BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[Pct2017]

I take it afterschool help, coaching and monitoring are defined duties in the contract in order to dock pay for inactivity.

Lack of these duties for a prolonged period really only hurts the poor kids, and who cares about them right...the middle+ class, have their soccer moms to take care of that stuff for l'il Xavier and Porsche.

I am not sure just what you are asking. Was the government right for docking the teachers pay for the actions they had already undertaken under Level One job action? Well the Labour Relations Board felt they were.

Then I reread your post and wonder if you are asking if it is a good thing that teachers were not offering out of school hours help to their students. You would have to ask the teachers what their opinion is on that I guess. Seems to me that it is quite detrimental to withdraw this support, but this is the second time in three years that the teachers have done it, so they must think it is somehow a positive.

Interesting that you belittle parents (soccer moms) for parenting. Not entirely sure where you are going with that. Is it really your opinion that only a teacher can parent a child? But, again, maybe I am reading your post incorrectly. It is somewhat jumbled.

[Wilber]

Then I reread your post and wonder if you are asking if it is a good thing that teachers were not offering out of school hours help to their students. You would have to ask the teachers what their opinion is on that I guess. Seems to me that it is quite detrimental to withdraw this support, but this is the second time in three years that the teachers have done it, so they must think it is somehow a positive.

Aren't you the guy who wanted?

Just, pure plain instruction to meet the curriculum.

[Pct2017]

Wilber, Wilber, Wilber. If you are going to take another persons words out of context, at least wait until they are buried deep on the thread.

When I referred to instruction to meet the curriculum, it was in reference to no popping in videos or other wastes of time that teachers adore. If the teachers once again withdraw their out of school hours help for students as they have twice recently, then that shows just how much they believe that this is all for those students. And Wilber, you can pretty much take it to the bank that the teachers will withdraw those services if they are legislated back to work in October.

[Hal 9000]

Wilber, Wilber, Wilber. If you are going to take another persons words out of context, at least wait until they are buried deep on the thread.

When I referred to instruction to meet the curriculum, it was in reference to no popping in videos or other wastes of time that teachers adore. If the teachers once again withdraw their out of school hours help for students as they have twice recently, then that shows just how much they believe that this is all for those students. And Wilber, you can pretty much take it to the bank that the teachers will withdraw those services if they are legislated back to work in October.

My kid came home last year and told me they spent 2 classes watching "The Last Samurai" as a historical feature on Japan...The Last Samurai! I couldn't believe my fucking ears when they told me.

[Wilber]

63" timestamp="1409627960"]Wilber, Wilber, Wilber. If you are going to take another persons words out of context, at least wait until they are buried deep on the thread.

When I referred to instruction to meet the curriculum, it was in reference to no popping in videos or other wastes of time that teachers adore. If the teachers once again withdraw their out of school hours help for students as they have twice recently, then that shows just how much they believe that this is all for those students. And Wilber, you can pretty much take it to the bank that the teachers will withdraw those services if they are legislated back to work in October.

I really don't know what you find important, you seem to make it up as you go along. What if they do remove those services? It will be because it is the only leverage they have, not because most want to.

I'll say it again. If this was a service provided by private companies that the government considered too important to the economy not to function, they would impose arbitration, not a contract.

[Bob Macadoo]

I am not sure just what you are asking. Was the government right for docking the teachers pay for the actions they had already undertaken under Level One job action? Well the Labour Relations Board felt they were.

Was the Level 1 job action in contradiction with established duties in the contract? Those duties are not contracted in ON. If they weren't in the contract how was pay docking legal?

I

Then I reread your post and wonder if you are asking if it is a good thing that teachers were not offering out of school hours help to their students. You would have to ask the teachers what their opinion is on that I guess.

I'm not saying its good which leads us to.....

I

Interesting that you belittle parents (soccer moms) for parenting. Not entirely sure where you are going with that. Is it really your opinion that only a teacher can parent a child? But, again, maybe I am reading your post incorrectly. It is somewhat jumbled.

Not a direct belittling. My point was the richer families can bridge the loss of school extras with their private sports, tutors, and helicopter moms......poor kids are really the only ones who suffer.....which is why those job actions do nothing as politicians only care about the richer family votes anyway. They, like you applaud the pay cut and let things drag too long.

[Bryan]

Any job has "duties as assigned" outside of what you might consider directly related to your job title. Refusing to do what your employer asks is insubordination. Forget docking pay, anyone who takes "job action" should be flat out fired.

