BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[Derek 2.0]

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.

Look at the history of the BCTF, not only under the current Liberal Government, but also the NDP and Social Credit.......they are a very militant union.

[dre]

Look at the history of the BCTF, not only under the current Liberal Government, but also the NDP and Social Credit.......they are a very militant union.

Yes... such hard bargainers that they have among the lowest wages for teachers in the country.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes... such hard bargainers that they have among the lowest wages for teachers in the country.

I never said they were good........and of course, the glut of new teachers factors into supply side economics.

[Wilber]

I never said they were good........and of course, the glut of new teachers factors into supply side economics.

Supply side doesn't have much to do with it, the TF represents all the teachers in the public system, the gov't can't hire outside of the union.

[TimG]

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.

Well that is the rub. What is "appropriate"? Given the fact that there is a surplus of people who want to be teachers there is no market rational for offering any raises at all. The only reason raises are even being discussed is because the BCTF has a monopoly. Pushing back against the greedy demands of a union monopoly is what the government needs to do.

The government can pay whatever it choses to pay. If it wants to increase revenues, it has the power to do so.

Except you are wrong. The population threw a fit over the HST because they perceived it to be a tax increase which shows that the government CANNOT easily increase revenues. If the teachers get a raise it comes at the expense of something else. What are you willing to sacrifice? Edited August 27, 2014 by TimG

[Derek 2.0]

Supply side doesn't have much to do with it, the TF represents all the teachers in the public system, the gov't can't hire outside of the union.

But it does.........there are far too many teachers turned out in the Province, hence why most don't get full time teaching spots into there 30s, and fulltime contracts until 7-10 years teaching full time......

There are plenty of higher paying teaching jobs in Alberta or remote Northern communities....

[Wilber]

Let's pay our politicians the same way. No shortage of supply there and you don't even need a high school education to get elected. You know, the ones who gave themselves a 30% increase in 2007 and gave their political staffers a 25% raise on 2012.

[Pct2017]

Something that is creeping into the conversation by the teacher apologists is the argument that it is OK for the BCTF to ask for more wages/benefits than all of the other PSU's because the BCTF is actually fighting for those other unions also. Step back and think about that. All those other unions have signed their contracts, but the teachers know they blew it and should have held out for more. Only slightly belittling and it is certainly an extension of the Jesus syndrome that so many teachers are afflicted with.

Now, with that in mind, let's take a look at what sort of a relationship the BCTF has with many of the other players involved in this mess.

First, as mentioned, the other PSU's. The teachers believe themselves to be vastly superior to these other pisants. The roaring silence emanating from all of the other PSU's speaks volumes of their regards for the whiny teachers.

Next, the political parties. The Liberals, well enough said. They do not exchange Christmas cards. The NDP is much loved by the teachers and their dinosaur union. Hell, they blew their strike fund trying to get them elected. But, what does the NDP think of the teachers? That is trickier. Old whatshisname, the new NDP leader has been remarkably silent about everything, but most noticeably about this strike. Seems like a natural for this party to come out swinging in support, but alas, we get silence.

So next up is the taxpayers. Again, awfully hard to gauge, but according to May 14, 2013, we have not embraced the BCTF despite their spending their entire strike fund trying to entice us over to their " side". OK, I mentioned that already, but it is fun to say.

So, what about the students. Teachers always say they love their students. But hang on, they are also saying that they only love them in very limited quantities. If there are more than 20 or so students, teachers want some of you to leave. Maybe this is a conditional type of love.

This is a bit of a no brainier, but what about private business. Can the BCTF get along with this group. Sadly, no. In the workers paradise that teachers dream of, there would be no industry or commercialism. There would be no need to fight against pipelines and clear cutting or any other type of development that could generate income for the province.

OK, so is there any other group that our teachers get along with? Well, yes there is. It is called the Royal Canadian Mint. The BCTF and it's bleating members love this institution because it is here that money is printed. And teachers adore money.

But, do not despair teachers of BC, you can sleep well at night knowing that you will always have Young Socialist in your corner.

