BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[TimG]

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.

Or until a new agreement is imposed.

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.

Sure - when the contracts expire they can ask for whatever changes they want. The company may decide that it does not want the business under the terms but that is fine. The trouble with labour unions is they have a monopoly and that is the reason why this dispute exists. Edited September 6, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

Or until a new agreement is imposed.

So cut the charade and "impose" then and be prepared for another ten years in court.

Sure - when the contracts expire they can ask for whatever changes they want. The company may decide that it does not want the business under the terms but that is fine. The trouble with labour unions is they have a monopoly and that is the reason why this dispute exists.

So only contracts signed with companies have to be honoured. Those signed with unions aren't worth the paper they are written on. Glad we have clarified that.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Wilber

[TimG]

So cut the charade and "impose" then and be prepared for another ten years in court.

Well that is the problem. The BCTF is sabotaging negotiations by refusing to accept the government's wage offer (which prevents any meaningful discussion of the class size issue). Given the intransigence of the union and the harm caused to kids the government can argue the the imposed contract was necessary.

So only contracts signed with companies have to be honoured. Those signed with unions aren't worth the paper they are written on. Glad we have clarified that.

You clearly have not been reading what I said. I said quite explicitly that the union had a legitimate claims for compensation for the period of time that the clauses would have been in effect but once that contract expired they have no claim. Edited September 6, 2014 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

Well that is the problem. The BCTF is sabotaging negotiations by refusing to accept the government's wage offer (which prevents any meaningful discussion of the class size issue). Given the intransigence of the union and the harm caused to kids the government can argue the the imposed contract was necessary. You clearly have not been reading what I said. I said quite explicitly that the union had a legitimate claims for compensation for the period of time that the clauses would have been in effect but once that contract expired they have no claim.

Listen to what you are saying. "The BCTF is sabotaging negotiations by refusing to accept the government's wage". That not meaningful discussion.

[sharkman]

You clearly have not been reading what I said. I said quite explicitly that the union had a legitimate claims for compensation for the period of time that the clauses would have been in effect but once that contract expired they have no claim.

You keep saying this, but it seems wrongheaded to me, for the following reason. When they tore up the contract and imposed larger class sizes, it was to save them money, and in fact I'm sure they put a dollar amount on how much it saved them. Each year since then that same dollar amount has been kept out of the system for 12 years. The government would not re-negotiate class size, contract after contract. They even called the BCTF an essential service as they legislated them back to work twice. So the amount that they illegally took out of the education system has been gathering since 2002. In 12 years they've dug quite a hole for themselves.

The government knows this is one possible scenario that the courts will consider. Again, that is why they refuse to legislate them back to work. Regardless of how you personally feel about the court decisions(as if your feelings on the matter have any bearing), they are legal and a third similar ruling will only strengthen the BCTF's case. So instead of manning up and realizing that they should do something in this dispute that would be in the spirit of the previous rulings, and possibly garner a sympathetic ruling in October, they stick their heads in the sand, and double down on stupid.

That's the only apparent reason for refusing to go to binding arbitration. And we know they are too anti-union to actually negotiate, as their sad performance last weekend displayed, in spite of having Vince Ready on tap to really get something done. Their only move, therefore, is to let parents twist in the wind for a month, and then when the province is in an uproar, legislate them back to work. The whole province will have to suffer for their agenda.

[TimG]

That not meaningful discussion.

The government has settled with other unions and these settlements include "me too" clauses which means the get any extra the teacher get. It has one more union to negotiate with who would accept nothing less than what the teachers get. The government cannot possible offer the teachers 1 penny more without blowing a huge hole in the budget. No reasonable person can expect the government to offer anything other than the wage package that other unions agreed to.

That said, the government can negotiate on other issues but those negotiations cannot take place until the BCTF accepts the wage package. IOW - the BCTF is sabotaging negotiations.

[TimG]

Each year since then that same dollar amount has been kept out of the system for 12 years.

So what? The clauses would have been removed at contract expiry and the same savings would have accrued anyway. The only issue is compensation for period of the contract when the clauses were removed.

So the amount that they illegally took out of the education system has been gathering since 2002.

Nonsense. The rules existed because teachers wanted a workplace rule to manage their workload. When it was removed their workload went up and the compensation would be for harm caused to the teachers by the loss of a workplace rule. That's it. There was no money "taken out of the system" (meaningless BCTF spin) and if it was that is what elected governments are entitled to do and no union contract can stop them.

That's the only apparent reason for refusing to go to binding arbitration.

Ah no. The reason what the government said: arbitrators don't have a mandate to respect government finances. Governments that have used binding arbitration in the past have been saddled which expensive contracts created based on the arbitration premise that 'it must be reasonable if the union asks for it'. Edited September 6, 2014 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

The government has settled with other unions and these settlements include "me too" clauses which means the get any extra the teacher get. It has one more union to negotiate with who would accept nothing less than what the teachers get. The government cannot possible offer the teachers 1 penny more without blowing a huge hole in the budget. No reasonable person can expect the government to offer anything other than the wage package that other unions agreed to.That said, the government can negotiate on other issues but those negotiations cannot take place until the BCTF accepts the wage package. IOW - the BCTF is sabotaging negotiations.

Then it would seem to me that the gov't should agree to the viewpoint of the union's other terms first as it seems wage is a contract must for them whereas it is a variable for the union......or so your logic goes.