[Pct2017]

Bob Mc - thanks for the clarification. The issue of docking pay went before the Labour Relations Board and was approved. You may not like it or agree with it, but the employer was well within their right s to dock pay for the level of job action conducted by the BCTF.

[sharkman]

Any job has "duties as assigned" outside of what you might consider directly related to your job title. Refusing to do what your employer asks is insubordination. Forget docking pay, anyone who takes "job action" should be flat out fired.

That is almost funny. Workers Comp rules in BC allow for workers to refuse to "do what your employer asks" when safety is an issue for instance. In reading your last few posts I have no doubt you would indeed fire people if you had a company, that is until the fines started adding up. Job actions are an alternative to outright striking.

Look, the teachers could have walked off the job and thrown the province into bedlam. Parents screaming bloody murder, chaos for all involved. They are not the blue collar uneducated buffoon types though, and have tried to minimize the situation last May/June and were mostly successful until now. They gave it the entire summer, waiting for the government to change their negotiating position, even if just a little. This last weekend, they put 125 million on the table to try to get things started. The government did not budge, they didn't counter even a little. Ready saw enough and walked out. The resulting strike tomorrow is on the government.

I keep thinking they have an agenda that hopes for an outraged citizenry that they can use to their advantage. It's a risky game though, governments lose elections over stupid moves like this.

[Hal 9000]

That is almost funny. Workers Comp rules in BC allow for workers to refuse to "do what your employer asks" when safety is an issue for instance. In reading your last few posts I have no doubt you would indeed fire people if you had a company, that is until the fines started adding up. Job actions are an alternative to outright striking.

Look, the teachers could have walked off the job and thrown the province into bedlam. Parents screaming bloody murder, chaos for all involved. They are not the blue collar uneducated buffoon types though, and have tried to minimize the situation last May/June and were mostly successful until now. They gave it the entire summer, waiting for the government to change their negotiating position, even if just a little. This last weekend, they put 125 million on the table to try to get things started. The government did not budge, they didn't counter even a little. Ready saw enough and walked out. The resulting strike tomorrow is on the government.

I keep thinking they have an agenda that hopes for an outraged citizenry that they can use to their advantage. It's a risky game though, governments lose elections over stupid moves like this.

$125M is about half of the signing bonus they're wanting - big whoop. BCTF is looking for adjustments that tally in the Billions.

[TimG]

They gave it the entire summer, waiting for the government to change their negotiating position, even if just a little.

It is delusional for the BCTF to expect a better deal than other unions. If the BCTF wanted to accept the wage package and negotiate on things outside of that scope they likely would have found movement. But they didn't. The BCTF decided to be greedy.

The resulting strike tomorrow is on the government.

It is entirely the fault of a delusional union who is incapable of looking at the big picture and cares only about lining their pockets. Edited September 2, 2014 by TimG

[Bryan]

That is almost funny. Workers Comp rules in BC allow for workers to refuse to "do what your employer asks" when safety is an issue for instance. In reading your last few posts I have no doubt you would indeed fire people if you had a company, that is until the fines started adding up. Job actions are an alternative to outright striking.

I would fire people who thought they had any rights to their jobs, and acted accordingly. If I own the company, and I hire you, your job is to do as I say. If you do not want to do as I say, you are the one telling me that you don't want to work here, and I'm just helping you to move on to a place that you do.

Fines? No, I would not pay any. Employers absolutely are allowed to fire people who refuse to do what the employer expects.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Bryan

[jacee]

I would fire people who thought they had any rights to their jobs, and acted accordingly. If I own the company, and I hire you, your job is to do as I say. If you do not want to do as I say, you are the one telling me that you don't want to work here, and I'm just helping you to move on to a place that you do.

Fines? No, I would not pay any. Employers absolutely are allowed to fire people who refuse to do what the employer expects.

I'm sure you do realize there are some limits on that.

Right?

.

[Big Guy]

Looks to me like the union wants to be legislated back and to compulsory arbitration and the gov't does not. On the other hand, the gov't can legislate teachers back and impose a contract - like in Ontario.

It does seem a little strange when the union is telling the parents that we are keeping your kids out of school because we are concerned about their education. The front line teachers will pay dearly for this continuing disruption. I hope it is worth it to them.

How are they going to explain it to their students when this strike is over?

Edited September 2, 2014 by Big Guy

[Wilber]

Apparently Bryan has never read the Employment Standards Act either.

[Wilber]

Looks to me like the union wants to be legislated back and to compulsory arbitration and the gov't does not. On the other hand, the gov't can legislate teachers back and impose a contract - like in Ontario.

