BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[Hal 9000]

It's hypocritical as hell. I really don't have a side in this, mainly because I really don't know what the hell ia going on. I am trying to put forward a few alternatives to some of the completely one sided positions you and others are taking.

Their potential raise and bonuses will tally nearly a half billion $ per year. Everything the BCTF really wants would cost $6billion over 5years + 2-3% of GDP. At those costs, I just don't think we need to add more teachers....and I don't think I can afford it.

This whole size and composition is BCTF manipulation.

[Boges]

[overthere]

If class sizes are strictly limited, their will certainly be many more teaching positions created overnight, particularly since there only seems to be talk of maximum sizes of classes.

To be fair, perhaps a compromise could be reached that includes minimum sizes of classes and shares the burden for paying for teacher adjustments.

Keep in mind that fluctuations in school enrollments are constant at many schools- industries come and go, demographics change and sometimes dramatically.

Lets say sizes were limited to a maximum of 25 and a minimum of 20. Whenever the school average exceeds 25, hire a teacher. Whenever the average for the school drops below 20, fire a teacher. Fired teachers get first crack at new positions. The BCTF can pay half the separation benefits. Teachers would of course have to move to take the new jobs but we all know this is for the benefit of the kids so there should be no problem there.

[socialist]

I'm hearing that maybe some families will donate their bribe of $40 to the BC teachers.

http://www.straight.com/blogra/721781/families-encouraged-donate-40-day-bctf-strike-fund

[socialist]

The latest release from the BCTF.

http://bctf.ca/NewsReleases.aspx?id=34917

[Hal 9000]

I'm hearing that maybe some families will donate their bribe of $40 to the BC teachers.

http://www.straight.com/blogra/721781/families-encouraged-donate-40-day-bctf-strike-fund

Ohh, That's classic! Squeezing billions out of the government is one thing, but actually getting people who can't afford to make their rent payments to cough up 800 bucks a month is priceless.

[Bob Macadoo]

Ohh, That's classic! Squeezing billions out of the government is one thing, but actually getting people who can't afford to make their rent payments to cough up 800 bucks a month is priceless.

......I doubt the typical donor is the 2+kid single mom...living paycheque to paycheque.

[Bonam]

......I doubt the typical donor is the 2+kid single mom...living paycheque to paycheque.

There is no "typical donor". The campaign has so far generated $2382. Haha. That tells you about all you need to know.

[Big Guy]

Legislate them back. Do not go to arbitration. Impose a settlement which reflects the government last offer and let the courts work it out. Meanwhile, the kids are back in school.

[sharkman]

The government has tried that twice before. I suspect a third time would be noted by the courts and the government seems very reluctant for that reason. They are fearing a third court decision(in October) against them, and rightly so.

[TimG]

The government has tried that twice before. I suspect a third time would be noted by the courts and the government seems very reluctant for that reason. They are fearing a third court decision(in October) against them, and rightly so.

The court issue is not about legislating them back to work. The issue was the removal of clauses from contracts without compensation. The court took a dim view of the government simply passing a law that excluded any compensation for the lost clauses. The SCC has already ruled is there is no right to strike.

One of the problems with court ruling is people assume they mean that the government is obligated to give teachers a contract with the clauses back in. But that is absurd. The courts cannot dictate what the government must include in a new contract and if they did they would be doing exactly what they said the government did wrong in its previous rulings (i.e. dictating what can and cannot be in a contract). The only real claim the teachers have is they were not compensated for the lost clauses for the period between their removal and the expiry of the contract.

[sharkman]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not assuming that the upcoming ruling is about the government giving the teachers a contract with the clauses back in. Nor do I assume it's about legislating them back to work.

However, I feel that the reason the government doesn't want to legislate them back to work is this could affect the upcoming ruling. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[TimG]

However, I feel that the reason the government doesn't want to legislate them back to work is this could affect the upcoming ruling. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I think the government wants to demonstrate that it had no choice. Immediately ordering them back to work or saying that it plans to would sabatoge the collective barganing process and would be evidence that the government did not act in good faith (something the government has to watch out for according to the courts).

One other detail from the court rulings: the courts held that the governments 'Net Zero' requirement was perfectly acceptable since governments are entitled to place financial constraints on the bargaining process. Therefore the government's 'take the same package that everyone else' position would likely pass court muster so I don't think the government feels it needs to give in on wages.

If the BCTF was smart they would take the governments wage package and leave the class size issue out of the agreement with the understanding that if the court rules in their favor they will be entitled to some sort of compensation/side agreement on class size. i.e. the BC government could choose to offer wage increases in the future as "compensation" but it would be clearly connected to a win in court and would not interfere with the government's agreements with other unions.

Edited September 4, 2014 by TimG

[Pct2017]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not assuming that the upcoming ruling is about the government giving the teachers a contract with the clauses back in. Nor do I assume it's about legislating them back to work.

