BC Teachers Getting Screwed...Again

[Wilber]

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.

The point was, who would have the greatest incentive to settle, the ones getting paid or the ones not getting paid?

[Big Guy]

Tentative settlement will be ratified, teachers will declare victory, government will declare victory and kids will have paid price. Repercussions to come. System continues to deteriorate and lots of bad feeling all around.

Ironic that everyone involved is supposed to be involved in education yet no one has learned a lesson.

Conflict resolved - until the next one.

[overthere]

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.

You keep pretending that BINDING ARBITRATION is the norm in labour disputes. It isn't .

Please stop.

And yes, the employer - including your own government- not only has the right to take a position, they have the duty.

[cybercoma]

and i have every right not to trust them if they refuse arbitration.

[Pct2017]

How the gov't will come out claiming "Mission Accomplished" no matter what the details are.

So, if you are going to view this settlement in terms of one side winning and the other side losing, can you give us a benchmark to work with. What set of wages and benefits deem a win for the teachers? What clause regarding class composition and teacher workload would you term a win for the government?

[overthere]

and i have every right not to trust them if they refuse arbitration.

I'd mistrust perhaps- if after a long bruising strike- either party refused mediation.

But binding arbitration?

I could not possibly trust a government who failed to protect my interests by allowing binding arbitration when they cannot afford more than they have offered.

[Pct2017]

The point was, who would have the greatest incentive to settle, the ones getting paid or the ones not getting paid?

If you want to stay on the payroll, do not do on strike. Seems pretty simple. And, if you do choose to go on strike, do not bemoan that you no longer get a pay cheque. What part of this is confusing you?

[cybercoma]

I'd mistrust perhaps- if after a long bruising strike- either party refused mediation.

But binding arbitration?

I could not possibly trust a government who failed to protect my interests by allowing binding arbitration when they cannot afford more than they have offered.

You don't even know what your interests are. Your interests are the government paying for highly qualified and skilled teachers because nobody wants to live in a society filled with stupid people.

[Wilber]

If you want to stay on the payroll, do not do on strike. Seems pretty simple. And, if you do choose to go on strike, do not bemoan that you no longer get a pay cheque. What part of this is confusing you?

Who was bemoaning anything. You blather on about the teachers not wanting to settle yet they were the only ones undergoing personal financial hardship without a settlement.

[Wilber]

So, if you are going to view this settlement in terms of one side winning and the other side losing, can you give us a benchmark to work with. What set of wages and benefits deem a win for the teachers? What clause regarding class composition and teacher workload would you term a win for the government?

The best indicator of a fair agreement is when no one is happy.

[overthere]

You don't even know what your interests are. Your interests are the government paying for highly qualified and skilled teachers because nobody wants to live in a society filled with stupid people.

I don't want to live in a society with condescending assholes either, but apparently I have to take on some of them.

[dre]

Being able to legislate a contract is the only way to make the negotiations fair.

Yeah! One side in the negotiating being able to arbitrarily impose its position on the other side is how to make negotiations "fair".

ROFLMAO

[TimG]

One side in the negotiating being able to arbitrarily impose its position on the other side is how to make negotiations "fair".

It is called balancing power. Government unions have way too much power as it is because they have a monopoly or near monopoly as the sole providers of government services. Without the option of legislating an agreement unions would have no incentive to moderate their demands and would exploit that monopoly even more than they do already. So yes, it does make the playing field fair and if you can't see then that is your problem.

BTW I am sure you would have a big problem with corporate monopolies. Why are you so blind to harms caused by union monopolies?

Edited September 16, 2014 by TimG

[dre]

Without the option of legislating an agreement unions would have no incentive to moderate their demands and would exploit that monopoly even more than they do already.

Thats simply not true. The incentive is always there, and its simply to work and get paid. The longer a strike goes the more financial hardship is endured by workers and the more pressure there is on leadership to make a deal.

So yes, it does make the playing field fair and if you can't see that that is your problem.

Only in your whimsical little fantasy world, does giving one side absolute power over the process and the ability to impose their terms on the other part make the playing field fair.

[TimG]

Thats simply not true. The incentive is always there, and its simply to work and get paid. The longer a strike goes the more financial hardship is endured by workers and the more pressure there is on leadership to make a deal.

And in your fantasy world the people who depend on the services provided don't matter. Public sector unions have always exploited the people who depend on the services which they have a monopoly over (e.g. the kids in the BCTF case). If they did not have that monopoly they would not have that power they do. This power needs to be balanced.

[Hal 9000]

Tentative settlement will be ratified, teachers will declare victory, government will declare victory and kids will have paid price. Repercussions to come. System continues to deteriorate and lots of bad feeling all around.

Ironic that everyone involved is supposed to be involved in education yet no one has learned a lesson.

Conflict resolved - until the next one.

I think it's ended just as many of us figured. The teachers will get a little more than the other unions, the money will be laundered into their contract so that the other unions can't come back on the gov't, a few more teachers possibly, but not enough to bring down sizes any significant amount and nothing really for composition - because that's actually a CUPE issue anyway.