[sharkman]

Okay Pct, you don't like teachers, unions, or certain governments. But aside from that there are more important things in play here. One is this: The BC government ILLEGALLY ripped up the contract it had signed with the BCTF in 2002. 2 court cases, one heard by the BC Supreme Court(in which a fine of 2 million was slapped on the gov), have been won by the BCTF. This is because it is illegal for a government to sign a legal contract, and then change its mind and rip it up. The government is on its second and last appeal, due in October. Their chances? Not great.

So now they are desperate and claiming the taxpayer can't afford the 2 billion it'll cost. Firstly, yeah right. I don't trust a single figure they come up with as they have proven to be untrustworthy. Second: Did they ponder this when they were giving themselves raises? Hell no. How about when they decided to charge motorists 3 bucks a trip to drive accross the Port Mann Bridge, to the tune of $120 bucks extra per month? No, I don't remember a peep about their concern for the taxpayer, but whenever they don't want to spend on something, it's time to play the poor taxpayer card. Here's a knee slapper, on a previous BCTF contract, the last year's raise was agreed to by the Liberal gov, but they didn't FUND it. They told the school districts to find the money. So guess what, the kids got programs cut yet again, because these jerks don't really care about the kids unless they can be used as a bargaining chip as they are in the current talks.

The bottom line is the teachers have had over a decade of enlarged class sizes that was illegally forced on them. Funding for special needs kids was also cut, and yes, the teachers haven't had a raise in some years now. They're not the lowest paid, but far from the highest paid in BC, they deserve a raise. But the biggest part of the expense would be returning to the class sizes of the 2002 contract. The Liberal government are going to have to pay for their mistake of ripping up that contract, it was illegal and just plain dumb.

Edited August 28, 2014 by sharkman

[socialist]

Okay Pct, you don't like teachers, unions, or certain governments. But aside from that there are more important things in play here. One is this: The BC government ILLEGALLY ripped up the contract it had signed with the BCTF in 2002. 2 court cases, one heard by the BC Supreme Court(in which a fine of 2 million was slapped on the gov), have been won by the BCTF. This is because it is illegal for a government to sign a legal contract, and then change its mind and rip it up. The government is on its second and last appeal, due in October. Their chances? Not great.

So now they are desperate and claiming the taxpayer can't afford the 2 billion it'll cost. Firstly, yeah right. I don't trust a single figure they come up with as they have proven to be untrustworthy. Second: Did they ponder this when they were giving themselves raises? Hell no. How about when they decided to charge motorists 3 bucks a trip to drive accross the Port Mann Bridge, to the tune of $120 bucks extra per month? No, I don't remember a peep about their concern for the taxpayer, but whenever they don't want to spend on something, it's time to play the poor taxpayer card. Here's a knee slapper, on a previous BCTF contract, the last year's raise was agreed to by the Liberal gov, but they didn't FUND it. They told the school districts to find the money. So guess what, the kids got programs cut yet again, because these jerks don't really care about the kids unless they can be used as a bargaining chip as they are in the current talks.

The bottom line is the teachers have had over a decade of enlarged class sizes that was illegally forced on them. Funding for special needs kids was also cut, and yes, the teachers haven't had a raise in some years now. They're not the lowest paid, but far from the highest paid in BC, they deserve a raise. But the biggest part of the expense would be returning to the class sizes of the 2002 contract. The Liberal government are going to have to pay for their mistake of ripping up that contract, it was illegal and just plain dumb.

Hey PCT, you forgot to mention the court cases. The Liberals lost. How convenient of you to not mention that.

[TimG]

This is because it is illegal for a government to sign a legal contract, and then change its mind and rip it up.

I read the judgement and it is complete and total nonsense as written.

First, if there was any right to preserve the terms of the contracts it ends when the contracts expire. At that point the government can impose whatever contract it deems is appropriate (if this was not the case an NDP government could sign a contract paying teachers 1 million/year and when it was booted out its replacement would be powerless to correct the abuse of office that occurred - an untenable position).

