BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[Bob Macadoo]

Bob, all I can suggest is that you read justice Griffins second ruling in this case. .... Nowhere did she discuss retroactive pay or any form of restitution.

Wasn't really referring to pay, was about the $2 million damages award. Never will get blood from a stone but you might find some gold.

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.

Unless previous management entered into a binding contract to the contrary, which was the ruling. They weren't minors, as childish as the ministers are.....contract in effect.

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.

Standard legal procedure. Which is again why you can place restrictions on arbitration to delineate scope which the gov't dare not do else screw up their plans to further bog down the court. There is no incentive for the union to move on this item as they have the flush hand....trading in for a possible straight flush would be ill advised. Edited September 7, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[overthere]

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.

That is a pretty much nonsense. Teachers retire 'early' (like other public service gravy lickers) when and only when it is financially benefitical. Let's not pretend there is any act of charity in leaving their job 'early'. Please.

Very few teachers stay to age 65 unless they started their careers late.

And again, if it is such a huge hardship for subs to get into the job, why are they taking an education degree to begin with?

[sharkman]

That is a pretty much nonsense. Teachers retire 'early' (like other public service gravy lickers) when and only when it is financially benefitical. Let's not pretend there is any act of charity in leaving their job 'early'. Please.

Very few teachers stay to age 65 unless they started their careers late.

And again, if it is such a huge hardship for subs to get into the job, why are they taking an education degree to begin with?

They don't retire early to get rich, define "financially beneficial". They retire because their pension plan is maxed out, but it's designed that way, to have them retire early so they can leave or stay. I said nothing about charity, you really need to work on your comprehension, I was saying it's a benefit to subs that teachers retire early.

On your last point, maybe you should ask them. Look, you're out to lunch on how things are in BC, having no idea we require students to get 5 years of education to become accredited. I notice this post was made around the same time last night that you made the racist comment, I'm not surprised.

Edited September 7, 2014 by sharkman

[Pct2017]

Standard legal procedure. Which is again why you can place restrictions on arbitration to delineate scope which the gov't dare not do else screw up their plans to further bog down the court. There is no incentive for the union to move on this item as they have the flush hand....trading in for a possible straight flush would be ill advised.

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 Macadoo]

...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.

I wouldn't call legislating a flush hand. That's an Ace pair high bluff.....you think you got something but its dicey. The union risks losing control of future class composition. Which unlike wage/benefit is likely an all or nothing wager......there is a winner/loser in that one, where the other is a loser/loser split scenario.

[Wilber]

I don't believe in double dipping. It depends how the teachers pension plan is financed. If it is 100% funded by teacher contributuions, it is up to them what they do with it. If the tax payer is subsidizing their pension while they are still working, that's completely wrong.

[Bob Macadoo]

I don't believe in double dipping. It depends how the teachers pension plan is financed. If it is 100% funded by teacher contributuions, it is up to them what they do with it. If the tax payer is subsidizing their pension while they are still working, that's completely wrong.

I think needs clarification by BC members. Are working retirees considered "full" union members or are they designated "retiree" member status? If they are the latter then they should enjoy ZERO seniority rights. They fight with the other "temp" worker equally and the administration decides. If the retiree is employed take it up with your principal if you don't like it as a parent/taxpayer.

[sharkman]

I think needs clarification by BC members. Are working retirees considered "full" union members or are they designated "retiree" member status? If they are the latter then they should enjoy ZERO seniority rights. They fight with the other "temp" worker equally and the administration decides. If the retiree is employed take it up with your principal if you don't like it as a parent/taxpayer.

Well, according to my wife, a retired sub does not get seniority over others. It's based on who answers calls more vs those that refuse repeatedly, and go to a second tier list that sees less action. It also depends on the subject being taught I suspect. So a retired sub is treated the same as the others. As to pension contributions, I'm not sure what/if the district makes contributions, but a teacher who's reached full salary(after 10 years) pays just under 10 grand per year into their pension plan.

