sellers logic is that is what he could get if his house was located in Kitsalano, so that is what he is demanding. You offer $400,000 to which they counter at $1,000,000. By your logic as well as that of the whiny teachers, you should be happy to get that home at $700,000. There, does that explain what is must be like negotiating with the BCTF?

You must have some powerful inside information there partner. Could you provide some evidence that suggests that Mr Ready put the blame entirely at the feet of the government? I have read nothing that even comes close to suggesting this.

Well there you go. That is totally believable.

I am curious, what "concessions" is the government asking for in your opinion. Do not forget that a concession is taking something out of the previous contract. The greedy teachers taking away part of the ridiculous $5000 signing bonus does not constitute a concession as they never had it and were never going to get it.

$125 million sounds like a pile of money and it is. But, you really have to put it into prospective. Just the ludicrous $5,000 signing bonus per teacher that the teachers were demanding totaled around $200 million, so they have not even eliminated the signing bonus. What is on the table from the government as far as compensation really is as good as it is going to get. There is not a chance in hell that the teachers are going to get a penny more than the other PSU's. Even the blindest ideologue should be able to see this. The class composition and teacher workload parts of the contract are far more difficult to solve, and really should be set aside until the SCoC makes their decision.

Hey Young Socialist, when did you move to BC in your make believe world? Wow, now you are a make believe teacher who has a make believe residence in the fine province of BC. How far can the make believe wife and kids be? Maybe a make believe Lamborghini sitting beside the make believe mini-van would be a nice touch. Just a point of curiosity, have you chosen a region of the province to put your make believe life in?

Wilber, for once I agree with you. The exact number when you give weighting to the number of students is $740 less than the national average. Now, two things are interesting about this number. First, as you can see, the always honest BCTF takes $740 and promotes it as $1,000. Now on the radio ads that they are running, they are stating that $740 is over $1,000 difference than the national average. Which leads one to believe that either teachers and their beloved union are inherently stupid or just plain dishonest. The other thing that is interesting about the fact that BC spends $740 less per student than the national average is when asked how spending more would be of benefit to students, teachers kind of shuffle around uncomfortably and kick some gravel with downcast eyes. But, you may ask, if it was used to reduce class sizes, naturally that would lead to better academic outcomes for students, would it not. Well, the dirty little secret that BC teachers do hot want to discuss is that BC students already top pretty much all of their provincial peers academically. But, it would lead to lower drop out rates without a doubt, you assume. Well, again BC's graduation rates have been on the steady increase all through the tenure of the Liberal government. So, there must be some metric that will show that increased funding will be of benefit to students, because the teachers want more funding and their mantra is always " It is for the students". Well, I have asked this question on many forums, and all I ever get is the above mentioned displacement of gravel in response. I mean, if it makes sense to you to spend more of the taxpayers money to solve a problem that does not exist, then you and I have differing opinions of what we should expect of a government to whom we entrust our provincial finances.

That is one interpretation of what I stated, but not what I was indicating. Basically I was saying that the SCoC overturned the lower courts ruling in the case of the HEU, so it is not out of the realm of possibilities that it will do the same in this case. I am not a lawyer by profession, so I cannot offer you any insight as to what will in actual fact happen, but I do know that the government is not going to show up with in-house lawyers this time around. Much like the BCTF, they will go out and hire some very expensive expertise to articulate their side.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the BCTF really like Judge Susan Griffin. And she appears to like them right back. However, the BCTF does not like Justice David Harris as he stayed the previous decision from Griffin. Time will tell how much they like the Supreme Court of Canada. Minor details here, but the case has been before the Supreme Court of BC twice, not once. It is on it's first appeal, and as I understand it, there is one more level of appeal left after the hearing before the Supreme Court, but I could be wrong. BTW, could you support your statement that I do not like unions in general? I have reread my post and I certainly do not see that content. And which government did I say I did not like? Reading your post, you are the one who seems to have a bit of a phobia when it comes to governments. As for the rest of your post, hey I respect your passion and your ability to articulate your thoughts. Time will tell which of us proves to be correct about the court case, but until it has played out entirely through the judicial system, I think you are a tad premature to label anything ILLEGAL. Remember, the HEU lost the first couple of court rounds before their verdict was overturned by the SCoC. As for the Port Mann bridge, sorry could care less. Must be a personal crusade of yours.

