globalnews.ca/news/1485222/b-c-p … -drags-on/
Looks like things are going to get quite ugly now…
At least the cost savings are going to help support those who are innocent bystanders in all of this and stand to be saddled with a financial burden as a result- the families.
I think this is a great win for advocates who have been campaigning for a $10 dollar a day child care subsidy…the fact that the government has set as realistic 40 dollar a day minimum for child care, makes the $10 dollar a day demand look miserly. Now if the government will only live up to their slogans and put families first by extending the $40 day care subsidy to all children under 13 including non-school age child under five.
Fascinating response by de Jong.
de Jong says it could be used for tutoring or some other educational opportunity as well as daycare.
Suppose some enterprising person with qualifications of some kind opened up a “school” and said they would teach children for the full day for the $40 per child. Ten kids, not 20 or 25 or 30+ kids would give that person $400/day, the equivalent of $80,000/year which is about the maximum for a teacher with a full degree and 10 years experience. I know a lot of teachers would be quite happy with a class of 10. And if the person were willing to take 25 kids then they would be collecting $200,000. Nice sum! Is the implication that class size of 10 or salaries of $200,000 is appropriate.
de Jong hasn’t stipulated who is eligible other than school age children under 13. Teachers also have children. Some teachers could be getting a nice sum of $40 or $80 or maybe more for a few hours on the picket line. Or will the government decide to discriminate against children with the “wrong” parents.
If the money can be used for educational purpose, why limit it to elementary aged children. High school kids don’t need tutoring or educational opportunities? Why discriminate against older kids unless of course this is strictly a bribe to offset childcare expenses which tells us that de Jong views the system as a babysitting service as much as an educational one.
And why discriminate against some taxpayers. Most of us see the value of a vibrant education system and don’t mind paying for one - even those of us who never have or no longer have kids in the system. But if the system is not working why should a select group get all the refund and not say the poor single person, or the small business owner or the retiree? If you are not using tax dollars for what is was intended for, then give it back.
What are people thinking about the BC Liberal’s promise to pay parents $40 per day per 5-12 year old child if the strike continues into September?
This is an obvious ploy to garner support and its working. Personally i think its been obvious for a while that some parents view the school system as free daycare for their kids first and a learning institution second. It started with all day kindergarden and now the liberals think they can buy support with this move. it will work, people are idiots. I dont necessarily support the teachers but their motives and actions have been far more sincere than the governments.
My god. The government does something positive and gives back to those who are affected by this dispute and it’s an obvious ploy to get support?? Could it be possible that they are just doing the right thing? What a cynical society we’ve become.
Call me cynical.
The government may be right to put the money saved somewhere other than general revenues. I will give them that. But if they are sincerely worried about getting a deal down before school they should be thinking up ways of settling the lockout/strike rather than ways to prolong it. Any money that was saved in June, not just the money that may be saved in September should be put toward the public school system. That’s where the money was meant to go, that’s where it should go. It should not be going to parents, some of whom won’t even need money for daycare.
As a retired teacher with no children in the system I am not affected by this lockout/strike in any way. But I am on the picket lines because I support my former colleagues and I am concerned about the funding of our public schools.
I don’t want to simplify this too much but there are three large sums of money on the table. The government has argued an affordability zone.
The first sum of money is wages. Teachers are asking for 8% over 5 years (1.6%/year) while the government is offering 7% over 6 years (1.17%/year). The midpoint of those two is to take the percentage of one and the number of years of the other eg 7% over 5 years (1.4%) or 8% over 6 years (1.33%) so wages are pretty close and shouldn’t be the problem.
Another large sum deals with benefits and prep time. Now perhaps this isn’t the best time for teachers to be asking for these things but it does come with an offer. Because of previous court decisions there are many, many, many grievances that the BCTF can file on behalf of its members. Those grievances could be costly to the government. The BCTF will agree to drop previous grievances in return for the improvements they are seeking. While in the long run this may be a good deal for the government, they are unwilling to accept because it does presuppose the outcome of the appeal of those court decisions which will be heard in October. Likely, this package of demands will come off the table and we will see large numbers of costly grievance cases in the future.