However, I feel that the reason the government doesn't want to legislate them back to work is this could affect the upcoming ruling. Do you have any thoughts on that?

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.

[sharkman]

So why don't they legislate the teachers back then like yesterday? There is a great hurry to do so. The parents, who are being greatly put out are getting increasingly upset, and they are the voting public that will remember September 2014.

The 2 court wins were a gift to the BCTF, as is a government that has painted itself into a corner. Legislate the teachers back and the courts will be even more sympathetic to the BCTF. Let them twist in the wind for a month or more and the voting parents will have their jobs.

Edited September 5, 2014 by sharkman

[TimG]

So why don't they legislate the teachers back then like yesterday? There is a great hurry to do so. The parents, who are being greatly put out are getting increasingly upset, and they are the voting public that will remember September 2014.

First, there is no magic date - one week in - two weeks. They have to let schools be closed for a bit so show that it was necessary. If they leave the schools closed until Oct then I would question what is going on. That said, I read the judgement and I do not feel that they are blanket prohibition on legislating teachers back. What they cannot do is try to legislate away the right to some sort of compensation for the lost clauses but there is no need to do that. They could simply set aside a bunch of money for use when the courts have delivered a final ruling.

The choice is really this for the BCTF:

1) accept exactly what the government is offering + minor sweeteners and keep the option open for greater compensation due to a future court win (this is slightly better than getting legislated back).

2) get a better deal now but they will have to forfeit the possibility for greater compensation later to get concessions from the government today.

The problem is the BCTF thinks it can have it both ways: a better deal + the option of even more later. The world does not work like that.

Edited September 5, 2014 by TimG

[sharkman]

The problem I see is you, among others, hold the government as careful excellent stewards of the public's purse who can be taken at face value whatever the issue. I could list dozens of blunders, money grabs, and plain stupid moves in the last ten years but I don't think it would matter, but I'll say it anyway, governments are not trustworthy. The longer they stay in power the more corrupt they get.

And, at the end of the day, the court will make its ruling, and the toxic relationship that this government has made with the BCTF will only hurt the kids more and more.

Edited September 5, 2014 by sharkman

[Hal 9000]

The problem I see is you, among others, hold the government as careful excellent stewards of the public's purse who can be taken at face value whatever the issue. I could list dozens of blunders, money grabs, and plain stupid moves in the last ten years but I don't think it would matter, but I'll say it anyway, governments are not trustworthy. The longer they stay in power the more corrupt they get.

And, at the end of the day, the court will make its ruling, and the toxic relationship that this government has made with the BCTF will only hurt the kids more and more.

Relationships between teacher unions and governments are always toxic. Nothing new here.

[Pct2017]

I'm hearing that maybe some families will donate their bribe of $40 to the BC teachers.

http://www.straight.com/blogra/721781/families-encouraged-donate-40-day-bctf-strike-fund

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.

[Pct2017]

The problem I see is you, among others, hold the government as careful excellent stewards of the public's purse who can be taken at face value whatever the issue. I could list dozens of blunders, money grabs, and plain stupid moves in the last ten years but I don't think it would matter, but I'll say it anyway, governments are not trustworthy. The longer they stay in power the more corrupt they get.

And, at the end of the day, the court will make its ruling, and the toxic relationship that this government has made with the BCTF will only hurt the kids more and more.

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.

[Bryan]

The SCC has already ruled is there is no right to strike.

A lot of union members and supporters don't realize this. They honestly believe employers no longer have any rights to manage their workforce once a union is in the picture. When they find out the hard way that they really do have to do the job their employer hired them to do if they want to keep getting a paycheque, they think they've been hard done by.

[socialist]

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.

Why is the government so scared of arbitration? They want to avoid the court cases where they broke the law.

[TimG]

Why is the government so scared of arbitration?

Arbitration is a process tilted in favor of unions because arbitrators tend to assume the government has an infinite pool of money. No government that cares about being able to keep its books in order can agree to arbitration.

A better question is: why is the BCTF so afraid of arbitration for the class size/support issues? The BCTF offer explicitly excludes those items from consideration. That is a duplicitous move on the part of the BCTF.

Edited September 5, 2014 by TimG

[sharkman]

Because they'd lose and they know it. They've lost in the courts and face another loss this October. They are going to pay for illegally ripping up a legal contract, but like an addict avoid the reality of the situation for as long as they can. Stay away from the bath salts, Pct!

[TimG]

They are going to pay for illegally ripping up a legal contract.

How many years were left on the contract they ripped up? 1? 2? The only thing they are liable for is compensation for the the one or two years that the contract had left to go and that compensation has to be reasonable.

The problem with the court ruling which needs to be overturned is the claim that contract should be continued beyond its original expiry date because it was ripped up. A proposition which is completely absurd.

Edited September 5, 2014 by TimG