Something that is creeping into the conversation by the teacher apologists is the argument that it is OK for the BCTF to ask for more wages/benefits than all of the other PSU's because the BCTF is actually fighting for those other unions also. Step back and think about that. All those other unions have signed their contracts, but the teachers know they blew it and should have held out for more. Only slightly belittling and it is certainly an extension of the Jesus syndrome that so many teachers are afflicted with. Now, with that in mind, let's take a look at what sort of a relationship the BCTF has with many of the other players involved in this mess. First, as mentioned, the other PSU's. The teachers believe themselves to be vastly superior to these other pisants. The roaring silence emanating from all of the other PSU's speaks volumes of their regards for the whiny teachers. Next, the political parties. The Liberals, well enough said. They do not exchange Christmas cards. The NDP is much loved by the teachers and their dinosaur union. Hell, they blew their strike fund trying to get them elected. But, what does the NDP think of the teachers? That is trickier. Old whatshisname, the new NDP leader has been remarkably silent about everything, but most noticeably about this strike. Seems like a natural for this party to come out swinging in support, but alas, we get silence. So next up is the taxpayers. Again, awfully hard to gauge, but according to May 14, 2013, we have not embraced the BCTF despite their spending their entire strike fund trying to entice us over to their " side". OK, I mentioned that already, but it is fun to say. So, what about the students. Teachers always say they love their students. But hang on, they are also saying that they only love them in very limited quantities. If there are more than 20 or so students, teachers want some of you to leave. Maybe this is a conditional type of love. This is a bit of a no brainier, but what about private business. Can the BCTF get along with this group. Sadly, no. In the workers paradise that teachers dream of, there would be no industry or commercialism. There would be no need to fight against pipelines and clear cutting or any other type of development that could generate income for the province. OK, so is there any other group that our teachers get along with? Well, yes there is. It is called the Royal Canadian Mint. The BCTF and it's bleating members love this institution because it is here that money is printed. And teachers adore money. But, do not despair teachers of BC, you can sleep well at night knowing that you will always have Young Socialist in your corner.

Much has been made about the tearing up of the 1998 Glen Clark contract by the Liberals, as well it should. But, when you take a step back and think about what it was that the Liberals excluded from the contract, it is pretty hard to argue with the logic. Basically, as a gift from their political partners, Clark embedded minimum staffing levels to address class composition and teacher workloads (some refer to this as class size, but it really is about how hard a teacher feels like working). So, let us take a look at that. Class composition can be addressed in a couple of different ways. Using extra teachers is one. But, there is also the track of using extra EA's etc to address the issue. But, if the BCTF has it written in their contract that they, and they alone can be the ones to address the issue, then the employer has lost the ability to manage the issue in the best possible manner or even in an equally effective but more cost efficient manner. That is why those clauses never belonged in the contract. As for teacher workloads, if you address class composition, then what is the remaining argument for class sizes of 30 or more students, given that all of the challenged or ESL students have assistance?

If 2002 is really the stopper for getting an agreement with the BCTF, then how do you explain that the Liberals are able to get an agreement done with the HEU, who also had their contract torn up in 2002? No, my friend, the villain in this sorry saga is the teachers and their out of touch, political union. They and they alone.

So it is your opinion that the BCTF thought they had saved plenty of money by putting aside enough for three days of strike pay? Come on, not even a collective of teachers can be that stupid. But apparently they were.Look, as I stated in a post earlier today, the BCTF fancies itself to be some form of an unelected political party, but in actual fact they are a trade union, and not a particularly gifted or adept trade union at that. To not make fiscal plans for a strike that they were chomping at the bit to call is extraordinarily, well for the lack of a kinder term, dumb. Incompetent is probably a better descriptor. It is interesting that some BCTF locals are starting to poll their members about whether they want to call off the strike and go back to work. They will not release the results of these polls, but just by the fact that they are asking the question speaks volumes about the commitment to this strike.

