BC Teacher's Federation loses in Appeal Court

[Moonbox]

For anyone who has been following the topic, Justice Griffin's previous two rulings regarding the BC Teacher's Federation have been effectively neutered by the appeal court with a 4-1 majority. The BCTF's insistence that it was unconstitutional for the government to determine class sizes and composition outside of collective bargaining has, according to the court of appeal, been quashed.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bcs-teachers-federation-would-do-well-to-raise-the-white-flag/article24200726/

As the article reads, the most critical point of this ruling is that class sizes and composition are not just matters of teachers' working conditions, but also of education policy:

"The province is charged with the democratic responsibility to develop education policy in the public interest and is held politically accountable for the policy choices it makes."

The implication suggests that collective bargaining cannot dictate education policy. What qualifies as education policy is unclear to me, but one extremely interesting point on the debate was the court's decision that collective bargaining with the Teacher's Federation cannot "...unduly interfere with the legislature’s constitutional role in allocating public resources." All in all, it appears to be a huge blow to collective bargaining in the Public Sector.

An appeal to the Supreme Court is in the works but apparently its chances are minute.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Moonbox

[Freddy]

I'm not sure if I should rejoice or cry. Or both lol

[Moonbox]

I guess it depends on your angle doesn't it? Teachers and the public service sector probably aren't going to be happy out it at all. A lot of taxpayers will be, especially the ones in BC.

[Freddy]

I guess it depends on your angle doesn't it? Teachers and the public service sector probably aren't going to be happy out it at all. A lot of taxpayers will be, especially the ones in BC.

I guess it depends on your angle doesn't it? Teachers and the public service sector probably aren't going to be happy out it at all. A lot of taxpayers will be, especially the ones in BC.

Both the public sector and the legislature are grossly inadequate in the majority of their actions in my opinion.

[jacee]

I guess it depends on your angle doesn't it? Teachers and the public service sector probably aren't going to be happy out it at all. A lot of taxpayers will be, especially the ones in BC.

Really?

They want their kids in larger classes?

.

[Bryan]

Really?

They want their kids in larger classes?

.

They want unions to keep their noses out of policy decisions.

[Moonbox]

Really?

They want their kids in larger classes?

If it means not having to pay for more bloated teacher salaries/benefits? It appears the answer to that question everywhere in Canada is YES.

Would we prefer to stop overpaying our teachers and thus be able to afford more of them? Absolutely. Unfortunately, it's pretty damn obvious that the teachers are more interested in their compensation and vacation than the actual students.

[socialist]

I wish educators would be up in arms on all the money spent on useless gimmicks, like the "collaborative classroom".

http://ii.library.jhu.edu/tag/collaborative-learning-classroom/

These cost around $20,000 per classroom. It is the latest gimmick. Sadly, many in the education business see grant money as free money. I would rather see more teachers hired than these ridiculous collaborative classrooms. But someone is making money.

[Pct2017]

I was listening to the Vancouver talking heads radio show shortly after this decision came down on Friday and they had an interview with Jim Iker. Now, granted this was not a stellar day for the head of the most reviled union in the province, but it was pretty funny listening to him. He actually stated that now that the Court of Appeal had made it's decision, he hoped that the government would come to the table and negotiate class size and composition into the BCTF's contract. So, let's summarize there Jim. The government has been scrapping with your union since 2002 regarding whether the union or the duly elected government should control the work place. Now, 13 years later, the courts agree that the union has no business meddling in these affairs. So, his response? Well, it was very much like a boxer who is laying flat out on the canvas as the referee counts to eight. The doomed boxer looks way up at his opponent and say "Now do you concede?"

Pretty funny reaction there Jim.

[Moonbox]

double-post.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

He actually stated that now that the Court of Appeal had made it's decision, he hoped that the government would come to the table and negotiate class size and composition into the BCTF's contract.

Yeah that's brilliant. That's like...refusing a court settlement and going to court, then losing handily in court, and then hoping you could still take the settlement.

[cybercoma]

Terrible decision. This essentially means the government doesn't have to honour contracts it enters. Every public service employee should walk off the job, since their employment contracts are now meaningless.

[TimG]

Terrible decision. This essentially means the government doesn't have to honour contracts it enters. Every public service employee should walk off the job, since their employment contracts are now meaningless.

What crap. It means no such thing. The teachers had a 2-3 year contract that was cancelled and the were owed compensation for that cancellation. Once that contract ended the government was entitled to impose a new contract that removed terms that it felt did not belong. The previous court ruling was ridiculous because it asserted that once terms get into a contract they can never be removed as part of an imposed settlement. That is why the ruling was overturned and it had nothing to with 'honoring contracts'.

[Bob Macadoo]

What crap. It means no such thing. The teachers had a 2-3 year contract that was cancelled and the were owed compensation for that cancellation. Once that contract ended the government was entitled to impose a new contract that removed terms that it felt did not belong. The previous court ruling was ridiculous because it asserted that once terms get into a contract they can never be removed as part of an imposed settlement. That is why the ruling was overturned and it had nothing to with 'honoring contracts'.

I think the key words were imposed and removed. That be exactly what it means. They made up their own contract.....nada negotiation.

[TimG]

I think the key words were imposed and removed. That be exactly what it means. They made up their own contract.....nada negotiation.

If the parties can't agree to mutually acceptable terms then the democratically elected government is within its rights to impose a settlement. This is the only counter weight that makes up for the fact that the government can't go 'out of business' and fire all of its employees like a private corporation. Edited May 6, 2015 by TimG

[Bob Macadoo]

If the parties can't agree to mutually acceptable terms then the democratically elected government is within its rights to impose a settlement. This is the only counter weight that makes up for the fact that the government can't go 'out of business' and fire all of its employees like a private corporation.

I don't disagree....but its hardly not what it means. I think however the stick should maximum be stay status quo unless something new is negotiated.....its a bit ingenuous to bargain knowing you can just legislate what you wish. There has to be an immediate price in bad bargaining for "management" if there is one for labour.....voting out in 4 years is not it......CEO's can get an immediate turf.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Bob Macadoo

[TimG]

I think however the stick should maximum be stay status quo unless something new is negotiated.....its a bit ingenuous to bargain knowing you can just legislate what you wish.

Sure. In most cases governments do negotiate but in BC you had a fundamental philosophical divide between what the government wanted and what the union wanted. No amount of negotiation would have ever closed the divide. You also have to remember that hurt kids by letting a strike go on in the hopes that the union would come to its senses is not a viable option for elected officials.

There has to be an immediate price in bad bargaining for "management" if there is one for labour.....voting out in 4 years is not it......CEO's can get an immediate turf.

Part of the problem is unions sometimes spend enough to get their buddies in power which offer them all sorts of sweetheart deals. When the union's buddies get voted out they can hardly expect the new people to be as generous and should adjust their expectations accordingly. However, you know this never happens. If a union gets some concession it becomes a "fundamental right" that can never be negotiated away without some extremely large compensation. This leads inevitably to the standoff with we had in BC. Edited May 7, 2015 by TimG