[Bob Macadoo]

The reason what the government said: arbitrators don't have a mandate to respect government finances. Governments that have used binding arbitration in the past have been saddled which expensive contracts created based on the arbitration premise that 'it must be reasonable if the union asks for it'.

Just so you know the fallacy of the union sided arbitrator has been debunked. An arbitrator determines whether the term is reasonable based on market preponderance of the term. Is it reasonable that the term would be available in the market for individuals of the equivalent "class". Ability to pay is sometimes discounted as it can be proven corporations/governments revenue forecasts can be skewed to accommodate the angle.

[Wilber]

It's kind of karma that mess this has come back to haunt the person responsible for it in the first place

It's also interesting that most of this year's grade 11 and 12's will be eligible to vote in the next election.

[Wilber]

Fassbender was going on about how much arbitration cost the province during the doctors dispute. It might also have stopped a mass exit of doctors from the province.

[TimG]

Fassbender was going on about how much arbitration cost the province during the doctors dispute. It might also have stopped a mass exit of doctors from the province.

Get back to me when we have a problem with a 'mass exodus' of teachers.

[TimG]

It's also interesting that most of this year's grade 11 and 12's will be eligible to vote in the next election.

I would not assume they side with the teachers. Some do obviously but not all.

[Wilber]

Get back to me when we have a problem with a 'mass exodus' of teachers.

My point is that this government is all about costs. Value ain't in it. They don't really care what they wind up with as long as it is cheap.

[Wilber]

I would not assume they side with the teachers. Some do obviously but not all.

I'm not assuming anything but it might do wonders for the under 25 voter turnout.

[Hal 9000]

My point is that this government is all about costs. Value ain't in it. They don't really care what they wind up with as long as it is cheap.

And what will we wind up with if the teachers get everything they want?

[Wilber]

And what will we wind up with if the teachers get everything they want?

I doubt it but they are taking the risk the government might get everything it want's.

[Hal 9000]

I doubt it but they are taking the risk the government might get everything it want's.

No, I'm serious! If we give the teachers everything they want, how will it improve the education system - if at all?

[Wilber]

No, I'm serious! If we give the teachers everything they want, how will it improve the education system - if at all?

I'm serious as well.

[Hal 9000]

I'm serious as well.

So, you have no answer? Thought as much!

[Wilber]

So, you have no answer? Thought as much!

Why do you think the teachers will get everything they want? Do you think the government is being unreasonable?

[Pct2017]

This latest attempt by the teachers and their dinosaur union to call for arbitration is ludicrous. I mean, why would the government agree to arbitration for wages and benefits only? Look at it this way, what risk does the union have in this scenario? If the arbitrator agrees with the government, then the teachers get the wages and benefits that they are destined to get in any case, which is the same as the rest of the PSU's. Nothing lost there. But if the arbitrator gives them one dime more than that scenario, then it is all unexpected gains for the teachers. Again, no risk on their part as the government has to shoulder all of the risk.

So, why then is the union not including class composition and teacher workload in the arbitration? Well, even Young Socialist would be able to piece this one together and figure out that they would then have to assume some risk in the arbitration. The arbitrator just may say that the current class composition and teacher workload is just fine, which would in effect extinguish the teachers court case, particularly if they are stupid enough to not include clause 80. Thus, the teachers would actually have some degree of risk at stake.

No, my friends, this is a total sham, and a fairly desperate one at that. Iker has screwed his membership every which was but Tuesday, and he cannot figure out a way out without looking the total idiot that he is, and vicariously making 86% of the teachers look like idiots as well.

I had said earlier that it would be the second week in October before this gets solved, but with Iker cracking, it just may be over sooner than that.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Pct2017

[Wilber]

Then why the sham? Legislate them back.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Wilber

[Bob Macadoo]

So, why then is the union not including class composition and teacher workload in the arbitration? Well, even Young Socialist would be able to piece this one together and figure out that they would then have to assume some risk in the arbitration. The arbitrator just may say that the current class composition and teacher workload is just fine, which would in effect extinguish the teachers court case, particularly if they are stupid enough to not include clause 80. Thus, the teachers would actually have some degree of risk at stake.

Close. The risk is associated with muddying the waters of the court case. Prolonging it, giving the gov't to offset the liability therein. If in the arbitration framework it was explicit that future arbitration has no affect on past actions then I bet youxd get the union on board. I'd bet the gov't isn't in with that. Iker threw out the offer, again to get a response/counter and got political rhetoric.....go figure.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[Pct2017]

Bob, I have read your post above and reread it, and I must admit I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. I am familiar with every single word you use, but cannot figure out what you are saying when you string them together the way you have. Future arbitration affecting past actions? How can anything affect past actions as a past action has already occurred, so it cannot be affected by anything.

This is simply a good old fashion guess, but I think that what you are saying is that if the teachers included class composition and teacher workload in the arbitration and they did not like what the results were, then they still would proceed with the court case. If I am correct, then this is the point that I was trying to make. If those items were to be included, then once the arbitrator makes his or her decision, both parties have to agree to the contract and that would extinguish the teachers court case. Once class size and teacher workload is agreed upon in a contract, there is nothing to quibble about in court.

I apologize if this is not what you were trying to say, but .....