BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[bleeding heart]

Good point, and I think it's pretty obvious that students respond well to such a teaching style.

Surely all of us have memories of a favourite teacher or three....and that we remember actually learning something from them, and in a happy learning environment.

[socialist]

Well, that is true. Here in BC, particularly at UBC, you have to have a 120 credit degree before you enter the Faculty of Education. So there is four years. But, what you are kind of forgetting to mention is that the actual B Ed is then completed in 12 months.

Hence, I am still assuming that if you refer to a teacher attending university for almost 10 years, that is due in part that she has to flunk out of at least one other faculty before fleeing to teacher school.

I think BC Education minister should be concerned with his credibility when he faces appeal court in October. It's not looking good for him. So far the neo-liberal government is looking bad to me.

[Wilber]

The BCTF's wage demands are pie in the sky and everyone knows it. The government might be smart to make a more realistic offer to put pressure on the union executive to settle. I also think they are dreaming if they think they can get a ten year agreement before this court case is finally settled. If I was a teacher, I sure wouldn't.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Wilber

[Bryan]

BC is running a $1.5B deficit. The actual amount of money available for new salaries is a negative number. In their extreme generosity, the Govt of BC has NOT asked the teachers to take a pay cut, but have actually offered a modest increase. If the teachers and unions were operating in good faith, they should be thanking the government.

[Wilber]

BC is running a $1.5B deficit. The actual amount of money available for new salaries is a negative number. In their extreme generosity, the Govt of BC has NOT asked the teachers to take a pay cut, but have actually offered a modest increase. If the teachers and unions were operating in good faith, they should be thanking the government.

They haven't had an increase for three years.

[Bryan]

They haven't had an increase for three years.

A lot of people have taken pay cuts in the last three years. BC's available budget is less-than-zero. They should be cutting salaries, but they are very generously offering a modest increase. The teachers should be thanking the government.

[Wilber]

A lot of people have taken pay cuts in the last three years. BC's available budget is less-than-zero. They should be cutting salaries, but they are very generously offering a modest increase. The teachers should be thanking the government.

I agree with socialist on one thing. I think the courts are going to hand the government its ass so they better start getting serious before they get stuck with a ruling that will really cost them.

This government has a very poor record when it comes to court decisions concerning labour contracts.

[Pct2017]

I agree with socialist on one thing. I think the courts are going to hand the government its ass so they better start getting serious before they get stuck with a ruling that will really cost them.

This government has a very poor record when it comes to court decisions concerning labour contracts.

The two court decisions that teachers and their groupies love to tout as massive victories are very misunderstood. Basically what Judge

Griffin stated was that the government had to allow class size and composition to be part of the contract negotiations. And, what did Bill 22 state? That class size and composition could be part of this current round of contract negotiations. The judge has never stated that the province has to regress to the levels that Glen Clark gave away to the BCTF as part of his burn it to the ground strategy late in his term.

The biggest difference that her judgement made was the starting position for the two parties. She has said that the negotiations will start from 2001 levels while the government would have preferred to start from 2012 levels. But, regardless, the provisions of class size and composition were always going to be part of these negotiations.

The other myth out there about this ruling is that The class sizes and composition referenced by Judge Griffin had been in effect forever. They were brought into effect by legislation in 1999 and then tossed in 2001.

Finally, teachers just love to say that they sacrificed a pay raise in order to get class size and composition in that contract. And, as usual, this totally disingenuous on their part. Their total compensation package (pensions etc) was increased by 11% in that contract. It is very similar to Wilbur stating that the teachers have not had an increase for three years. Again, that is playing fast and loose with the facts. Their last two year contract which ended last June had no increase, just like all other public sector settlements. Whether they get a raise for this, the third year has yet to be determined, but if they do, it will be retroactive.

[socialist]

A lot of people have taken pay cuts in the last three years. BC's available budget is less-than-zero. They should be cutting salaries, but they are very generously offering a modest increase. The teachers should be thanking the government.

Yet the corporations keep getting tax breaks. You think that is fine. Sacrifice the future of children to appease massive corporations. The neo-liberal agenda at its finest.

[Bryan]

Every time you say "neo-liberal", it takes away from what little credibility you might have had.

Lower corporate tax has resulted in increased government revenues. Higher corporate profits has resulted in more jobs.

Why do you hate it when people have jobs?

[GostHacked]

Every time you say "neo-liberal", it takes away from what little credibility you might have had.

Lower corporate tax has resulted in increased government revenues. Higher corporate profits has resulted in more jobs.

Why do you hate it when people have jobs?

The company I worked for had huge profits, enough to buy another corporation. but I, like a couple thousand others over the past couple years were let go. Higher corporate profits do NOT mean more jobs. Check how many are downsizing across the board. Even with record profits.

[cybercoma]

Every time you say "neo-liberal", it takes away from what little credibility you might have had.

Why is that?

[Wilber]

Why is that?

Perhaps because a label is not an argument. neo seems to be the new catch word people use to label someone they don't agree with.

[cybercoma]

Neo-liberalism is a political philosophy.

[Bryan]

The company I worked for had huge profits, enough to buy another corporation. but I, like a couple thousand others over the past couple years were let go. Higher corporate profits do NOT mean more jobs. Check how many are downsizing across the board. Even with record profits.

Some companies do better than others. The totals number of jobs in this country is increasing. Over a million net new jobs in this country during that time, most of them paying more than the ones they replaced.