Edited September 7, 2014 by sharkman

[danchessplayer]

very low wages

[overthere]

They don't retire early to get rich, define "financially beneficial". They retire because their pension plan is maxed out, but it's designed that way, to have them retire early so they can leave or stay. I said nothing about charity, you really need to work on your comprehension, I was saying it's a benefit to subs that teachers retire early.

On your last point, maybe you should ask them. Look, you're out to lunch on how things are in BC, having no idea we require students to get 5 years of education to become accredited. I notice this post was made around the same time last night that you made the racist comment, I'm not surprised.

Well, according to my wife, a retired sub does not get seniority over others. It's based on who answers calls more vs those that refuse repeatedly, and go to a second tier list that sees less action. It also depends on the subject being taught I suspect. So a retired sub is treated the same as the others. As to pension contributions, I'm not sure what/if the district makes contributions, but a teacher who's reached full salary(after 10 years) pays just under 10 grand per year into their pension plan.

Racist comment? wtf are you talking about now?

Well, accorsding to my wife( a teacher) teachers can request specific subs if they choose, and about 95% of the time they pick people who know the school, are experienced, know the grade level and are more likely to be effective immediately in the classrooom.

Guess who that might be, who might be their very first choice? Yep, retired teachers and if at all possible retired from that very school. It makes perfect sense from the teachers point of view. There are also people who more or less make careers from subbing since they can work off and on when it suits them.

Teachers retire early becauswe it is to their personal advantage. There is no other reason and early retirement is entirely voluntary. They usually get to draw full pensions early, that's the prime draw for doing it.

Full pension and you can either sub or start a new career since you are young enough.

Edited September 7, 2014 by overthere

[sharkman]

Racist comment? wtf are you talking about now?

Well, accorsding to my wife( a teacher) teachers can request specific subs if they choose, and about 95% of the time they pick people who know the school, are experienced, know the grade level and are more likely to be effective immediately in the classrooom.

Guess who that might be, who might be their very first choice? Yep, retired teachers and if at all possible retired from that very school. It makes perfect sense from the teachers point of view. There are also people who more or less make careers from subbing since they can work off and on when it suits them.

Teachers retire early becauswe it is to their personal advantage. There is no other reason and early retirement is entirely voluntary. They usually get to draw full pensions early, that's the prime draw for doing it.

Full pension and you can either sub or start a new career since you are young enough.

Well this is pretty much nonsense, 95%? Get real, there are many factors involved. I could make up numbers too but I don't.

And so what? It's their pension. They've paid into it for 30-40 years and it's their money, invested so they can draw on it. Yes it's to their advantage. Yes it's voluntary. So what? If you are so against the union teacher situation, why are you taking money from it every month? Your wife makes what, 70 grand a year? It's hypocritical to accept this money, tell her to quit her job and go teach in a private school if you're so against it.

[overthere]

Against what? I'm a strong supporter of public education, it is far better than the alternatives here.

It's not nonsense, teachers can pick subs and of course they pick people they know whenever they can. Duh..

Get real, there are many factors involved.

What factors are those? A teacher is ill or has an appt or whatever, they can and do make arrangements for their classroom to be covered. Of course they pick somebody they know can do the job, which eliminates strangers from a random pool unless that is all there is available. Duh.

it's their money, invested so they can draw on it.

half of it is their money, the rest is public money. I do agree they are entitled to enjoy their earned pensions. The purpose of my post is to counter your implication that early retirement is some sort of involuntary gift to subs or school boards.

[Bob Macadoo]

Well, accorsding to my wife( a teacher) teachers can request specific subs if they choose, and about 95% of the time they pick people who know the school, are experienced, know the grade level and are more likely to be effective immediately in the classrooom.

1) Alta guidelines don't apply in BC.

2) Those criteria would also be the choices for principals....you know the people who "run" things.

Teachers retire early becauswe it is to their personal advantage. There is no other reason and early retirement is entirely voluntary. They usually get to draw full pensions early, that's the prime draw for doing it.

