BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[Bob Macadoo]

Arbitration is a process tilted in favor of unions because arbitrators tend to assume the government has an infinite pool of money. No government that cares about being able to keep its books in order can agree to arbitration.A better question is: why is the BCTF so afraid of arbitration for the class size/support issues? The BCTF offer explicitly excludes those items from consideration. That is a duplicitous move on the part of the BCTF.

Why would you arbitrate on something that was already arbitrated on albeit not binding?

[Hal 9000]

I didn't elect an arbitrator or a judge to take care of my tax dollars.

[Bob Macadoo]

I didn't elect an arbitrator or a judge to take care of my tax dollars.

Whoever you did its still not being done......

[Hal 9000]

Whoever you did its still not being done......

How so? I think the Liberals are doing a fine job of keeping on budget.

The union figures they've goy one up on the government and are playing it for all it's worth. they couldn't give a rats ass about the current teachers, it's all about getting more teachers - hopefully for everyone involved the teachers figure this out, but I doubt it.

[TimG]

Why would you arbitrate on something that was already arbitrated on albeit not binding?

Because the government always has the option of the notwithstanding clause. Arbitration would eliminate that risk.

[Bob Macadoo]

Because the government always has the option of the notwithstanding clause. Arbitration would eliminate that risk.

How so? If tyranny is enacted.....an adjudicator opinion is dust in the wind.

[Bob Macadoo]

How so? I think the Liberals are doing a fine job of keeping on budget.

The union figures they've goy one up on the government and are playing it for all it's worth. they couldn't give a rats ass about the current teachers, it's all about getting more teachers - hopefully for everyone involved the teachers figure this out, but I doubt it.

If the union is able to class action sue.....not so much good stewardship huh? Just like fed gov't appeals.

[Hal 9000]

How come Vince Ready said they're too far apart and yet the BCTF says they're really close (within $25mil)?

[TimG]

How so? If tyranny is enacted.....an adjudicator opinion is dust in the wind.

We have a tyranny imposed by unelected and unaccountable judges in this country. The Notwithstanding Clause the only defense against it.

As I said, there is a good case to be made that the teachers deserve some compensation for the 1 or 2 years remaining in the ripped up contract. There is no rational case to be made for re-instating the provisions today because such an action assumes that subsequent contracts would have included those provisions (not a chance).

If the courts does not over turn this ridiculous ruling re-instating the provisions then the notwithstanding clause will have to be used. The only real option is for the BCTF to negotiate an agreement with government.

Edited September 5, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

The not withstanding clause over a labour dispute, maintaining the government can break a contract whenever it chooses. That will be interesting

[Bob Macadoo]

We have a tyranny imposed by unelected and unaccountable judges in this country. The Notwithstanding Clause the only defense against it.As I said, there is a good case to be made that the teachers deserve some compensation for the 1 or 2 years remaining in the ripped up contract. There is no rational case to be made for re-instating the provisions today because such an action assumes that subsequent contracts would have included those provisions (not a chance).If the courts does not over turn this ridiculous ruling re-instating the provisions then the notwithstanding clause will have to be used. The only real option is for the BCTF to negotiate an agreement with government.

Reinstatement so that they can be negotiated. Perfectly rational. Contract negotiation should not be started from a point of bad faith (ie. unlawful contract negation). You are correct in that only a negotiated agreement will settle things.

[TimG]

The not withstanding clause over a labour dispute, maintaining the government can break a contract whenever it chooses. That will be interesting.

You seem to be missing the point.

First, in the nurses dispute the courts did NOT rule that breaking any contract was illegal. They only stated that some clauses in contracts are fundamental to the collective bargaining process and the government could not arbitrarily remove them. In the nurses case the disputed clauses related to contracting out and seniority rules.

Second, the issue in the teachers case not that the court ruled that the breaking the contract was illegal. Nor is the issue the concept of compensation for the broken contract. The issue is the court's presumption that the clause would have remained today if it was not removed in an illegal action. This is ridiculous. The clause expired when the contract expired and no rational person would believe that the teachers could have kept it even if was removed illegally from an existing contract.

More fundamentally, we cannot have a functional democracy if a union friendly government can get in, hand out all kinds of goodies to their union buddies if subsequent governments did not have the power to remove those goodies *when the contract expires*.

Edited September 5, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

You are correct in that only a negotiated agreement will settle things.

Hence my original point: why is the BCTF afraid of binding arbitration when it comes to class size issues?