The gov't will claim they stayed within their budget, the BCTF will claim that they gave in a little too much - but did so for the best interest of our children, teachers will scramble around trying to figure out spring break and seat sales to Mexico or Cuba and Socialist will claim victory.

[dre]

I think it's ended just as many of us figured. The teachers will get a little more than the other unions, the money will be laundered into their contract so that the other unions can't come back on the gov't, a few more teachers possibly, but not enough to bring down sizes any significant amount and nothing really for composition - because that's actually a CUPE issue anyway.

The gov't will claim they stayed within their budget, the BCTF will claim that they gave in a little too much - but did so for the best interest of our children, teachers will scramble around trying to figure out spring break and seat sales to Mexico or Cuba and Socialist will claim victory.

Yup Id say thats about right. Additional money will be given to the teachers as some kind of bonus program, and a few more teachers will be hired.

Im curious though if theres language in the new contract to deal with the decision by the courts which will be handed down sometime next year.

[overthere]

The longer a strike goes the more financial hardship is endured by workers and the more pressure there is on leadership to make a deal.

Note that the decision to enter the field of education is voluntary, the decision to accept a contract from an employer is voluntary and the choice to withdraw services is also voluntary.

Any'hardship endured' is entirely a personal choice.

[TimG]

Im curious though if theres language in the new contract to deal with the decision by the courts which will be handed down sometime next year.

The court decision has not taken away the government's right to legislate a settlement. The only question was whether the government bargained in "good faith" and any agreement shows the government negotiating in "good faith". The only reason this case is going on is because the union has this bizarre notion that putting clauses back in will change something even though the government will just insist that they be removed again. Edited September 16, 2014 by TimG

[socialist]

The government felt the heat. The BCTF bargained in good faith; the government did not. The public supported teachers, which must really burn PCT. And I herad the teachers will be getting a bonus which they deserve for being put through so much stress. Thanks to the BCTF kids and their families win.

[Hal 9000]

The government felt the heat. The BCTF bargained in good faith; the government did not. The public supported teachers, which must really burn PCT. And I herad the teachers will be getting a bonus which they deserve for being put through so much stress. Thanks to the BCTF kids and their families win.

So, you being a teacher, you must have info on the exact deal - right?

Can you please share the info?

[jacee]

/give-from-both-sides-as-details-trickle-out-in-b-c-teachers-tentative-deal

Isn't that the headline everyone wanted to see ... and so quick once the teachers walked.

Good for them.

You have to be willing to do it or it drags on forever, wasting everyone's time and money.

.

[dre]

The court decision has not taken away the government's right to legislate a settlement. The only question was whether the government bargained in "good faith" and any agreement shows the government negotiating in "good faith". The only reason this case is going on is because the union has this bizarre notion that putting clauses back in will change something even though the government will just insist that they be removed again.

The case had nothing to do with any of that. It has to do with whether or not teachers have the right to negotiate class size and composition. The government up till now was attempting to protect themselves from an adverse decision with E80 which would have rendered the court case totally irrelevant, so I was curious if that clause was in the tentative agreement. Jacees last link seems to suggest its gone, which means that issue will still be decided by the courts, and if the government loses its appeal they will have to pay damages to the teachers, and re-implement class size caps from 2002.

[Hal 9000]

The government felt the heat. The BCTF bargained in good faith; the government did not. The public supported teachers, which must really burn PCT. And I herad the teachers will be getting a bonus which they deserve for being put through so much stress. Thanks to the BCTF kids and their families win.

You are certifiable!

The deal is very similar to the deal that has been offered all summer, this is a common sense deal, and if the BCTF had any common sense, there would've been no delay to this school year. Fact is; the BCTF caused a lot of hardship to families for a deal that they should've negotiated months ago.

No kids won and no families won - The BCTF will get a few more members and the teachers will skate through with their bonuses like nothing ever happened, while families and kids try to catch up a lost 3 weeks.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Hal 9000

[TimG]

The case had nothing to do with any of that. It has to do with whether or not teachers have the right to negotiate class size and composition.

You don't seem to understand the case. The teachers obviously have the "right" to negotiate whatever they want - taking away that right to put stuff on the table is why the BC libs got in trouble with the SCC in the first place. But the BC government also has the "right" to refuse whatever provisions they want to refuse. So if the government does not want class size in the contracts then no court can compel them to include it.

The court case is about how the government went about settling prior disputes and the lack of any compensation for the 2-3 years of a valid contract which was ripped up (so far none which I agree is unreasonable). The most recent ruling was silly attempt to force negotiations by re-instating the long expired terms but this new agreement has a framework for how compensation will be negotiated, including arbitration if necessary. This means it is very unlikely that the court will feel compelled mandate specific steps other than to remind governments that if they rip up contracts they have to provide reasonable compensation.

Edited September 17, 2014 by TimG