The third sum of money is for class size and composition and again, it gets complicated by the October appeal. But this is the issue that is at the heart of the dispute. The teacher contract was stripped of various provisions 12 years ago. Two court decisions have told us that the government denied teachers their charter rights by doing so. The government is appealing. So we have teachers who feel that the government has illegally underfunded the system for the past 12 years at an estimated savings of $2B which has resulted in school closures, fewer specialist teachers and larger more diverse classes. Just look at the cuts that have been made by local boards over the past 12 years. Regardless of the outcome of the appeal in October, it is still money that was taken out of the system.
And, if I am not mistaken, the money that the teachers are asking for to address class size and composition is less than what the government maintains it would cost to put back the original language.
So here is the impasse. Teachers are not going to agree to a contract that does not address class size and composition. To them it is not just about the underfunding of the school system for a full generation of students but it also deals with fairness within a democracy (the legality of contract stripping). The government refuses to address class size and composition until all appeals have been heard. And remember, the outcome of the October appeal is not the last of it. Either side can appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada so it could take more years to come to a resolution.
This lockout/strike would be over very quickly if the government was willing to deal with the issue of class size and composition. In fact the money saved in June is pretty close to what the teachers are asking for each year to address class size and composition. In other words, year one of the contract is paid for. Now if the government wants to ensure a school opening in September, they just need to commit the money to address those issues for the remaining years of the contract.
The right thing to do would be to settle this dispute. My family would definitely be helped by this money, (work and schooling) but I would rather have the money just go to the teachers.
[quote=“DWhite”]Call me cynical.
The government may be right to put the money saved somewhere other than general revenues. I will give them that. But if they are sincerely worried about getting a deal down before school they should be thinking up ways of settling the lockout/strike rather than ways to prolong it. Any money that was saved in June, not just the money that may be saved in September should be put toward the public school system. That’s where the money was meant to go, that’s where it should go. It should not be going to parents, some of whom won’t even need money for daycare.
As a retired teacher with no children in the system I am not affected by this lockout/strike in any way. But I am on the picket lines because I support my former colleagues and I am concerned about the funding of our public schools.
I don’t want to simplify this too much but there are three large sums of money on the table. The government has argued an affordability zone.
The first sum of money is wages. Teachers are asking for 8% over 5 years (1.6%/year) while the government is offering 7% over 6 years (1.17%/year). The midpoint of those two is to take the percentage of one and the number of years of the other eg 7% over 5 years (1.4%) or 8% over 6 years (1.33%) so wages are pretty close and shouldn’t be the problem.
Another large sum deals with benefits and prep time. Now perhaps this isn’t the best time for teachers to be asking for these things but it does come with an offer. Because of previous court decisions there are many, many, many grievances that the BCTF can file on behalf of its members. Those grievances could be costly to the government. The BCTF will agree to drop previous grievances in return for the improvements they are seeking. While in the long run this may be a good deal for the government, they are unwilling to accept because it does presuppose the outcome of the appeal of those court decisions which will be heard in October. Likely, this package of demands will come off the table and we will see large numbers of costly grievance cases in the future.
The third sum of money is for class size and composition and again, it gets complicated by the October appeal. But this is the issue that is at the heart of the dispute. The teacher contract was stripped of various provisions 12 years ago. Two court decisions have told us that the government denied teachers their charter rights by doing so. The government is appealing. So we have teachers who feel that the government has illegally underfunded the system for the past 12 years at an estimated savings of $2B which has resulted in school closures, fewer specialist teachers and larger more diverse classes. Just look at the cuts that have been made by local boards over the past 12 years. Regardless of the outcome of the appeal in October, it is still money that was taken out of the system.
And, if I am not mistaken, the money that the teachers are asking for to address class size and composition is less than what the government maintains it would cost to put back the original language.
So here is the impasse. Teachers are not going to agree to a contract that does not address class size and composition. To them it is not just about the underfunding of the school system for a full generation of students but it also deals with fairness within a democracy (the legality of contract stripping). The government refuses to address class size and composition until all appeals have been heard. And remember, the outcome of the October appeal is not the last of it. Either side can appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada so it could take more years to come to a resolution.
