WestCoastRunner Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 Call-in shows are hardly random samples of opinions. The biggest barrier to a settlement is the BCTF with wage demands that the government cannot possibly meet. Call in shows are quite representative of the public. But having said that, let's give 40.00 per day per child up to 13 years of age while teachers are on strike. Can we call this 'buying parent's support' I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
WestCoastRunner Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 Call in shows are quite representative of the public. But having said that, let's give 40.00 per day per child up to 13 years of age while teachers are on strike. Can we call this 'buying parent's support' You know truthfully, I'm not really sure. I no longer have kids in the education system but having listened to many callers on cbc, I do have to agree that it sounds like the bc govt is doing some pretty shady shit here. I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
TimG Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) Can we call this 'buying parent's support'I call it justice. Parents are getting screwed over by the BCTF with its ridiculous demands and some token compensation is only fair. Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG
WestCoastRunner Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 I call it justice. Parents are getting screwed over by the BCTF with its ridiculous demands and some token compensation is only fair. I don't quite agree with that statement. I would rather see that token compensation put towards the education system instead of buying parents support. I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
WestCoastRunner Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 I don't quite agree with that statement. I would rather see that token compensation put towards the education system instead of buying parents support. I am disappointed with Christie Clarke. And I was one of her greatest supporters. I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
TimG Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 I don't quite agree with that statement. I would rather see that token compensation put towards the education system instead of buying parents support.You don't seem to understand the labour dynamics. Governments can't allocate new money to the system without it getting sucked out by labour union demands. That is why the government needs the BTCF to accept the wage package that the other unions have agreed to before it can discuss issues like class size (i.e. it is easier to put money in once it knows new money will actually go into the system instead of teachers pockets).
Bonam Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 Parents will need to look for day care, which costs money. The schools are out because of the government's dispute with the labor unions, which is no fault of most parents out there. Therefore, the government is doing the responsible thing and helping parents to shoulder the burden of day care costs until such time as the dispute is resolved. The teachers unions should follow suit, acknowledge their part in causing parents this undue hardship, and match the government, also giving parents $40/day.
The_Squid Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 This might be one of the stupidest things I have heard of... This money could be used to fund whatever settlement is reached. Not now... that will have to be paid for through other tax revenue. So I as a taxpayer are going to be paying twice. Nice... Why should taxpayers be paying parents for their inconvenience? What if it was a lockout? Would they pay them then too? They didn't earlier this year when they locked out teachers. How will this be administered? What are the costs involved? We will certainly be paying a lot more than $40 per day per kid since the program needs to also be administered. There are no new daycare spots... apparently, it is already at capacity... will they be creating daycare spots too? What about kids in private school? Or home school? Do they get $40? Quite a vote-buying scheme the BC Liberals have going... at a hefty cost to taxpayers.
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 Up to age 13...seriously ? I was already making money caring for other people's younger children much earlier than that. Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 Strikes don't help the students at all. That remains to be seen. The reality is the government is failing our children in a pretty bad way. Never mind teacher pay here being among the lowest in Canada, but they spend a thousand dollars less per child then the national average. The government doesnt think education is important, so its good that SOMEONE is standing up to them. I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) That remains to be seen. The reality is the government is failing our children in a pretty bad way. Never mind teacher pay here being among the lowest in Canada, but they spend a thousand dollars less per child then the national average.I reject the notion that the quality of the system is judged only by the money thrown at it. Try supporting your assertions with comparative metrics that actually mean something. The government doesnt think education is important, so its good that SOMEONE is standing up to them.Who? BCTF? Surely you jest. All the BCTF cares about is more money in their pockets. If they really cared about issues like class size they would accept the governments offer on wages and focus on those issues. Instead - negotiations are deadlocked because the BCTF is refuses to accept the wage package that the other unions have already accepted. Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG
Bonam Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 Why should taxpayers be paying parents for their inconvenience? Why do taxpayers ever have to pay for anything? Anyone's inconvenience? Any compensation to any entity? Because it's the government, duh. How will this be administered? What are the costs involved? We will certainly be paying a lot more than $40 per day per kid since the program needs to also be administered. There are no new daycare spots... apparently, it is already at capacity... will they be creating daycare spots too? Parents can find alternative arrangements than official daycare facilities. What about kids in private school? Or home school? Do they get $40? I presume only parents of kids that are in schools affected by the strike would get any money. Why would anyone else get it? Use some logic rather than outrage.
The_Squid Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 Why do taxpayers ever have to pay for anything? Anyone's inconvenience? Any compensation to any entity? Because it's the government, duh. Parents can find alternative arrangements than official daycare facilities. I presume only parents of kids that are in schools affected by the strike would get any money. Why would anyone else get it? Use some logic rather than outrage. So because government wastes money, that's a reason for wasting more money? Speaking of not using logic... It's hardly outrage. It's just a really stupid waste of taxpayers money. It remains to be seen who will get the money... and how much it will actually cost.
