SD52 and PRDTU "lets get ready to rumble!"

On to the next stage of SD52 v PRDTU

“Symbolic motion of non-confidence”.

Why is this news? Nearly all union workplaces would give their management the same result. That’s the way it is in these confrontational environments when what is most important, in this case students, always takes a back seat to the selfish interests of the other parties. Both of them.

May I suggest that the Board use an $800/day consultant to find a solution … Wait a minute.

After several years of training and coaching the consultant should soon have our superintendent ready to engage in some district superintendent work. Other than introduce staff and guests at Board meetings who give reports, data and updates and to happily report on the good news stories.

And now the story has spread. … nsultants/

$10,000 a day… and yet more grievances are filed.

One may not like the money being spent addressing the grievances, but it doesn’t make sense to continually shovel $$$$ in to fuel the fire, does it?

[quote=“Sir Ryan of Last”]$10,000 a day… and yet more grievances are filed.

One may not like the money being spent addressing the grievances, but it doesn’t make sense to continually shovel $$$$ in to fuel the fire, does it?[/quote]

According to the article, the union is filing grievances because the board is trying to gut the contract. So the first question is who is fueling the fire?

I am going to assume that the union is not filing frivolous grievances, that they are legitimate.

And a final question, why are we at a point where the working relationship has gone so far south that the union (symbolically or not) has passed a motion of non-confidence? Why are we at a point where so many grievances have to be filed instead of the two sides solving problems together?

We appear to have two problems here:

A very expensive use of a consultant as well as a very negative working relationship between the board and the union.

This is not healthy for all concerned, employers, employees, and, ultimately, students. It has to be addressed quickly.

There are grievances all over the place or so the article says - not just because of the contract. I don’t think the Turtle incident directs targets the contracts, though maybe I am mistaken… maybe the Yertle is actually right in the contract, I don’t know.

Assumptions are bad things. Lord knows what some of these grievances are. Hell, there could be a grievance because the board said the sky was blue (sticking to my previous, blue sky comments - also maybe because I dream of blue sky). If each grievance has a cost associated with it for having to go to arbitration and/or some kind of legal representative, at what point do we say that maybe there are a few too many grievances being thrown onto the pile?

That is a fantastic final question though Dwhite. Have you asked the union why? So many people are looking for answers from the board with pitchforks and torches, and there is so much effort to make it about the board… but what response would you get from the Union rep? What reason - past all the “refuse” that is floating on the surface, is the reason for a non-confidence? Is it because they don’t like a board member? or multiple members? Want their own friends to be board members? There has to be some reasoning behind it? Twitter offers some thoughts, but they are merely thoughts.

Are people displeased that the government is involved? From the article…

“teachers are frustrated with the amount of arbitrations because prior to 2001 the teacher’s union and board of education didn’t have to go to the provincial level to resolve matters.”

Is it change that has everyone so riled up that they want more change?

I don’t know, Dwhite, but I would like to know too! I don’t much care for pitchforks though… they are so… messy.

Will, I guess the School Board might argue that $800 is a ‘deal’ for a consultant, others pay $1000 a day. However, I wonder if anyone is actually calculating the true cost of what one low cost consultant is really costing the School Board? Is this still a deal if the District’s legal fees have increased so greatly - greater than even Vancouver’s School District - at the hands of one consultant? Sounds like a deal to me.

I am assuming (I know you don`t like assumptions) that the pitchfork reference is hyperbole. Unfortunately, as the leaders of the school district, the board will be expected to have answers. That comes with the territory.

Just to be clear:

I think the individual members of the board are all fine people. In fact I have a great deal of respect for those I know well. I think the senior administration are all capable people.

We do not need highly paid consultants being used on an almost daily basis. That money can be put to better use for the students of this district.

I challenge the board and senior administration to sit down with the union and solve the issues they are facing without this ridiculous drain on both district and union finances. That■s what they were voted in and hired to do. I know they are more than capable of doing a good job.