Full pension and you can either sub or start a new career since you are young enough.

Hmmmm investors taking advantage of their investment, on the terms granted to them....novel. There are tax penalties involved, its not all roses.

[Pct2017]

As to pension contributions, I'm not sure what/if the district makes contributions, but a teacher who's reached full salary(after 10 years) pays just under 10 grand per year into their pension plan.

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.

[Bob Macadoo]

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.

"Don't get mad, get even."

[Hal 9000]

The point of the whole pension idea (for me anyway) is that people can't blame the government because young teachers have a hard time breaking in - they can look directly at the teachers themselves. Teachers technically retire, yet they are still working. This can not be good for anyone except those particular teachers.

It's a loophole that the Union, the teachers and the government all know is there. It's one of the many concessions that the gov't makes to appease these people (with no thanks), so that the teachers who've been around the block can cash in - and they do...big time. It's just concessions like sick time, pro-D days, Prep days, TTOC's getting paid prep time, etc.etc. The teachers want (or wanted) 10 days paid for the death of a friend.

If one actually studies the BCTF proposal, you can see how it's structured to enable these "retired" teachers to extract even more during their "golden years".

[Bob Macadoo]

The point of the whole pension idea (for me anyway) is that people can't blame the government because young teachers have a hard time breaking in - they can look directly at the teachers themselves. Teachers technically retire, yet they are still working. This can not be good for anyone except those particular teachers.

It's a loophole that the Union, the teachers and the government all know is there. It's one of the many concessions that the gov't makes to appease these people (with no thanks), so that the teachers who've been around the block can cash in - and they do...big time. It's just concessions like sick time, pro-D days, Prep days, TTOC's getting paid prep time, etc.etc. The teachers want (or wanted) 10 days paid for the death of a friend.

If one actually studies the BCTF proposal, you can see how it's structured to enable these "retired" teachers to extract even more during their "golden years".

It's not a bargaining issue for the union as retirees are no longer under collective representation. The gov't could legislate that retirees are prohibited from spot work and the union wouldn't lift a finger. They won't though I bet.....why would that be I wonder?

[sharkman]

The point of the whole pension idea (for me anyway) is that people can't blame the government because young teachers have a hard time breaking in - they can look directly at the teachers themselves. Teachers technically retire, yet they are still working. This can not be good for anyone except those particular teachers.

It's a loophole that the Union, the teachers and the government all know is there. It's one of the many concessions that the gov't makes to appease these people (with no thanks), so that the teachers who've been around the block can cash in - and they do...big time. It's just concessions like sick time, pro-D days, Prep days, TTOC's getting paid prep time, etc.etc. The teachers want (or wanted) 10 days paid for the death of a friend.

If one actually studies the BCTF proposal, you can see how it's structured to enable these "retired" teachers to extract even more during their "golden years".

You may be missing something here. If the teachers stay until 65 in full time positions, no one can move up until then. Some teachers are retiring early, allowing young teachers to take their places. So the early retirements are a good thing, whether or not they then start subbing. My wife knows of no one in her school who retired early to start subbing. Sure it happens, but it's not a big deal, really. It's just a bone that some like work on. And the fact remains, many of the current teachers are baby boomers getting near retirement, and indeed starting to retire. There are lots of positions coming.

[Hal 9000]

It's not a bargaining issue for the union as retirees are no longer under collective representation. The gov't could legislate that retirees are prohibited from spot work and the union wouldn't lift a finger. They won't though I bet.....why would that be I wonder?

No chance, the system is set-up for the exact purpose of allowing these teachers to both retire and still keep working in the system. That;s why the TTOC's and substitutes are getting bumped up and why they get full pension, perks and benefits. If the Union wanted to bring in new teachers so bad, they wouldn't bargain for such things that make coming back so lucrative, they'd instead be promoting younger teachers.

No, many of the negotiated perks are for the older teachers.

