BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[Hal 9000]

Depending on where the increased taxes came from, each "taxpayer" would be on the hook for another $3-500 per year if the BCTF gets their way. Those of us who work are now working well into August before making a dime for ourselves.

[Wilber]

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.

Because a teacher or anyone else may be getting paid for certain activities doesn't always mean they are mandetory.

[Wilber]

Depending on where the increased taxes came from, each "taxpayer" would be on the hook for another $3-500 per year if the BCTF gets their way. Those of us who work are now working well into August before making a dime for ourselves.

One of the big problems is that we really don't know what they are asking for. All we get is spin from both sides. Is your 3-500 just more spin or can you back it up? I'm just pissed because we can't get the straight poop from anyone.

[Bryan]

Because a teacher or anyone else may be getting paid for certain activities doesn't always mean they are mandetory.

It does if the employer says they are.

[Wilber]

It does if the employer says they are.

It does if the contract says they are.

[Bryan]

It does if the contract says they are.

Even if the contract doesn't specifically say. Duties as assigned.

[Hal 9000]

One of the big problems is that we really don't know what they are asking for. All we get is spin from both sides. Is your 3-500 just more spin or can you back it up? I'm just pissed because we can't get the straight poop from anyone.

Their demands are on Facebook. I have a pdf, don't know if i can link it.

My favourite is the $3,000 per year for massages.

http://bit.ly/VWxRvE

Edited September 2, 2014 by Hal 9000

[Wilber]

Even if the contract doesn't specifically say. Duties as assigned.

The LRB ruled the government didn't have to pay for extra curricular activities the teachers stopped doing. It did not say they had to start doing them again so obviously they are not mandatory.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Wilber

[overthere]

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".

I do not support the decision of some arbitrator in billion dollar+ spending decisions. He or she has no skin in the game, and this is far too important for that. I have elected officials and a whole buildings full of supposed financial, labour and education specialists to provide guidance to Cabinet. They can earn their money and make sure taxpayers get full value. Somebody has to do it.

The governments priority is to balance priorities and make sure reasonable services are provided. I guess the money they don't spend on education will mean it is spent on health care or something they deem more important. Yes, it is about spending too much. The value of any employee, including teachers, is not unlimited. I don't buy into the kindergarten math bullshit spun constantly by the BCTF and others that 'we are paid less than the national average".

[Wilber]

I do not support the decision of some arbitrator in billion dollar+ spending decisions. He or she has no skin in the game, and this is far too important for that. I have elected officials and a whole buildings full of supposed financial, labour and education specialists to provide guidance to Cabinet. They can earn their money and make sure taxpayers get full value. Somebody has to do it.

The governments priority is to balance priorities and make sure reasonable services are provided. I guess the money they don't spend on education will mean it is spent on health care or something they deem more important. Yes, it is about spending too much. The value of any employee, including teachers, is not unlimited. I don't buy into the kindergarten math bullshit spun constantly by the BCTF and others that 'we are paid less than the national average".

So why not just legislate them back and quit the charade? An ultimatum is not negotiation so why put everyone through this farce.

[Hal 9000]

Their demands are on Facebook. I have a pdf, don't know if i can link it.

My favourite is the $3,000 per year for massages.

http://bit.ly/VWxRvE

Does this link work for you guys?

[overthere]

Legislating is not the ultimate ultimatum? The end of a process. Yes I guess that would be the easy way out.

Why do you want to end the lawful collective bargaining process underway now?

No, I think the govt is determined to reach an agreement within the restrictions of the budget of the Province of British Columbia. They feel the responsibility of representing all taxpayers, not caving in to the demands of a single union. Another phrase for this is 'doing their jobs'.

[jacee]

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.

It's a legal strike.

You can't fire them.

.

Edited September 2, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

Depending on where the increased taxes came from, each "taxpayer" would be on the hook for another $3-500 per year if the BCTF gets their way. Those of us who work are now working well into August before making a dime for ourselves.

LINK?

.

[Wilber]

Does this link work for you guys?

This is from the government, not th TF. I want to hear their demands from them. It is 3K for massage therapy with a doctors prescription. Not 3K for massages. You may not agree with it but this is not an uncommon part of extended medical coverage in many contracts, including the private sector.

