BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[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

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.

[overthere]

That's the only apparent reason for refusing to go to binding arbitration. And we know they are too anti-union to actually negotiate, as their sad performance last weekend displayed, in spite of having Vince Ready on tap to really get something done. Their only move, therefore, is to let parents twist in the wind for a month, and then when the province is in an uproar, legislate them back to work. The whole province will have to suffer for their agenda.

Wow, so many errors in just one paragraph.

There is no economic point from the govt side to going to binding abitration. If you have already presented your best offer: the same as the other public sector unions got- there is zero reason to risk having an arbitrator telling you to 'meet in the middle'. "anti-union'? Didn't the govt just sign agreements with a whack of other unions? Oh, I see, a failure to roll over and play dead is anti-union? In fairness to the BCTF their bully tactics have worked every other time, so they must be terribly confused when it does not happen this time.

[overthere]

Fassbender was going on about how much arbitration cost the province during the doctors dispute. It might also have stopped a mass exit of doctors from the province.

That old canard gets trotted out regularly in many places in Canada, beginning with the introduction of Medicare in SK in the 60s.

It never happens.

It certainly does not apply to teachers, who would find themselves fighting for substitute teaching jobs in Whale Nuts, NWT if they followed through. There are plenty of teachers in Canada, and the universities churn out thousands more very year no matter how bad the job prospects may be. In any normal industry, that means the price of teachers would plummet.

[Wilber]

That old canard gets trotted out regularly in many places in Canada, beginning with the introduction of Medicare in SK in the 60s.

It never happens.

It certainly does not apply to teachers, who would find themselves fighting for substitute teaching jobs in Whale Nuts, NWT if they followed through. There are plenty of teachers in Canada, and the universities churn out thousands more very year no matter how bad the job prospects may be. In any normal industry, that means the price of teachers would plummet.

We have had doctors leave before. They are in demand just about everywhere and we have a shortage here. Many have to rely on drop in clinics and wait times for specialists are long.

People go into teaching for many reasons, two of which are compensation and benefits. Take those away and who is going to spend five years in university and years working part time in order to get a full time teaching job? Mind you, people do the strangest things for the love of it. I say the same thing about flying. It used to be a great career but we have brought is so low that I think one would have to be a fool to enter it. I am extremely grateful neither of my kids wanted to. Lots of people still do though, but I wonder how long it will last.

[Hal 9000]

I believe that part of the problem is that teachers won't leave. They retire at 55 or whatever, collect full pension and benefits, then get themselves rehired (keeping their high end rate). Once a teacher retires - just leave already. Leave and make room for someone else.

P.S - The teachers also want the ability to retire at 52 now. So, that adds 3 more years of double pay

Edited September 6, 2014 by Hal 9000

[Wilber]

I believe that part of the problem is that teachers won't leave. They retire at 55 or whatever, collect full pension and benefits, then get themselves rehired (keeping their high end rate). Once a teacher retires - just leave already. Leave and make room for someone else.

If that is the case, I would completely agree with you.

[Pct2017]

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.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Pct2017

[Bob Macadoo]

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. ... 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.

Wrong. Just because future control of workload was arbitrated should and cannot dictate how past negotiated control of workload was established, nor unilateral dictate by the employer. If the arbitrator says future class size can be 35 but previous contract said 25, the gov't must compensate the teachers for the unilateral change they made. The court case covers up to the arbitration. The arbitration cannot be retroactive.

[Bob Macadoo]

I believe that part of the problem is that teachers won't leave. They retire at 55 or whatever, collect full pension and benefits, then get themselves rehired (keeping their high end rate). Once a teacher retires - just leave already. Leave and make room for someone else.

P.S - The teachers also want the ability to retire at 52 now. So, that adds 3 more years of double pay

Not quite double dipping is a separate and distinct problem the union and boards must clear on their own. Due to early retirees and boardsunwilling to invest time in new teachers. Its laziness on both sides......the union could fix their end easily, lazy administration......thats harder.

[Hal 9000]

Not quite double dipping is a separate and distinct problem the union and boards must clear on their own. Due to early retirees and boardsunwilling to invest time in new teachers. Its laziness on both sides......the union could fix their end easily, lazy administration......thats harder.

But, the employer still has to pay for the problem - in this case the government. I don't know how pensions work for the education budget, but worst case scenario, the gov is paying the teacher full pension and top salary while a young teacher is crying poor because she can't get full time employment and is at the bottom tier.

The Union isn't gonna deal with this issue, far from it, they want teachers to be able to pull this scam 3 years earlier...and, I'm sure the government would love to invest in new teachers if the old ones would just retire and stay retired.

[sharkman]

Not quite double dipping is a separate and distinct problem the union and boards must clear on their own. Due to early retirees and boardsunwilling to invest time in new teachers. Its laziness on both sides......the union could fix their end easily, lazy administration......thats harder.