Bonam Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) So because government wastes money, that's a reason for wasting more money? Speaking of not using logic... It's hardly outrage. It's just a really stupid waste of taxpayers money. It remains to be seen who will get the money... and how much it will actually cost. Why is paying compensation to people who are affected as a result of a government labor dispute a waste rather than a legitimate expenditure? Lots of hardworking parents cannot afford to skip work and must now shoulder extra costs to get day care / babysitters / etc. This is a result of the government's dispute with the teachers unions, and it is only right to help families with the hardship that is created. I'd say this is a much better use of money than many other government programs which are a heck of a lot more wasteful. Not only does it make sense from the above standpoint, but it is also putting money directly into people's pockets, which they will then go out and spend in purchasing services. It is a direct stimulus to the economy through consumers, which is exactly the kind of thing people have called on governments to do, rather than giving money to powerful organizations. Edited August 1, 2014 by Bonam
The_Squid Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 I call it justice. Parents are getting screwed over by the BCTF with its ridiculous demands and some token compensation is only fair. Revenge on teachers is a really stupid reason to spend $12 million per day of taxpayer money. And how will this affect teachers in any way whatsoever? It actually lessens the pressure on teachers/gov't to reach a deal if parents are being inconvenienced less now that they are getting paid.
TimG Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) And how will this affect teachers in any way whatsoever?The typical union assumption is any savings to the employer as a result of a strike can be used to enhance any future deal. Now those savings will be gone (spent on parents) which reduces the incentive for teachers to prolong the strike. There is a simple way forward: the BCTF needs to accept the wage terms accepted by the other unions. As long as they refuse they are 100% to blame for the problems faced by parents. Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG
The_Squid Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 Why is paying compensation to people who are affected as a result of a government labor dispute a waste rather than a legitimate expenditure? Why should money that is supposed to go into education now go into childcare subsidies to those who may not even need it? People who make more than enough money are going to get $40 per day. Even the way the program is set up is completely stupid. If there is any sort of program, it should be geared at people who can't afford it... but then Christy Clark wouldn't be buying votes... Can't have that! Why shouldn't it be put back into education instead of the extra burden on taxpayers? I thought you people were fiscal conservatives? This is the opposite of that! lol
The_Squid Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 The typical union assumption is any savings to the employer as a result of a strike can be used to enhance any future deal. Now those savings will be gone (spent on parents) which reduces the incentive for teachers to prolong the strike. There is a simple way forward: the BCTF needs to accept the wage terms accepted by the other unions. As long as they refuse they are 100% to blame for the problems faced by parents. That's good in theory... but there will be an increase in education funding needed... much more than the savings. So they will need to increase the budget and won't have any of the savings to help pay for it... it will be additional tax revenue. They may be 100% to blame, but $40 per day won't be paid by teachers... this won't punish them in the least.
Bonam Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 Why should money that is supposed to go into education now go into childcare subsidies to those who may not even need it? People who make more than enough money are going to get $40 per day. Even the way the program is set up is completely stupid. If there is any sort of program, it should be geared at people who can't afford it... but then Christy Clark wouldn't be buying votes... Can't have that! How is it money that's supposed to be going into education? The education budget is not being reduced as a result. It's general spending. Who can and can't afford it? You want means testing for the program? Fine, complain on that basis. Probably will waste more money means testing than you'll save though. I thought you people were fiscal conservatives? This is the opposite of that! Who is you people? Yes I would prefer that the government spend less money. But within the context of a liberal government in a high spending province, money will be spent aplenty regardless, and as various programs go, I find this one less objectionable than many others.
The_Squid Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 It is money that could somewhat offset the increase after the next agreement is reached. It's not that hard to understand. Yes, there should be means testing and a child are program. No, this isn't it and is simply an attempt to buy votes.
Pct2017 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 At the end of the day, you have to ask what the message is that the duly elected BC government is putting out there. They are clearly stating that there is no settlement on the horizon due to the abject stupidity of BC teachers and their outdated union, so we are going to soften the financial burden caused by this strike on families with kids who are too young to stay home when they should be in school. The really delightful part is that they are funding the program with money not spent on teachers wages. Similarly, the CUPE settlement has a clause in their recent settlement that states any time lost for support staff at schools due to the whiny teacher's strike will be paid for by the government. The government is very astutely isolating the core problem in this strike and softening the hardships suffered by all other parties. Pretty brilliant if you were to ask me.
Pct2017 Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 It is money that could somewhat offset the increase after the next agreement is reached. It's not that hard to understand. Yes, there should be means testing and a child are program. No, this isn't it and is simply an attempt to buy votes. This mentality drives me nuts. No, you cannot fund an ongoing increase such as a raise for teachers with a one time savings. This is really, really basic accounting. If you do not understand this, then you are not trying to understand this. But, hey if your hero is Jim Iker, he trumped that stupidity with his assertion that money spent on the roof of BC Place should have been given to his whiny membership. Again, the depth of stupidity in that thought process is staggering and really shows just how difficult it must be to negotiate with a union that has absolutely no grasp on reality. Any raises given will go on forever but one time savings are just that, one time events. They will not be available next year to fund the raises. As for this being an attempt to buy votes, that is an equally unrealistic statement. The next election is almost three years away which in political life is about a thousand eons away.
The_Squid Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 If the gov't saves $100 million (or whatever the figure is) then that is in the coffers and can be used to offset $100 million of the next settlement. It may not go all that far... it's not on an annual basis... but it is still $100 million that was saved and spent later. How could this not be the case? Talk about basic accounting!!
TimG Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 It is money that could somewhat offset the increase after the next agreement is reached. It's not that hard to understand.Which is why it is a good way to pressure the union to settle sooner than later. Are you opposed to a negotiated settlement?
Smallc Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 Why should the teachers even get that money when they've placed a new financial burden on parents.
Recommended Posts