[Pct2017]

So, could someone please explain the BCTF's "strategy" to me. On her first ruling, Justice Griffin gave both parties one year to reach an agreement that encompassed class composition and teacher workload. This did not happen, so the government once again had to legislate them back. The Judge ruled that this was not good enough. The government appealed this decision. This is all wee known history.

But, now look ahead to the appeal. Do not forget what in part is being appealed, in that the government will claim that it is nigh on impossible to negotiate with the teachers, which was the crux of their argument in the first place. So, what do the teachers do? They prove that it is singularly impossible to negotiate with them, and them alone. How can this possibly help their case? Would it not have made a ton of sense for them to come to an agreement on wages and benefits as smoothly as possible and in line with all other PSU's and then agree to defer the classroom issues until after the appeal.

It sure does appear to be a case of the teacher's inherent greed is getting in the way of clear thinking on their part.

[Pct2017]

It's a legal strike.

You can't fire them.

.

You are way more right than wrong. But, much like the Ikea strike/lockout, if the employer were to play extreme hardball, there would be replacement teachers hired from across Canada. Voila, schools are open again. Then, all that would happen is the remaining BCTF teachers would be left on strike forever. And poof goes the court case.

I am in no way advocating for this, but please do not blindly believe it is not in the realm of possibilities.

[Wilber]

Legislating is not the ultimate ultimatum? The end of a process. Yes I guess that would be the easy way out.

Why do you want to end the lawful collective bargaining process underway now?

No, I think the govt is determined to reach an agreement within the restrictions of the budget of the Province of British Columbia. They feel the responsibility of representing all taxpayers, not caving in to the demands of a single union. Another phrase for this is 'doing their jobs'.

Assuming governments always represent all the taxpayers is naivety at its best.

[jacee]

You are way more right than wrong. But, much like the Ikea strike/lockout, if the employer were to play extreme hardball, there would be replacement teachers hired from across Canada. Voila, schools are open again. Then, all that would happen is the remaining BCTF teachers would be left on strike forever. And poof goes the court case.

I am in no way advocating for this, but please do not blindly believe it is not in the realm of possibilities.

I don't believe it is.

.

[Hal 9000]

This is from the government, not th TF. I want to hear their demands from them. It is 3K for massage therapy with a doctors prescription. Not 3K for massages. You may not agree with it but this is not an uncommon part of extended medical coverage in many contracts, including the private sector.

You'll never see their side (from them), that should tell you something - a lot in fact. Don't you think that if that proposal was way off, would't the BCTF say so? No, it seems pretty legit to me. And being so, The BCTF is looking for Billions - not millions more - but Billions more. It's no wonder that they're way off on a settlement.

3k for massages, c'mon that's like 1 full massage per week. And, can't we all get a doctors prescription for that.

Back to you original question, Yes, depending on where this money from, "taxpayers" will get stung for $3-500 per year for that cost. If it's homeowners, it'll be way more than that too. If it's just fuel, tobacco and alcohol, it'll be closer to the $300 mark.

[Wilber]

I do wonder why we aren't seeing their side from them. It seems a bad strategy to me because it allows their opposition to spin it anyway they want. I don't think the TF has done a very good job of this.

[overthere]

Assuming governments always represent all the taxpayers is naivety at its best.

It's not an assumption.

Every BC MLA govt has a sworn duty to represent taxpayers.

For once they are doing their jobs. I applaud them and hope they don't buckle as usual.

[overthere]

It is 3K for massage therapy with a doctors prescription. Not 3K for massages. You may not agree with it but this is not an uncommon part of extended medical coverage in many contracts, including the private sector.

Ummm, 'massage' is interchangeable with 'massage therapy'. Nobody is talking about the other massage, the one with 'happy ending'.

By way of comparison, my wifes very large teachers local in Alberta also gets money for massage as a benefit. $1000 annual limit, receipts from a licensed therapist required.

[Pct2017]

I don't believe it is.

.

Google Teamsters Ikea Richmond strike. 14 months and counting of replacement workers. And, last time I checked, the Teamsters were not noted for being a wussy, push over union.

[Hal 9000]

If we have 3 million legitimate tax payers, then $1.5Billion extra dollars is gonna cost each of us $6-700 per year. Now, the low income people won't pay as much - of course, So those of us working, fuel, drink a little beer, pay auto ins. and own homes can easily see this as topping $800 per year - easily.