BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[Derek 2.0]

I doubt the leadership will be given the toss. What you can count on is a much better prepared TF and an even more bitter dispute the next time around.

I doubt it.....if a 1-year contract is legislated sometime in October, I expect teachers will be more apprehensive going forward in voting in favour of a full fledged strike.

[Pct2017]

I have been pondering the obvious question in this dispute which is why are all other public sector unions able to arrive at settlements with this or any other provincial government in BC but the BCTF is wholly incapable of doing so. Well, I think that the root of the problem is that the BCTF does not see itself as a union, but rather a political party. Other unions enter into negotiations with the view that their role is to get their members a deal that is suitable for their members.

Where the teachers and their union deviate from these other unions is that they want not only an advantageous deal for the members, but they also want to mould the policies of the province to their liking. So whereas the government can negotiate with other unions as just that, unions, when they are dealing with the BCTF, it is more like they are debating with another political party, and a political party who has no accountability to the public. The reality of this is that the BCTF should run a slate of candidates in the next provincial election so the can affect the changes they want through due process.

[Wilber]

I doubt it.....if a 1-year contract is legislated sometime in October, I expect teachers will be more apprehensive going forward in voting in favour of a full fledged strike.

Expect them to start building up their strike fund as soon as this is over.

[Pct2017]

Expect them to start building up their strike fund as soon as this is over.

So what you are saying is that it would be smart to build up a strike war chest before a strike? Seems pretty simple. Man, you would have to be pretty stupid to go into a strike with no strike fund, would you not.

[TimG]

The government's rational is the government's rational. Why would a mediator waste his time on a non negotiated deal? You think he is just there to be the government's mouthpiece?

I was explaining why mediators are not helpful in situations like this were one side (the BCTF) has ridiculous expectations. Mediators look for "face saving" compromises when none are possible.

[Wilber]

I was explaining why mediators are not helpful in situations like this were one side (the BCTF) has ridiculous expectations. Mediators look for "face saving" compromises when none are possible.

The operative word is "compromise". Takes two to do that.

[Wilber]

So what you are saying is that it would be smart to build up a strike war chest before a strike? Seems pretty simple. Man, you would have to be pretty stupid to go into a strike with no strike fund, would you not.

Obviously the teachers didn't think it would go that far. Now they know better and won't make the same mistake again.

[TimG]

The operative word is "compromise". Takes two to do that.

Why should teachers be entitled to more than other unions just because they started with an absurdly high number? It seems silly to reward people just for being greedy. I realize the teachers thought if they started high a compromise would be somewhere in the middle but that was a completely unreasonable expectation given the government's fiscal position. If there is a compromise to be found it will be in non-wage issues which can only be addressed once the BCTF accepts the governments wage offer.

[socialist]

So what you are saying is that it would be smart to build up a strike war chest before a strike? Seems pretty simple. Man, you would have to be pretty stupid to go into a strike with no strike fund, would you not.

Hey PCT. I;m getting bored proving how wrong you are and how little support your side has, but here is another poll that might interest you. Notice the high level of support for teachers and the BCTF. Calling us whiny really helps your side. LOL.

Iker meeting with the minister tomorrow as I'm positive that Fasbender is starting to feel the pressure and starting to feel that they have severely messed this up.

http://bcfed.ca/new-poll-shows-support-for-teachers-still-strong-especially-among-parents/

Edited August 27, 2014 by socialist

[Wilber]

Why should teachers be entitled to more than other unions just because they started with an absurdly high number? It seems silly to reward people just for being greedy. I realize the teachers thought if they started high a compromise would be somewhere in the middle but that was a completely unreasonable expectation given the government's fiscal position. If there is a compromise to be found it will be in non-wage issues which can only be addressed once the BCTF accepts the governments wage offer.

Or not.

[TimG]

Or not.

Can you offer any rational argument for why the government should give teachers more than other unions? (a reason other than the BCTF has unilaterally decided they deserve it).

Are you willing to pay more taxes to cover the costs of a rich wage settlement for a group of people who are already have a wage and benefit package better than most British Columbians?

Edited August 27, 2014 by TimG

[Pct2017]

Obviously the teachers didn't think it would go that far. Now they know better and won't make the same mistake again.

So it is your opinion that the BCTF thought they had saved plenty of money by putting aside enough for three days of strike pay? Come on, not even a collective of teachers can be that stupid. But apparently they were.

Look, as I stated in a post earlier today, the BCTF fancies itself to be some form of an unelected political party, but in actual fact they are a trade union, and not a particularly gifted or adept trade union at that. To not make fiscal plans for a strike that they were chomping at the bit to call is extraordinarily, well for the lack of a kinder term, dumb. Incompetent is probably a better descriptor.

