BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[Hal 9000]

Now we are paying people not to send their kids to school. Brilliant.

Helping young families who don't care to be caught in the middle of this crap. The teachers are just furious because the government released some of their hostages.

[WestCoastRunner]

Helping young families who don't care to be caught in the middle of this crap. The teachers are just furious because the government released some of their hostages.

No, the government is trying to buy sympathy. And they are breaking the media blackout.

[Hal 9000]

No, the government is trying to buy sympathy. And they are breaking the media blackout.

Yeah, so it's all good!

Edited August 23, 2014 by Hal 9000

[Wilber]

Helping young families who don't care to be caught in the middle of this crap. The teachers are just furious because the government released some of their hostages.

And what budget is that coming from, the one that is supposed to educate the kiids? Reddy agreed to mediate on condition there was a media blackout so why is the Minister doing radio talk shows? Is he trying to sabotage the process or does he just have no respect for it?

Edited August 23, 2014 by Wilber

[TimG]

And what budget is that coming from, the one that is supposed to educate the kiids?

The money is coming from savings the government has because it does not have to pay teachers salaries while they are on strike so no new money needs to be allocated. You have to see this for what it is: a negotiating tactic. In the past the savings on salaries would be used to sweeten any final deal so unions tend to assume that the lost wages will eventually be returned in some way. Now the government is making it clear that the lost wages are gone and that will make being on strike more painful for teachers. I think it was a clever move given the limited options available to the government. Edited August 23, 2014 by TimG

[Pct2017]

Much has been made out here in BC about how the $40/day is a terrible idea and will backfire on the government. Well, it is going to be interesting to see just what proportion of eligible parents sign up for the funds. As I understand it, a parent has to sign up online and then will be reimbursed after the strike is over. So, if people who are ideologically driven refuse to sign up, then the numbers will be low, indicating inherent support for the BCTF. And of course, the opposite is also true.

As I have said many times, public opinion does not matter a whit on this issue, but we are going to see a very accurate representation of that opinion, and it will involve direct users of the school system rather than the public at large.

The other thing that I find fascinating in this mess is that the BC NDP is amazingly silent on this issue. Almost makes one think that they agree with the actions of the governing Liberals.

[Wilber]

The money is coming from savings the government has because it does not have to pay teachers salaries while they are on strike so no new money needs to be allocated. You have to see this for what it is: a negotiating tactic. In the past the savings on salaries would be used to sweeten any final deal so unions tend to assume that the lost wages will eventually be returned in some way. Now the government is making it clear that the lost wages are gone and that will make being on strike more painful for teachers. I think it was a clever move given the limited options available to the government.

Exactly, it's coming from the education budget and being used for political porposes, not to educate.

[Big Guy]

There are 52 weeks per year. Each week represents about 2% of a yearly salary. Employees go out on strike, management saves 2% a year.

Let us say the employees are striking for 6% increase. In three weeks the employer has saved enough to meet that demand. If the employees stay out for 6 weeks, the employer can “capitulate” to a two year 6% increase contract.

Too often, those on the picket line have to be distracted from figuring out the math by getting them emotional - “Their latest offer is an insult to you!”, “We have to show them we are proud ...”, “We have the ....... to protect from ....”, . Eventually, after the strike, the strikers do the math and wonder just why they went out. Meanwhile, the relationship between workers and management has deteriorated to the detriment of all.

Does anybody really “win” after a strike?

[TimG]

Exactly, it's coming from the education budget and being used for political porposes, not to educate.

The teachers are on strike. The government can't spend it on education no mater what. I also explained why spending in the way they are doing could end the strike sooner than later so government is using the money in a way that allows education to continue as soon as possible which makes it a good investment. The teachers may think that they deserve the money but they went on strike - it is not the government's fault. Edited August 23, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

Let us say the employees are striking for 6% increase. In three weeks the employer has saved enough to meet that demand. If the employees stay out for 6 weeks, the employer can “capitulate” to a two year 6% increase contract.

6% increase per year is much larger than 6% of wages in one year.

[Wilber]

The teachers are on strike. The government can't spend it on education no mater what. I also explained why spending in the way they are doing could end the strike sooner than later so government is using the money in a way that allows education to continue as soon as possible which makes it a good investment. The teachers may think that they deserve the money but they went on strike - it is not the government's fault.

They didn't go on a full strike and have been locked out. The government is using funds earmarked for education in an effort to buy political capital and then crying poor. It will be seen for what it is and won't end the strike sooner. Personally I don't want to hear a peep from either of them until they have an agreement

[TimG]

The government is using funds earmarked for education in an effort to buy political capital and then crying poor.

The government expects the teachers to accept the same deal it signed with other unions (partially because the deals with other unions include a "me too" clause which means the government has to match any better deal it gives to another union). The teachers refuse. As long as the teachers refuse to accept that deal they are entirely to blame for the labour disruption. And I disagree on the effectiveness of taking the lost wages off the table - I think it will end the strike sooner.