[Bob Macadoo]

You seem to be missing the point.... This is ridiculous. The clause expired when the contract expired and no rational person would believe that the teachers could have kept it even if was removed illegally from an existing contract.More fundamentally, we cannot have a functional democracy if a union friendly government can get in, hand out all kinds of goodies to their union buddies if subsequent governments did not have the power to remove those goodies *when the contract expires*.

I think you are missing a point of collective bargaining. When a contract expires it isn't burned, shyte on and never mentioned again. It is the basis of negotiations in the next period so you aren't reinventing the wheel always. It works out for the employer too as you can't have the union asking for purple unicorns or such....would take longer than it does now.

[socialist]

This is for Tim, PCT, Hal, and Overthere. Read and weep, but discontinue the art of distorting facts.

http://www.straight.com/news/722896/parents-deserve-know-if-government-violating-constitution-spurning-binding-arbitration

[overthere]

I didn't elect an arbitrator or a judge to take care of my tax dollars.

+1

Applause to the politicians for, for once, doing their jobs.

[Bob Macadoo]

Hence my original point: why is the BCTF afraid of binding arbitration when it comes to class size issues?

How does negotiation equate with arbitration? Arbitration will not solve this.....see Hal's attitude.

[TimG]

It is the basis of negotiations in the next period so you aren't reinventing the wheel always.

So? The contract still has no legal force so if the government chooses to legislate the workers back to work then the clauses can be legally removed. The court was wrong to re-instate provisions from expired contracts. Edited September 6, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

How does negotiation equate with arbitration? Arbitration will not solve this.....see Hal's attitude.

You said there was no need to arbitrate what has already been arbitrated. I pointed out that the court rulings do not resolve the problem and you agreed that in the end negotiations are required. If negotiations cannot succeed then binding arbitration is an option which the BCTF rejects. So the question is why? Edited September 6, 2014 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

They have no legal force once it expired....prior to however frigging around with it constitutes contract fraud. Hence legal action. If the gov't wants to ignore the previous contract and start from scratch, I'm sure the union might oblige.......probably have a dozen new demands to get in......an apple a day.......12 weeks vacation........100% LTD.....etc.

[Bob Macadoo]

You said there was no need to arbitrate what has already been arbitrated. I pointed out that the court rulings do not resolve the problem and you agreed that in the end negotiations are required. If negotiations cannot succeed then binding arbitration is an option which the BCTF rejects. So the question is why?

Why cannot negotiations succeed? Protracted positions? Lack of monetary pain? Apathetic parents? A mutually negotiated position will be the only thing to stop the vitriol.

[TimG]

Why cannot negotiations succeed? Protracted positions? Lack of monetary pain? Apathetic parents? A mutually negotiated position will be the only thing to stop the vitriol.

You assume that there is a mutually satisfactory solution out there. The governments position is the wage package negotiated with other unions must be the basis for the settlement. This is an extremely reasonable position which the BCTF rejects. Until the BCTF accepts the package there can be no negotiation on the more contentious issue of class size.

[Bob Macadoo]

You can't negotiate in a vacuum. Each term is part of a sum of a whole. If BCTF sees no angle of quid pro quo.....how do they continue? Faith?

[Bob Macadoo]

Its funny, I notice the resident neo-liberal mouthpieces who claim to be lawyers are silent in this thread.

[Wilber]

You seem to be missing the point.

First, in the nurses dispute the courts did NOT rule that breaking any contract was illegal. They only stated that some clauses in contracts are fundamental to the collective bargaining process and the government could not arbitrarily remove them. In the nurses case the disputed clauses related to contracting out and seniority rules.

Second, the issue in the teachers case not that the court ruled that the breaking the contract was illegal. Nor is the issue the concept of compensation for the broken contract. The issue is the court's presumption that the clause would have remained today if it was not removed in an illegal action. This is ridiculous. The clause expired when the contract expired and no rational person would believe that the teachers could have kept it even if was removed illegally from an existing contract.

The court is not saying they would still be in effect, they are saying they were not removed legally therefore they are still in effect until negotiated differently.

More fundamentally, we cannot have a functional democracy if a union friendly government can get in, hand out all kinds of goodies to their union buddies if subsequent governments did not have the power to remove those goodies *when the contract expires*.

So a labour friendly government should be able to remove anything they consider to be goodies from contracts signed with companies by an anti labour government.