cybercoma Posted September 15, 2014 Report Posted September 15, 2014 Going to arbitration is an act of government giving away the power and authority it was voted in to wield to an unelected, unaccountable, individual. Why would you trust a government that did this more? Right. Just a completely unaccountable schmuck they pull off the street. That's who the arbiter will be. Jesus. It's amazing the pretzels you guys will bend yourself into to support the government keeping teachers out of schools by refusing to bargain with them.
TimG Posted September 15, 2014 Report Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) Right. Just a completely unaccountable schmuck they pull off the street. That's who the arbiter will be.Actually its worse - the arbitrator has to be a someone who is acceptable to the union which implies they are sympathetic to union demands. Governments are not elected to let people a union likes decide how much they should spend. It's amazing the pretzels you guys will bend yourself into to support the government keeping teachers out of schools by refusing to bargain with them.You ignored my eariler post where I explained how ridiculous it was for you to assume that any union offer for arbitration is a reasonable proposal just because it used the word 'arbitration'. In this case the BCTF put conditions on arbitration and by putting conditions the union simply turned its arbitration proposal into a self-serving political exercise that does nothing to bring a resolution to the dispute. Edited September 15, 2014 by TimG
Bonam Posted September 15, 2014 Report Posted September 15, 2014 Right. Just a completely unaccountable schmuck they pull off the street. That's who the arbiter will be. Jesus. It's amazing the pretzels you guys will bend yourself into to support the government keeping teachers out of schools by refusing to bargain with them. No. I said nothing of the sort and you would be well advised to stay away from such blatant fallacies in your arguments. It's not a random schmuck off the street. It's some highly respected person with a long history of arbitrating, I'm sure. Nonetheless, that person is not selected by the public, nor is accountable to the public. The decision making process in whether to approve a particular contract should be in the hands of the people that were elected to make precisely these kinds of decisions, rather than being pawned off to a 3rd party to avoid responsibility.
socialist Posted September 15, 2014 Author Report Posted September 15, 2014 Actually its worse - the arbitrator has to be a someone who is acceptable to the union which implies they are sympathetic to union demands. Governments are not elected to let people a union likes decide how much they should spend. You ignored my eariler post where I explained how ridiculous it was for you to assume that any union offer for arbitration is a reasonable proposal just because it used the word 'arbitration'. In this case the BCTF put conditions on arbitration and by putting conditions the union simply turned its arbitration proposal into a self-serving political exercise that does nothing to bring a resolution to the dispute. Hey Tim, not sure where you get your incorrect info, but an arbitrator would be agreed upon by gov. and BCTF. You, Hal, and PCT are absolutely clueless. To the three previously mentioned know-nothings: This is for you. http://bc.ctvnews.ca/poll-suggests-half-of-b-c-sides-with-teachers-union-in-dispute-1.2007384 The Liberal govt is desperately trying to hammer a deal right now. They know they have lost support. Thankful to have become a free thinker.
Bob Macadoo Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 No. I said nothing of the sort and you would be well advised to stay away from such blatant fallacies in your arguments. It's not a random schmuck off the street. It's some highly respected person with a long history of arbitrating, I'm sure. Nonetheless, that person is not selected by the public, nor is accountable to the public. The decision making process in whether to approve a particular contract should be in the hands of the people that were elected to make precisely these kinds of decisions, rather than being pawned off to a 3rd party to avoid responsibility. You mean pawned off to a 3rd party like a contract negotiator named Cameron?
Wilber Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 Going to arbitration is an act of government giving away the power and authority it was voted in to wield to an unelected, unaccountable, individual. Why would you trust a government that did this more? Governments give all kinds of powers to unelected unaccountable people when it suits them. "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Bonam Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 Governments give all kinds of powers to unelected unaccountable people when it suits them. Sure. But why is it a requirement for them to do so to appear trustworthy? That was cybercoma's claim: no faith in government if they refuse arbitration. I think it is a perfectly valid choice for government to negotiate rather than going to arbitration, and does not make their position less trustworthy.
sharkman Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 Going to arbitration is an act of government giving away the power and authority it was voted in to wield to an unelected, unaccountable, individual. Why would you trust a government that did this more? I guess that's why the BC Liberal government hates the judicial system so much, those unelected so and so's! Unfortunately for them, our society is based on laws and the justice system which upholds them.
Wilber Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 Sure. But why is it a requirement for them to do so to appear trustworthy? That was cybercoma's claim: no faith in government if they refuse arbitration. I think it is a perfectly valid choice for government to negotiate rather than going to arbitration, and does not make their position less trustworthy. Nothing wrong with negotiation, so negotiate. They had all summer and did nothing. "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Bonam Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 Nothing wrong with negotiation, so negotiate. They had all summer and did nothing. No pressure during the summer so neither side did anything to move the situation forward I suppose.
Bob Macadoo Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 No pressure during the summer so neither side did anything to move the situation forward I suppose. Incorrect. That is what others would have you believe but if you already think public service unions are greedy...not surprising you assumed that.