It is interesting that some BCTF locals are starting to poll their members about whether they want to call off the strike and go back to work. They will not release the results of these polls, but just by the fact that they are asking the question speaks volumes about the commitment to this strike.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Pct2017

[Wilber]

Can you offer any rational argument for why the government should give teachers more than otherillegalunions? (a reason other than the BCTF has unilaterally decided they deserve it).Are you willing to pay more taxes to cover the costs of a rich wage settlement for a group of people who are already have a wage and benefit package better than most British Columbians?

Government has never consulted me about how much tax I have to pay in the past, I don't see them starting now. They slap on and increase user fee's, MSP rates, ICBC and Hydro rates while creaming off those corpoeations profits for general revenue claiming they aren't raising taxes. This tax business is all a shell game anyway.

Much of today's labour grief can be traced back to this government tearing up contracts in order to reduce taxes. Which the courts have declared to be illegal.

Negotiations aren't a one sided operation. If the government goes in with set conditions and isn't prepared to move on anything, they should just legislate them back ans accept the consequencea.

[Wilber]

So it is your opinion that the BCTF thought they had saved plenty of money by putting aside enough for three days of strike pay? Come on, not even a collective of teachers can be that stupid. But apparently they were.

Look, as I stated in a post earlier today, the BCTF fancies itself to be some form of an unelected political party, but in actual fact they are a trade union, and not a particularly gifted or adept trade union at that. To not make fiscal plans for a strike that they were chomping at the bit to call is extraordinarily, well for the lack of a kinder term, dumb. Incompetent is probably a better descriptor.

It is interesting that some BCTF locals are starting to poll their members about whether they want to call off the strike and go back to work. They will not release the results of these polls, but just by the fact that they are asking the question speaks volumes about the commitment to this strike.

I agree that going into this thing without a strike fund was very poor planning and actually surprised me. I wouldn't count on them making that mistake again. The difference between a professional association and a union becomes very blurred when they negotiate labour contracts for their members, doesn't matter if they are teachers, doctors or lawyers.

The rest is speculation on your part. In the end, they will do what they do

[TimG]

Government has never consulted me about how much tax I have to pay in the past, I don't see them starting now.

You are evading the question: are you in favor of tax increases to pay for a rich wage and benefit settlement for workers who already make more than the average British Columbian. yes or no?

Much of today's labour grief can be traced back to this government tearing up contracts in order to reduce taxes. Which the courts have declared to be illegal.

You don't have your facts straight. What was deemed illegal was the government's attempt to prohibit the inclusion of certain items in a collective bargaining deal. That's it. The governments ability to impose settlements and set financial constraints on possible deals was upheld by the courts.

Negotiations aren't a one sided operation. If the government goes in with set conditions and isn't prepared to move on anything, they should just legislate them back ans accept the consequences.

So you are saying the government should have low balled its offer just so it can claim to have "negotiated"? Why should the "reasonableness" of a party to negotiation be determined by how unreasonable their first offers were? Edited August 27, 2014 by TimG

[Pct2017]

Much of today's labour grief can be traced back to this government tearing up contracts in order to reduce taxes. Which the courts have declared to be illegal.

If 2002 is really the stopper for getting an agreement with the BCTF, then how do you explain that the Liberals are able to get an agreement done with the HEU, who also had their contract torn up in 2002?

No, my friend, the villain in this sorry saga is the teachers and their out of touch, political union. They and they alone.

[Pct2017]

Much has been made about the tearing up of the 1998 Glen Clark contract by the Liberals, as well it should. But, when you take a step back and think about what it was that the Liberals excluded from the contract, it is pretty hard to argue with the logic. Basically, as a gift from their political partners, Clark embedded minimum staffing levels to address class composition and teacher workloads (some refer to this as class size, but it really is about how hard a teacher feels like working). So, let us take a look at that. Class composition can be addressed in a couple of different ways. Using extra teachers is one. But, there is also the track of using extra EA's etc to address the issue. But, if the BCTF has it written in their contract that they, and they alone can be the ones to address the issue, then the employer has lost the ability to manage the issue in the best possible manner or even in an equally effective but more cost efficient manner. That is why those clauses never belonged in the contract.

As for teacher workloads, if you address class composition, then what is the remaining argument for class sizes of 30 or more students, given that all of the challenged or ESL students have assistance?

[Derek 2.0]

Expect them to start building up their strike fund as soon as this is over.

