Jump to content

BC Teacher's Federation loses in Appeal Court


Recommended Posts

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 by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Bob Macadoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...