Second, time machines don't exist so restoring the provisions from 2003 does not change the past - all it means is the provisions are re-enstated but what does that mean? The provisions expired when the original contract expired. You cannot retroactively amend contracts that were settled based on the assumptions that those clauses were not in force. If you re-enstate those provisions then other concessions like wage or benefit hikes would have to be clawed back.

Third, in the current environment with no contract means they can be removed again with back to work legislation so the only real issue is determining appropriate compensation the years between removal and the expiry of the original contract. It will cost money but it is likely the fairest way to resolve the issue.

Finally, if the SCC decides to abandon all common sense and actually uphold this ruling as is then there is always the notwithstanding clause.

Edited August 28, 2014 by TimG

[Pct2017]

Okay Pct, you don't like teachers, unions, or certain governments. But aside from that there are more important things in play here. One is this: The BC government ILLEGALLY ripped up the contract it had signed with the BCTF in 2002. 2 court cases, one heard by the BC Supreme Court(in which a fine of 2 million was slapped on the gov), have been won by the BCTF. This is because it is illegal for a government to sign a legal contract, and then change its mind and rip it up. The government is on its second and last appeal, due in October. Their chances? Not great.

So now they are desperate and claiming the taxpayer can't afford the 2 billion it'll cost. Firstly, yeah right. I don't trust a single figure they come up with as they have proven to be untrustworthy. Second: Did they ponder this when they were giving themselves raises? Hell no. How about when they decided to charge motorists 3 bucks a trip to drive accross the Port Mann Bridge, to the tune of $120 bucks extra per month? No, I don't remember a peep about their concern for the taxpayer, but whenever they don't want to spend on something, it's time to play the poor taxpayer card. Here's a knee slapper, on a previous BCTF contract, the last year's raise was agreed to by the Liberal gov, but they didn't FUND it. They told the school districts to find the money. So guess what, the kids got programs cut yet again, because these jerks don't really care about the kids unless they can be used as a bargaining chip as they are in the current talks.

The bottom line is the teachers have had over a decade of enlarged class sizes that was illegally forced on them. Funding for special needs kids was also cut, and yes, the teachers haven't had a raise in some years now. They're not the lowest paid, but far from the highest paid in BC, they deserve a raise. But the biggest part of the expense would be returning to the class sizes of the 2002 contract. The Liberal government are going to have to pay for their mistake of ripping up that contract, it was illegal and just plain dumb.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the BCTF really like Judge Susan Griffin. And she appears to like them right back. However, the BCTF does not like Justice David Harris as he stayed the previous decision from Griffin. Time will tell how much they like the Supreme Court of Canada. Minor details here, but the case has been before the Supreme Court of BC twice, not once. It is on it's first appeal, and as I understand it, there is one more level of appeal left after the hearing before the Supreme Court, but I could be wrong.

BTW, could you support your statement that I do not like unions in general? I have reread my post and I certainly do not see that content. And which government did I say I did not like? Reading your post, you are the one who seems to have a bit of a phobia when it comes to governments.

As for the rest of your post, hey I respect your passion and your ability to articulate your thoughts. Time will tell which of us proves to be correct about the court case, but until it has played out entirely through the judicial system, I think you are a tad premature to label anything ILLEGAL. Remember, the HEU lost the first couple of court rounds before their verdict was overturned by the SCoC. As for the Port Mann bridge, sorry could care less. Must be a personal crusade of yours.

[Wilber]

Yes the Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour of the health workers, why would you think they will do any different with the TF? You don't think Judge Griffin might have based her decision on the SOC decision or the appeal judge might do the same?

[TimG]

Yes the Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour of the health workers

A misrepresentation of the SCC judgement. The SCC judgement found that the removal contracting out, layoff and bumping provisions were unconstitutional because they were fundamental to the nature of collective bargaining. Conversely the SCC concluded that other changes were not fundamental and therefore allowed (meaning there is no absolute prohibition on contract changes). I can see why the court would have ruled this way but to suggest that class size is an issue "fundamental to the nature of collective bargaining" is a huge stretch and to be consistent the SCC would have to side with the government. Edited August 28, 2014 by TimG

[Pct2017]

Yes the Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour of the health workers, why would you think they will do any different with the TF? You don't think Judge Griffin might have based her decision on the SOC decision or the appeal judge might do the same?