I doubt members will be forthcoming with extra dues.....My sister and brother in-law each pay over $1200 a year in dues, and have been paying dues since the early 80s (prior to the BCTF formation) and received three days strike pay ($50 a day)..........Not a good return on investment.........Now the BCTF has over 40000 members (only about half are full time teachers), all paying dues.......If I was a member, I'd wonder where all the money went....

I expect teachers will be paying off credit cards and lines of credit once a deal has been reached.......

[Wilber]

You are evading the question: are you in favor of tax increases to pay for a rich wage and benefit settlement for workers who already make more than the average British Columbian. yes or no?You don't have your facts straight. What was deemed illegal was the government's attempt to prohibit the inclusion of certain items in a collective bargaining deal. That's it. The governments ability to impose settlements and set financial constraints on possible deals was upheld by the courts.So you are saying the government should have low balled its offer just so it can claim to have "negotiated"? Don't to understand how silly your argument is? Why should the "reasonableness" of a party to negotiation be determined by how unreasonable their first offers were?

I'm not evading anything. If you want something you have to pay for it, so if necessary, the answer is yes. I tend to look at value more than price because that is what you will have to live with. It seems that many don't put much value on those they depend on to educate their children and look after them for six hours a day.

This is not the only case the government has lost. The Supreme Court ruled the government broke the law when they unilaterally stripped the health workers countracts without negotiation. This government has squandered whatever good will it may have had with public service unions, or any unions for that matter.

[socialist]

Here's an interesting perspective that I agree with. B.C.'s Public Education Crisis is a Feminist Issue.

http://www.gender-focus.com/2014/08/24/b-c-s-public-education-crisis-is-a-feminist-issue/

[TimG]

It seems that many don't put much value on those they depend on to educate their children and look after them for six hours a day.

They are already compensated more than most of parents. What basis do you have to claim that their current pay levels are not more than adequate compensation for the job they do?

This is not the only case the government has lost. The Supreme Court ruled the government broke the law when they unilaterally stripped the health workers contracts without negotiation.

Again - the SCC did not say that the government could not impose whatever terms it liked - just that it had to consult before imposing them.

But all of this is immaterial. If the BCTF is being obdurate because of events from 10+ years ago then the problem is with the BCTF - not the government. As I said, the government did not waste time by putting a low ball offer on the table so it could pretend to negotiate. It put what it can afford to pay from the start. Perhaps a low ball offer would have been better because it would have fooled naive people who seem to think that negotiation requires that both parties change their initial offers.

[Wilber]

They are already compensated more than most of parents. What basis do you have to claim that their current pay levels are not more than adequate compensation for the job they do?Again - the SCC did not say that the government could not impose whatever terms it liked - just that it had to consult before imposing them.But all of this is immaterial. If the BCTF is being obdurate because of events from 10+ years ago then the problem is with the BCTF - not the government. As I said, the government did not waste time by putting a low ball offer on the table so it could pretend to negotiate. It put what it can afford to pay from the start. Perhaps a low ball offer would have been better because it would have fooled naive people who seem to think that negotiation requires that both parties change their initial offers.

You think everyone should be paid the same average salary? What are you, some kind of communist? I am sure we would diiffer on what is the appropriate compensation for many occupations.

The government can pay whatever it choses to pay. If it wants to increase revenues, it has the power to do so. This is as much a political issue as a fiscal one. The events of ten years ago are very much relevent, if for no other reason than the government keeping them in the courts. If they lose again, they will have no choice but to deal with it and move forward.

Consultation and negotiation doesn't seem to be this government's strong suit. Too messy I guess.

[Derek 2.0]

Consultation and negotiation doesn't seem to be this government's strong suit. Too messy I guess.

They have managed deals with other public service unions.......including school support staff in CUPE.

[dre]

Are you willing to pay more taxes to cover the costs of a rich wage settlement for a group of people who are already have a wage and benefit package better than most British Columbians?

Despite your continued claims that the teachers are asking for something outrageous the fact is they arent. They are not only very close to what the government has offered but their demands are inline with what other teachers around the country are paid.

Can you offer any rational argument for why the government should give teachers more than other unions? (a reason other than the BCTF has unilaterally decided they deserve it).

That question is totally irrelevant. Unions negotate on behalf of their members, not on behalf of all unions together in one big block. When one union accepts a deal that does not in any way shape or form mean another one should or has to. Thats simply not how collective bargaining works. It seems like its impossible that someone who has lived on the planet earth for any reasonable ammount of time could not know this... very odd.

[Wilber]

They have managed deals with other public service unions.......including school support staff in CUPE.

And they should be able to do so here. I don't know what the hold up is, I just don't automaticaly accept that it is all one sided.