Wilber Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 No pressure during the summer so neither side did anything to move the situation forward I suppose. I guess the prospect of no school for at least a month wasn't enough pressure. Now people are pissed and it seems there is. Who could have seen that coming? "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Hal 9000 Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 I think we all knew that the teachers would not negotiate while school was on summer break. Nothing here is surprising. The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
Wilber Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 I think we all knew that the teachers would not negotiate while school was on summer break. Nothing here is surprising. Just like you to put it all on the teachers. I don 't recall the govt showing any interest. "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 CKNW checked into who is getting paid during this mess. Everyone on the govt side is collecting a check. No one on the BCTF side is getting paid until this is resolved. Iker is not getting paid. Fassbender and Cameron haven't missed a beat. "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Hal 9000 Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) Just like you to put it all on the teachers. I don 't recall the govt showing any interest. The BCTF knows that their bargaining power directly correlates with kids being out of school. It's their tactics, no secret here. Kids are their leverage. I've seen this movie a couple times before, the actors are different, but the plot is the same. Many people, myself included threw away september a long time ago. In 2005, we all knew there were issues with the BCTF, but they didn't do a single thing until the beginning of school, then one month in decided to strike. Edited September 16, 2014 by Hal 9000 The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan I have said that the Western world is just as violent as the Islamic world - Dialamah Europe seems to excel at fooling people to immigrate there from the ME only to chew them up and spit them back. - Eyeball Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their (Muslim's) society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted. - Eyeball
Pct2017 Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 CKNW checked into who is getting paid during this mess. Everyone on the govt side is collecting a check. No one on the BCTF side is getting paid until this is resolved. Iker is not getting paid. Fassbender and Cameron haven't missed a beat. Now there is a strange coincidence. Iker is the only one of the three amigos who is not getting paid and Iker is the only one of the three amigos who is on strike. Good hard hitting news reporting by CKNW.
Bob Macadoo Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 The BCTF knows that their bargaining power directly correlates with kids being out of school. It's their tactics, no secret here. Kids are their leverage. ..... In 2005, we all knew there were issues with the BCTF, but they didn't do a single thing until the beginning of school, then one month in decided to strike. Just to show your ignorant bias. Negotiations restarted the first of Aug even with no Vince Ready until the middle of the month. They ended the first of July. Top that with the job action and negotiations that happened before school let out and then cancellation of summer school. Hmmmm. I can't find what went on during that month.......I bet the minister was at home on pins and needles not vacationing with the pay he was getting.
Pct2017 Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 So they reached a tentative agreement early this morning. Now what do you guys want to talk about?
Bob Macadoo Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 So they reached a tentative agreement early this morning. Now what do you guys want to talk about? How the gov't will come out claiming "Mission Accomplished" no matter what the details are.
cybercoma Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 No. I said nothing of the sort and you would be well advised to stay away from such blatant fallacies in your arguments. It's not a random schmuck off the street. It's some highly respected person with a long history of arbitrating, I'm sure. Nonetheless, that person is not selected by the public, nor is accountable to the public. The decision making process in whether to approve a particular contract should be in the hands of the people that were elected to make precisely these kinds of decisions, rather than being pawned off to a 3rd party to avoid responsibility. If the government is going to be an employer, they should negotiate their contracts the same as any other employer. They don't get to unilaterally decide on those contracts. That's not how employer/employee relationships work. I find it quite strange that you would be set against arbitration because of some weird ideal of democracy. This isn't a democratic process. This is a negotiation between employer and employees.
cybercoma Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) Sure. But why is it a requirement for them to do so to appear trustworthy? That was cybercoma's claim: no faith in government if they refuse arbitration. I think it is a perfectly valid choice for government to negotiate rather than going to arbitration, and does not make their position less trustworthy. It makes their position less trustworthy because both sides give up something leaving it in the hands of an arbiter. By refusing to go to arbitration the government just shows that their position is completely untenable. The only reason not to go to arbitration is because you know you're in the wrong and a reasonable examination of the facts would result in you losing. if the government was actually interested in getting teachers back to work, they would go to arbitration or pull rank like the Conservatives in Ottawa and legislate them back. Edited September 16, 2014 by cybercoma
cybercoma Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 Just like you to put it all on the teachers. I don 't recall the govt showing any interest. And it was the government that wouldn't go to arbitration. So who's not interested in reaching a resolution here?
TimG Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) If the government is going to be an employer, they should negotiate their contracts the same as any other employer. They don't get to unilaterally decide on those contracts.A false premise. Governments are NOT companies because it is very difficult for them to go bankrupt because they can always raise taxes. This means a necessary safety valve to protect against excessive union demands in missing in the public sector. Being able to legislate a contract is the only way to make the negotiations fair. That's not how employer/employee relationships work. I find it quite strange that you would be set against arbitration because of some weird ideal of democracy. This isn't a democratic process. This is a negotiation between employer and employees.As I said before (and you keep ignoring): arbitration is not a cure all. Parties can place conditions on arbitration which make the process unacceptable to the other. For example, the government could agree to arbitration provided the total cost of the settlement does not exceed limits it sets. But the union would most certainly refuse - would you then criticize the union for refusing to arbitrate? Setting a limit on the cost of the settlement is not materially different that the BCTF's demand to leave class size out of arbitration so your cannot really argue these hypothetical government conditions are unreasonable. In fact, buried in the the judgement that the BC government lost is an affirmation that the 'net-zero' policy previously adopted by the government was a perfectly reasonable restriction on bargaining given the governments duty to taxpayers. Edited September 16, 2014 by TimG
Bob Macadoo Posted September 16, 2014 Report Posted September 16, 2014 In fact, buried in the the judgement that the BC government lost is an affirmation that the 'net-zero' policy previously adopted by the government was a perfectly reasonable restriction on bargaining given the governments duty to taxpayers. It's not hidden at all, and agreed with by many.....bargaining net-zero is valid form....not illegal at all. Just doesn't have to be considered either. Net-zero would suggest you gave more somewhere else to net-zero the reduction else where.......calling "net-negative" a "net-zero" offer is disingenuous.
Recommended Posts