That is one interpretation of what I stated, but not what I was indicating. Basically I was saying that the SCoC overturned the lower courts ruling in the case of the HEU, so it is not out of the realm of possibilities that it will do the same in this case. I am not a lawyer by profession, so I cannot offer you any insight as to what will in actual fact happen, but I do know that the government is not going to show up with in-house lawyers this time around. Much like the BCTF, they will go out and hire some very expensive expertise to articulate their side.

[socialist]

That is one interpretation of what I stated, but not what I was indicating. Basically I was saying that the SCoC overturned the lower courts ruling in the case of the HEU, so it is not out of the realm of possibilities that it will do the same in this case. I am not a lawyer by profession, so I cannot offer you any insight as to what will in actual fact happen, but I do know that the government is not going to show up with in-house lawyers this time around. Much like the BCTF, they will go out and hire some very expensive expertise to articulate their side.

Vince Ready is ready to mediate and after it's all said and done, PCT will have a whole lot of egg to wipe off his face. LOL.

I told everyone from the beginning that BC teachers were getting screwed. The public knows it. And now the government is backtracking. They tried to break the BCTF but only made it stronger.

Teachers in BC, among the lowest paid in Canada, are finally going to get some respect. Hey PCT, it must bug you to see how this is playing out after all your teacher bashing posts. Don't mess with public education pal.

[PIK]

Watching the news on this last nite and again nothing to do with kids , all about money. And the reporter was saying no picket lines during the summer until a few days ago. Pathetic.

Edited August 28, 2014 by PIK

[socialist]

Watching the news on this last nite and again nothing to do with kids , all about money. And the reporter was saying no picket lines during the summer until a few days ago. Pathetic.

Doesn't matter. Momentum has swung very strongly in favor of the BCTF. The minister is now asking teachers to go back to work while they mediate. He's feeling the heat and I'm enjoying watching this government squirm.

[Wilber]

That is one interpretation of what I stated, but not what I was indicating. Basically I was saying that the SCoC overturned the lower courts ruling in the case of the HEU, so it is not out of the realm of possibilities that it will do the same in this case. I am not a lawyer by profession, so I cannot offer you any insight as to what will in actual fact happen, but I do know that the government is not going to show up with in-house lawyers this time around. Much like the BCTF, they will go out and hire some very expensive expertise to articulate their side.

The chances of them overturning a ruling based on one of their own is going to be far less than on one they had not ruled on previously. Stranger things have happened but a bit of a stretch to think so.

[Hal 9000]

Doesn't matter. Momentum has swung very strongly in favor of the BCTF. The minister is now asking teachers to go back to work while they mediate. He's feeling the heat and I'm enjoying watching this government squirm.

As a teacher, you must have received the emails last night, can you please summarize them for us?

[socialist]

As a teacher, you must have received the emails last night, can you please summarize them for us?

Why? What did you hear?

[Hal 9000]

Why? What did you hear?

Well, in short we're soon gonna find out whether the teachers care more about class size and composition or wages and pensions.

[socialist]

Well, in short we're soon gonna find out whether the teachers care more about class size and composition or wages and pensions.

They care about their students and fighting against the attack on public education. You don't know what is happening behind the scenes. The government blinked because they've realized they are making many mistakes and the public is overwhelmingly against them.

[socialist]

Well, in short we're soon gonna find out whether the teachers care more about class size and composition or wages and pensions.

Scroll down and look at the right side. Look at the poll. That is why the government is acting. They have lost all support. You and PCT have egg on your face.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-news-headlines

[Hal 9000]

What are you talking about? They're both looking for a diplomatic way out of size and composition. What will happen is they settle for money and "postpone" or leave open the size and composition issue for a "later discussion".