Neo-liberalism is a political philosophy.

"Socialist" has no idea what it even means though. He only says it because he thinks it sounds bad.

[Pct2017]

The BCTF is ramping up all the usual rhetoric about how giving the teachers a raise and better bennies Is " for the children". Blah blah blah.

Would it not be refreshing for the head of any teachers union to be honest and forthcoming. Well, it turns out that this does happen on very rare occasions. Take for example what Albert Shanker, then the head of the United Federation of Teachers stated: "When school children start paying union dues, that is when I will start representing the interests of children"

Then there was Bob Chanin, who was the outgoing General Counsel of the National Education Association who stated in reference to what the ideology of the NEA was: "it is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. It is because we believe that we are the union that can most effectively represent teachers and can protect their rights and advance their interests as employees." Look up the video of this speech and you will see the room erupt in a standing ovation when he states this.

But of course, it is always for the children.

[Michael Hardner]

Take for example what Albert Shanker, then the head of the United Federation of Teachers stated: "When school children start paying union dues, that is when I will start representing the interests of children"

That's what is called a 'glurge':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Shanker

In other words, he didn't say it.

Of course they're arguing in their own interests. They have to choose themselves over their employers at some times... The trick seems to be to paint them as selfish in the eyes of "the" public, really the masses. It's kind of silly for this argument to come up, because we end up arguing PR not issues.

[Pct2017]

That's what is called a 'glurge':http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_ShankerIn other words, he didn't say it.Of course they're arguing in their own interests. They have to choose themselves over their employers at some times... The trick seems to be to paint them as selfish in the eyes of "the" public, really the masses. It's kind of silly for this argument to come up, because we end up arguing PR not issues.

The fact that he said before the days of camera phones does not prove in absolute terms that he did no say it. By all accounts, he was candid enough to have come up with this type of statement.

BTW, I generally like your posts as they are neutral but provocative. But using Wikipedia diminished my respect for you!!!!

As for your statement that the war for public sentiment is "silly", maybe you are right, maybe not. But at the end of the day, it is all the BCTF knows. Their mantra has long been if you oppose our wage demands then you are against students. As I said previously, it was refreshing to hear of teacher union leaders who were willing to state that the sole purpose of their union was to put gold in the pockets of it's members, nothing more, nothing less.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Pct2017

[socialist]

The fact that he said before the days of camera phones does not prove in absolute terms that he did no say it. By all accounts, he was candid enough to have come up with this type of statement.

BTW, I generally like your posts as they are neutral but provocative. But using Wikipedia diminished my respect for you!!!!

As for your statement that the war for public sentiment is "silly", maybe you are right, maybe not. But at the end of the day, it is all the BCTF knows. Their mantra has long been if you oppose our wage demands then you are against students. As I said previously, it was refreshing to hear of teacher union leaders who were willing to state that the sole purpose of their union was to put gold in the pockets of it's members, nothing more, nothing less.

It must bug you that the majority of the BC public is siding with the BCTF. But court rulings mean nothing to people like you. Does democracy mean anything to you?

[Michael Hardner]

The fact that he said before the days of camera phones does not prove in absolute terms that he did no say it. By all accounts, he was candid enough to have come up with this type of statement.

There are too many unattributed posts out there. Snopes is good to count on.

BTW, I generally like your posts as they are neutral but provocative. But using Wikipedia diminished my respect for you!!!!

Sorry to hear. Wiki is better than it was - but you have to check the sources noted.

But at the end of the day, it is all the BCTF knows.

Well, sure. That's a sound strategy.

it was refreshing to hear of teacher union leaders who were willing to state that the sole purpose of their union was to put gold in the pockets of it's members, nothing more, nothing less.

Except... that was just as likely made up as not.

[socialist]

Edited May 1, 2014 by socialist

[socialist]

Bob Chanin stands up for public education. I know PCT's cheezy reference to Bob Chanin's comments were taken out of context. Here it is. PCT is appealing to the low information crowd with his comments.

Edited May 1, 2014 by socialist

[Michael Hardner]

Then there was Bob Chanin, who was the outgoing General Counsel of the National Education Association who stated in reference to what the ideology of the NEA was: "it is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. It is because we believe that we are the union that can most effectively represent teachers and can protect their rights and advance their interests as employees." Look up the video of this speech and you will see the room erupt in a standing ovation when he states this.

So Socialist did exactly what you said here, and your quote is completely out of context, and actually a misquote as well.

You should be more accurate in the future.

[socialist]

So Socialist did exactly what you said here, and your quote is completely out of context, and actually a misquote as well.

You should be more accurate in the future.

We won't see PCT here as I've embarrassed him once again.

[Pct2017]

We won't see PCT here as I've embarrassed him once again.

Thank you for posting the video there Plink. Boy oh boy, when you watch from around 3:30 on the video to the end, well you sure get me good. He says exactly what I quoted and you cannot even argue that it is contextually skewed.

But enough about that. Back to the dispute between the most reviled public union in BC and the government which just recently received a strong mandate to manage all public affairs. Pretty aggressive move by the employer this week. They have told the union that seeing show you are not currently under contract, then you can pay for all of the bennies that your membership has come to enjoy. Here is the bill for June, and that will be five million dollars please. Don't want to pay it? OK, but no medical or dental for your whiny members. As I said, it is aggressive, but very cunning. The individual teacher is not impacted, but it puts a ton of pressure squarely on the union's shoulders to get back to bargaining seriously.