Actually, the double dipping comment is like much of the attacks coming from the pro government crowd, containing a 1/2 truth surrounded by exaggerations aplenty.

In SOME school districts(meaning, not all by a long shot), teachers are allowed to retire, collect a pension, and go on staff as a substitute teacher. On the days they work, which of course is far from full time, they get their same rate of pay only when they work 3 days in a row otherwise it's standard sub pay, and of course there are no benefits. Teachers in this category keep the amount of days worked limited so as to avoid a threshold of heavier taxes(as any person would do in that situation). They provide a valuable service to the district being that they are veterans of the classroom and won't allow students to run a little wild as some want to do when a sub is teaching.

But again, it's not every district, and really it's no big deal. And here's the thing. School districts WANT teachers to retire early so they can replace them with new teachers who have to work for 10 years to get up to full salary. Anyway, some districts accept retired teachers in the sub pool if there's a teacher shortage in a certain subject. Double dipping? Not really, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a gov fanboy with the vapors. Anything to avoid the thought that the government has painted themselves into a corner by legislating the teachers back too many times and actually ripping up a legal document in 2002, and the resulting court decisions with another coming in October. They're too proud to compromise with the teachers, and too constricted by their past sins to negotiate, so the whole province has to twist in the wind for an entire month.

Edited September 6, 2014 by sharkman

[TimG]

boardsunwilling to invest time in new teachers.

Please provide more explanation on what you mean. I heard retired teachers get priority over younger workers because of union seniority rules - not because of any board decision.

[TimG]

But again, it's not every district, and really it's no big deal.

It is a huge deal because younger teachers are denied to opportunity to work and get experience.

[sharkman]

It is a huge deal because younger teachers are denied to opportunity to work and get experience.

Nice to hear a concern for teachers coming from you.

That teacher that may retire gives up his/her spot as a full timer to most likely a sub. The teacher that retires to do this would have stayed in the full time position another 3, 5, or more years, but gave it up early to a sub. They retire eventually, and I doubt any stay working past 65, maybe a few, but your concern is misplaced. If the teacher did not have this option they'd stay in the full time position until 65, keeping any sub teachers out of a full time position that much longer, and it seems this would be fine with you.

At any rate, if that's your only quibble with my post, then I must be doing alright.

[Hal 9000]

Actually, the double dipping comment is like much of the attacks coming from the pro government crowd, containing a 1/2 truth surrounded by exaggerations aplenty.

In SOME school districts(meaning, not all by a long shot), teachers are allowed to retire, collect a pension, and go on staff as a substitute teacher. On the days they work, which of course is far from full time, they get their same rate of pay only when they work 3 days in a row otherwise it's standard sub pay, and of course there are no benefits. Teachers in this category keep the amount of days worked limited so as to avoid a threshold of heavier taxes(as any person would do in that situation). They provide a valuable service to the district being that they are veterans of the classroom and won't allow students to run a little wild as some want to do when a sub is teaching.

But again, it's not every district, and really it's no big deal. And here's the thing. School districts WANT teachers to retire early so they can replace them with new teachers who have to work for 10 years to get up to full salary. Anyway, some districts accept retired teachers in the sub pool if there's a teacher shortage in a certain subject. Double dipping? Not really, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a gov fanboy with the vapors. Anything to avoid the thought that the government has painted themselves into a corner by legislating the teachers back too many times and actually ripping up a legal document in 2002, and the resulting court decisions with another coming in October. They're too proud to compromise with the teachers, and too constricted by their past sins to negotiate, so the whole province has to twist in the wind for an entire month.

You guys sit and complain telling us how young teachers don't make enough and don't get full time until they're 30ish, then when I tell you why , you deny it, down play it and make excuses. Why? Because then you'd have to look toward the union or the teachers themselves for answers. There is no way that a 55 or 52 YO teacher should be collecting full pension and working for the same employer.

[Hal 9000]

Nice to hear a concern for teachers coming from you.

That teacher that may retire gives up his/her spot as a full timer to most likely a sub. The teacher that retires to do this would have stayed in the full time position another 3, 5, or more years, but gave it up early to a sub. They retire eventually, and I doubt any stay working past 65, maybe a few, but your concern is misplaced. If the teacher did not have this option they'd stay in the full time position until 65, keeping any sub teachers out of a full time position that much longer, and it seems this would be fine with you.

At any rate, if that's your only quibble with my post, then I must be doing alright.

If they were working until retirement and then actually...retiring, we'd only be paying them once and would have money to employ more teachers - maybe...to you know, bring the class sizes down.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Hal 9000

[Pct2017]

Wrong. Just because future control of workload was arbitrated should and cannot dictate how past negotiated control of workload was established, nor unilateral dictate by the employer. If the arbitrator says future class size can be 35 but previous contract said 25, the gov't must compensate the teachers for the unilateral change they made. The court case covers up to the arbitration. The arbitration cannot be retroactive.