[Bob Macadoo]

No chance, the system is set-up for the exact purpose of allowing these teachers to both retire and still keep working in the system. That;s why the TTOC's and substitutes are getting bumped up and why they get full pension, perks and benefits. If the Union wanted to bring in new teachers so bad, they wouldn't bargain for such things that make coming back so lucrative, they'd instead be promoting younger teachers.

No, many of the negotiated perks are for the older teachers.

You are ascribing the wrong intent to actions. You are correct the union represents most often the largest demographic of teachers, in order to keep their job (just like any politician). It just so happens the largest demographic are senior teachers. Retired teachers are NOT bargained for. Any benefits negotiated are not b/c they are entering retirement for double dipping. Do you think the union will bargain for end of career benefits once the boomers are gone? They'd be voted out pretty fast.

[Hal 9000]

You are ascribing the wrong intent to actions. You are correct the union represents most often the largest demographic of teachers, in order to keep their job (just like any politician). It just so happens the largest demographic are senior teachers. Retired teachers are NOT bargained for. Any benefits negotiated are not b/c they are entering retirement for double dipping. Do you think the union will bargain for end of career benefits once the boomers are gone? They'd be voted out pretty fast.

Really? When they negotiate retirement to be 52 and then negotiate perks and raises for subs and TOC's, that's exactly what they're doing otherwise, they'd encourage teachers to stay retired and start moving younger teachers up the ladder. What this proposal shows is that they want to perk the older teachers, yet still hire newer teachers at full rate/full time.

If they made retirement a permanent choice, there'd be more money to move younger teachers up the ladder - and that's what they should do!

[Bob Macadoo]

Really? When they negotiate retirement to be 52 and then negotiate perks and raises for subs and TOC's, that's exactly what they're doing otherwise, they'd encourage teachers to stay retired and start moving younger teachers up the ladder. What this proposal shows is that they want to perk the older teachers, yet still hire newer teachers at full rate/full time.

If they made retirement a permanent choice, there'd be more money to move younger teachers up the ladder - and that's what they should do!

Again....nothing is stopping the gov't from making it a permanent decision. If they aren't it kinda says something.

[Hal 9000]

Again....nothing is stopping the gov't from making it a permanent decision. If they aren't it kinda says something.

Yeah, the BCTF is stopping them...and, it's just one of those concessions that older teachers have been given. It's no accident or loophole, you can bet that it was negotiated to be exactly what it is.

What does it say to you?

[Hal 9000]

You may be missing something here. If the teachers stay until 65 in full time positions, no one can move up until then. Some teachers are retiring early, allowing young teachers to take their places. So the early retirements are a good thing, whether or not they then start subbing. My wife knows of no one in her school who retired early to start subbing. Sure it happens, but it's not a big deal, really. It's just a bone that some like work on. And the fact remains, many of the current teachers are baby boomers getting near retirement, and indeed starting to retire. There are lots of positions coming.

With all due respect, I get the feeling that you guys are relatively young or at least your wife is somewhat new to this, but the union is on their own path. The teachers will figure this out soon enough, i hope. The Gov't has agreed to the raises, signing bonuses and the perks/concessions and agreed to 75$mil in new teachers. The Union says it wants 100$m. If the teachers are willing to go the scorched earth route for $25M that will do diddly nothing for them personally, they're just as naive as we all suspected.

No, this is a Union that wants 2 things; new members and to crush the Liberals. They're willing to throw the teachers and our kids under the bus to get it too.

P.S - In looking over the proposal, I could easily shave off half that $25m in useless expenditures myself. Sooner or later the teachers will realize the diminishing returns of their requests and hopefully ask their union to take the deal.

[Bob Macadoo]

Yeah, the BCTF is stopping them...and, it's just one of those concessions that older teachers have been given. It's no accident or loophole, you can bet that it was negotiated to be exactly what it is.

What does it say to you?

What was negotiated? That retirees must be selected for spot work? Not correct. How is BCTF stopping them from introducing regulation? You don't even need legislation.....guess when there's no one to blame their mistakes on they are a little gunshy.