BTW - a family with 2 kids stands to make 1600/month tax free. It is not a token - it is enough to make a real difference to families that are stuck because of unreasonable expectations of the teachers union.

Edited August 23, 2014 by TimG

[Pct2017]

They didn't go on a full strike and have been locked out. The government is using funds earmarked for education in an effort to buy political capital and then crying poor. It will be seen for what it is and won't end the strike sooner. Personally I don't want to hear a peep from either of them until they have an agreement

This piece of fantasy is starting to creep into the conversation at an alarming rate. I suspect it is being floated by the BCTF and is targeting those with particularly low IQ's. Let us set this straight:

In May, the whiney teachers launched "Level One" job action which precluded teachers from doing school work out of school hours.

Late in May or early in June, teachers began rotating strikes.

Around the same time in June, the employer imposed a Lock Out which mimicked the Level One job action. They did so in order to impose a 10% wage reduction.

The BCTF cried fowl and ran to the LRB to get the wage reduction overturned. They lost

The next day after the LRB ruling, the BCTF called a strike vote which passed.

Two weeks before the end of the school term, the teachers went on full strike, which is still in effect.

Technically, the lock out is still in effect, but all it still does is preclude the teachers from doing work out of school hours. It is the whiney teachers and their dinosaur union who have closed the schools and continue to do so.

As for what the government chooses to do with the money not spent on teachers salaries during the strike, well that is their prerogative, is it not.

I hope this clears up the mystery for you there Wilbur. If you did not understand any of the words, contact me and I will try to help you.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Pct2017

[AngusThermopyle]

The BCTF cried fowl

This is the part I don't understand. Does this mean the teachers are demanding payment in the form of Chickens? Would these be live or pre prepared for the oven?

[Wilber]

It is only their prerogative if you think using the public purse for political purpose is acceptable. Just remember, any government can play that game, including ones you don't agree with.

[Pct2017]

This is the part I don't understand. Does this mean the teachers are demanding payment in the form of Chickens? Would these be live or pre prepared for the oven?

Damn fat thumbs.

[TimG]

It is only their prerogative if you think using the public purse for political purpose is acceptable.

I don't understand your obsession with this spin. The government needs to settle the strike. This is a tactic they have choosen to use to help achieve that objective. You may not agree but it that does not change the purpose. It is not at all political in the sense that you wish to imply.

[socialist]

Hey PCT and Tim and all other teacher bashing trolls; this is for you. You guys fit many categories of trolls.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-greene/anti-teacher-trolls_b_5614131.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000023

[socialist]

Some of you need a dose of real world reality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nicky-byres/bc-teachers-strike_b_5698226.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

[Big Guy]

My recollection of all of the teacher work stoppages was that teachers make too much money, have too many holidays and their pensions are too high. That is a subjective opinion based on the earnings of the critics. Since teachers get paid from the public purse then the public feels a right to air their disagreement. They do have that right and good for them.

It comes with working for the government.

BTW, I had been in public education in different capacities for well over 30 years and have survived 6 work stoppages of various kinds.

[Wilber]

I don't understand your obsession with this spin. The government needs to settle the strike. This is a tactic they have choosen to use to help achieve that objective. You may not agree but it that does not change the purpose. It is not at all political in the sense that you wish to imply.

It's totally political and you know it.

[Derek 2.0]

The money is coming from savings the government has because it does not have to pay teachers salaries while they are on strike so no new money needs to be allocated.

Saved money, that in past strikes, was used for signing bonus for the teachers.

[Derek 2.0]

Too often, those on the picket line have to be distracted from figuring out the math by getting them emotional - “Their latest offer is an insult to you!”, “We have to show them we are proud ...”, “We have the ....... to protect from ....”, . Eventually, after the strike, the strikers do the math and wonder just why they went out. Meanwhile, the relationship between workers and management has deteriorated to the detriment of all.

Does anybody really “win” after a strike?

That's a very good point......both my sister and brother in-law are teachers, nearing retirement......If the strike goes into the new school year more than a week, they will never recoup their lost income from the strike.

[Derek 2.0]

The teachers may think that they deserve the money but they went on strike - it is not the government's fault.

And the Government has told the BCTF that if they return with no job action, they will lift the partial lock-out........leaving the both sides to negotiate, well not impacting students educations or teachers mortgage payments.

[Wilber]

If I were a teacher the $40 would make no difference at all in the negotiations. It was the governments decision to try and bribe parents with money earmarked for education. There is also no reason to go back without a settlement. If the teachers do, there is no pressing reason for the government to settle. The longer the schools are closed, public pressure on both parties will continue to increase.

I think if thousands of pissed parents and their kids started showing up at schools demanding they be opened, both paries would quit screwing around and get it done.