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.

[overthere]

We have had doctors leave before. They are in demand just about everywhere and we have a shortage here. Many have to rely on drop in clinics and wait times for specialists are long.

People go into teaching for many reasons, two of which are compensation and benefits. Take those away and who is going to spend five years in university and years working part time in order to get a full time teaching job? Mind you, people do the strangest things for the love of it. I say the same thing about flying. It used to be a great career but we have brought is so low that I think one would have to be a fool to enter it. I am extremely grateful neither of my kids wanted to. Lots of people still do though, but I wonder how long it will last.

Yep doctors come and go regularly, but that old baloney about them leaving en masse just never happened. Never. So let's not pretend teachers are going to do that anywhere incuding BC.

Take away what? We're talking about limiting RAISES, limiting INCREASES in a very excellent benefit package and NOT INCREASING the number of teachers by having strict classroom sizes. Teachers are well paid and have superb benefits now. Well, thousands of teachers who do not get jobs on graduation gamble on just what you say- getting a full time contract in the location they want to work. Tough shit for the grad who thinks all that just falls in your lap, it doesn't for many of us. Maybe they should apply some research skills to learning about their profession before bleating about not getting everyhting they want.

For the love of it? How does any grad know enough about it- having zero experience at the work- to 'love it'?

[overthere]

If the teacher did not have this option they'd stay in the full time position until 65,

Very few do, since the 'magic number ' is 85 and unless you start late the majority have retired on full and generous pension well before that.

[Hal 9000]

Yep doctors come and go regularly, but that old baloney about them leaving en masse just never happened. Never. So let's not pretend teachers are going to do that anywhere incuding BC.

Take away what? We're talking about limiting RAISES, limiting INCREASES in a very excellent benefit package and NOT INCREASING the number of teachers by having strict classroom sizes. Teachers are well paid and have superb benefits now. Well, thousands of teachers who do not get jobs on graduation gamble on just what you say- getting a full time contract in the location they want to work. Tough shit for the grad who thinks all that just falls in your lap, it doesn't for many of us. Maybe they should apply some research skills to learning about their profession before bleating about not getting everyhting they want.

For the love of it? How does any grad know enough about it- having zero experience at the work- to 'love it'?

Every strike has the old "exodus" to other lands argument. The teachers always do it, but the nurses are my favourite - sure you're gonna give up 35-40$ per hour plus OT, benefits and a cushy government pension to go to the us and work for a private hospital.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Hal 9000

[sharkman]

You guys sit and complain telling us how young teachers don't make enough and don't get full time until they're 30ish, then when I tell you why , you deny it, down play it and make excuses. Why? Because then you'd have to look toward the union or the teachers themselves for answers. There is no way that a 55 or 52 YO teacher should be collecting full pension and working for the same employer.

I do no such thing, you must have me confused with someone else. With the baby boomers starting to retire, my position is there are lots of jobs coming available.

[sharkman]

If they were working until retirement and then actually...retiring, we'd only be paying them once and would have money to employ more teachers - maybe...to you know, bring the class sizes down.

The amount of money paid out goes down with this early retirement, that is why school districts are happy to see teachers retire early even if they take a part time subbing job.

[Bob Macadoo]

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.

What don't I get? The gov't hopes that arbitration will wipe away the billion $$$ owed, by showing that they were "correct" in prohibiting the term as obviously the arbitrator agreed. It may be untrue but it certainly will cause delay/confusion in the appeal process. Goddamn lawyers.....include politicians with that. They think the public is dumb to weasel machinations.

I believe if the order is upheld and the gov't doesn't negotiate a compensatory settlement with the union in lieu of cash (eg. benefit, defferred investment, etc.) then yes they will be cutting a restitution cheque of some amount.

[Hal 9000]

The amount of money paid out goes down with this early retirement, that is why school districts are happy to see teachers retire early even if they take a part time subbing job.

Slightly! You can't tell me that paying out pensions to teachers who are still teaching is cost effective. When a teacher hits retirement age and wants to keep teaching, they essentially get a 60-70% raise to their bottom line. Talk about "golden years".

It should be - "you've retired, fine see ya! bring in the new blood".

[Pct2017]

What don't I get? The gov't hopes that arbitration will wipe away the billion $$$ owed, by showing that they were "correct" in prohibiting the term as obviously the arbitrator agreed. It may be untrue but it certainly will cause delay/confusion in the appeal process. Goddamn lawyers.....include politicians with that. They think the public is dumb to weasel machinations.

I believe if the order is upheld and the gov't doesn't negotiate a compensatory settlement with the union in lieu of cash (eg. benefit, defferred investment, etc.) then yes they will be cutting a restitution cheque of some amount.

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.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Pct2017