So what you are saying is that it would be smart to build up a strike war chest before a strike? Seems pretty simple. Man, you would have to be pretty stupid to go into a strike with no strike fund, would you not.

I have been pondering the obvious question in this dispute which is why are all other public sector unions able to arrive at settlements with this or any other provincial government in BC but the BCTF is wholly incapable of doing so. Well, I think that the root of the problem is that the BCTF does not see itself as a union, but rather a political party. Other unions enter into negotiations with the view that their role is to get their members a deal that is suitable for their members. Where the teachers and their union deviate from these other unions is that they want not only an advantageous deal for the members, but they also want to mould the policies of the province to their liking. So whereas the government can negotiate with other unions as just that, unions, when they are dealing with the BCTF, it is more like they are debating with another political party, and a political party who has no accountability to the public. The reality of this is that the BCTF should run a slate of candidates in the next provincial election so the can affect the changes they want through due process.

Love how the teachers feel that they are applying more pressure to the government by initiating picket lines at schools this week. The morons have been on strike since the middle of June but now they think to put up picket lines? Oh yeah, they did not have any kids to hold hostage for the last two months, and besides, they had already booked their flights to Italy and France, so picket duty would be an inconvenience. Yup, there is tremendous conviction and commitment by the whineykins known as teachers to this strike. I have said it before, but here is my free piece of advice for the teachers of BC. Learn to shut up and teach. The louder you shout about how hard you view your lives are, the more pathetic you look.

Wilber - minor point but it is Vince Ready. Perhaps you are getting him mixed up with Helen Reddy. Nw I will be humming I Am Woman Hear Me Roar all night. But, you asked if he had already made up his mind. I believe he was clear that he would only take this job if he could see the possibility of success. And, given that there will be a fine crop of snowballs in hell before the government give the teachers a richer settlement than the other PSU's, then it is up to the BCTF to come back to reality.

Actually, I think that Derek has asked a very legitimate question. Vince Ready stated that he needed a media black out around the negotiations. WCR, could you please provide your thoughts on which details Mr Fassbender divulged to CBC? I mean, for you to make the statement above, you must have a really, really clear example to share with us. Twelve foot Ukraniane. Love that line. Thank you Wilbur. I do not agree with your politics, but great sense of humour.

Interesting. When I search "BC Federation of Labour BCTF" I actually get zero relevant results. And looking at the Fed's website, they have been silent since they put out a very tepid statement regarding the teachers back in June. Given that this is the only major labour dispute in the province, that silence seems deafening to me. Just a point of curiosity, is this a rumour emanating from the teachers? In my experience, some teachers and certainly 100% of their union have a bit of a disassociation with the truth. But time will tell.

Actually, I would be very surprised if that happened. Jim Sinclair et al have been holding this strike very much at arms length. Even the NDP and whoever is their leader (the worlds quietest politician) are virtually silent on this strike. I really do think that the BCTF is in this alone, guided only by their greed rather than common sense.

The other problem that the BCTF faces but refuses to acknowledge is that the "crisis" that they claim is in existence in BC schools is not quantified in any way. Yes, they love to trot out " horror" stories of a difficult work day for teachers (but, let us face it, they have the only job around where you get almost exactly one day off for every day worked, so they should be able to recover quite nicely) but the academic results of BC students are very high which would certainly contradict the existence of the crisis. And anytime you ask a teacher for some form of metric that would support their assertion of crisis, they resort back to antidotes and homilies.

You have captured the conundrum that the BCTF finds itself in perfectly. They are very careful to use the phrase "class size and composition" in such a way that it would lead the masses to believe that you have to address both "issues". Of course, when those of us who are old enough to remember classes of 35 students bring this into the conversation, teachers (and students in YoungSocialists case) are quick to say there were not as many challenged students in the classes back then. Fair point. But why is it then not the case that if the government were to address class composition by providing more EA's then class size concerns should disappear? Could it simply be that today's teachers are less skilled than the previous generations of teachers, or is it that their union simply wants more members? Members who have to be paid for by us tax payers.

Damn fat thumbs.