It does seem a little strange when the union is telling the parents that we are keeping your kids out of school because we are concerned about their education. The front line teachers will pay dearly for this continuing disruption. I hope it is worth it to them.

How are they going to explain it to their students when this strike is over?

A government would have imposed arbitration on a private sector union in this position by now so the question of who doesn't care is debatable.

[overthere]

So did you realize that in BC you need 5 years of education, not 4 as you thought? Other than that, the BC government last June locked out the teachers(not the traditional lock out) and cut 10% of the teacher's wages. Next, they saved more money since summer school was cancelled as well as on line courses. This all adds up to a significant amount of revenue that you seem unaware of. But, that will pale in comparison to the amount the BC government will save when school does not start. They will not be sending the teacher salary component of the revenue amounts to school districts, and the amount will be enormous as it adds up. I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but it seems inaccurate.

Revenue is income to the government, like a tax.

There is no revenue lost or gained in this dustup. The BC govt has not increased or decreased taxes or fees.

Hope that helps.

No, you don't necessarily need 5 years. My wife is a teacher and can transfer to a teaching job in BC with a four year B Ed degree with no further classwork. Pensions are also transferable from some provinces, as of several years ago.

[overthere]

I don't believe either side is acting in good faith. Ordinarily, government would impose a mediator with powers to recommend or binding arbitration. Trouble is, government is 50% of the problem in this case.

Mediators with the power of binding arbitration typically gather the positions of both sides and meet in the middle. It is not often seen in the private sector, because the middle may be entirely unpalatable to one side- usually the employer who has to maintain a profitable position.

Not so in the public sector, where it is a rarity for negotiators to care more about the actual market value of the work than they do about votes in the next election. Perhaps the middle is too expensive, and the govt is simply protecting your interests as a taxpayer. It's a novel concept, but you'd have to consider it.

[Wilber]

Mediators with the power of binding arbitration typically gather the positions of both sides and meet in the middle. It is not often seen in the private sector, because the middle may be entirely unpalatable to one side- usually the employer who has to maintain a profitable position.

Not so in the public sector, where it is a rarity for negotiators to care more about the actual market value of the work than they do about votes in the next election. Perhaps the middle is too expensive, and the govt is simply protecting your interests as a taxpayer. It's a novel concept, but you'd have to consider it.

Not necessarily, they can also tell both sides to present their final offer and pick one of them. This forces both sides to get really serious.

As a tax payer, what kind of education system we end up with is also protecting my interests

[overthere]

Not necessarily, they can also tell both sides to present their final offer and pick one of them. This forces both sides to get really serious.

As a tax payer, what kind of education system we end up with is also protecting my interests

Oh, I think both sides are already pretty serious.

What is different here is that the government side is also prepared to play chicken if they must. And they must. This has many people stupified, public sector unions are very used to getting what they want when they want it.

When you pay too much for anything, including education, you are going to get either less of it or the same quantity of lower quality. Why do you want that? How is that in your interest?

[TimG]

A government would have imposed arbitration on a private sector union in this position by now so the question of who doesn't care is debatable.

The BC transit strike lasted 5 months. The governments position that the BCTF accept the same package that the other unions accepted is extremely reasonable.

[Bryan]

Apparently Bryan has never read the Employment Standards Act either.

Sounds more like you haven't. Employers have a lot more rights than you think. You absolutely do not have a right to collect a paycheque. Not actually doing the job your employer is paying you to do is legitimate grounds for dismissal anywhere in the country.

[Boges]

SCHOOL'S OUT FOREVER!!!

[Bryan]

I'm sure you do realize there are some limits on that.

Right?

.

Sure, I can't fire people who ARE doing their jobs properly unless they are disruptive in the workplace.

Walking off the job and leaving kids without teachers is both not doing the job they were hired to do, AND pretty disruptive.

[Wilber]

Oh, I think both sides are already pretty serious.

What is different here is that the government side is also prepared to play chicken if they must. And they must. This has many people stupified, public sector unions are very used to getting what they want when they want it.

When you pay too much for anything, including education, you are going to get either less of it or the same quantity of lower quality. Why do you want that? How is that in your interest?

Serious about what? When an arbitrator says, you guys are both going to bring me your proposal and then try and sell it to me. I am then going to pick one of them. There will be no blending, it will be one or the other. That's when they will get really serious.

The government's priority is balancing the budget without increasing taxes or taking from their other spending priorities. not the education system. They have been very clear about that so it is not about " paying too much for education".