This lockout/strike would be over very quickly if the government was willing to deal with the issue of class size and composition. In fact the money saved in June is pretty close to what the teachers are asking for each year to address class size and composition. In other words, year one of the contract is paid for. Now if the government wants to ensure a school opening in September, they just need to commit the money to address those issues for the remaining years of the contract.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with what you’ve said but I do support the governments position to lend a hand to families affected if the dispute isn’t resolved. Everyone wants the strike over but it is responsible to plan for the possibility that there is not a quick resolution.
The ‘right thing to do’ would have been for the government to comply with either of the two previous court rulings.
Instead they have launched costly appeals.
The current appeal appears to be based on ‘ability to pay’ by the government, rather than the rightness or wrongness of the previous rulings -I admit my understanding of the basis of the appeal is somewhat limited.
By consistently portraying the current situation as fiscally based rather the failure of the government to comply with court decisions is a mistake. Keep in mind the court decisions were an attempt to ‘right’ legislative ‘wrongs’ made by the government. There are serious fiscal implications to be sure –but they stem from a legislative error made and perpetuated by this government.
As for the $40 dollars: rather than go to all taxpayers, it goes only to a select group (parents/guardians) who are expected to apply for it online. The need to apply, online, and with all probability in English, will begin to limit the number of parents who will be able to access the funds. As for day care and tutoring space availability – I was unaware that there is a surplus of qualified and ‘criminal record’ checked day care providers or tutors in Prince Rupert.
In short – the fiscal arguments, the ‘zone of affordability’ sloganeering, and the poorly thought out ‘day care/tutoring’ refund are all attempts to distract attention from the fact that the current situation is a result of legislative errors made by the then Education Minister and now current leader of the Liberal government.
As for planning for a protracted dispute: if the government agrees to fully follow the court ruling, I’m sure wage issue could be resolved quickly.
So what happens if this bargaining in bad faith (example number 32,659) comes to pass and these rah-rahs find out there are no daycare spaces to spend their $40 on? Christy trying to point out yet another BC Liberal fail?
Dont forget the doubling of daycare costs because of the new extremely high demand created by these asshats
Laughed at the six o’clock news when they talked about online reigtration… it will cross reference Finance and Education…
yeah right… in five weeks. These imbeciles can’t get their software to work after YEARS
…uggghhh set your Java to version 3.0 and lower security… uggghh no you can’t use Firefox or Chrome… or Linux or a Mac… or Explorer 9,10, or 11… you’ll have to find an XP box and roll it back to SP1…
Wait a minute: isn’t all the info they need to send out a payment - like legal guardian, address, child’s exact age, and enrolment history all available on BCESIS, the multi million dollar student information tracking system created by the Ministry? Underworked principals could send out cheques just by accessing BECEIS….oh wait, BCESIS actually working…what was I thinking of?
Another interesting take on the $40 payment:
“Assuming the money is taxable, that means it is income. If it is income, that means, unless some real tax dancing is done with CRA, that income will factor into your eligibility for and payment amounts of income contingent benefits, like the GST/HST tax credit, the CCTB, and so forth. These benefits are clawed back for every dollar earned, chipping even more away at the $40 a day benefit, especially for low and middle income households.”
I can hear it now - the Liberal government taking credit for reducing poverty…by boosting incomes of families 
Given my comment on satire vs trolling from the fire department thread I give you this article.
thevancouvermoon.com/latest- … e-teachers
The article is obviously satiric - making fun of the government’s $40/day proposal and its lockout rules and its other attempts at “solving” the teacher dispute, but what I found even more amusing than the article were the comments and the response to the comments and maybe the difference between satire and trolling that brings up.
People responded ostensibly with outrage that the government would come up with such a proposal. Others came on thinking the idea was brilliant and even added to the idea. They appeared to believe the article.
People then with equal outrage mocked the stupidity of the people who believed the article. But who knows the intent of the responders. Maybe nobody believed the article. Maybe the believers were attempting their own form of satire and making fun of people who they felt might believe the article. Or maybe they were trollers who find it funny when others get frustrated trying to explain that the article is satiric. Who knows. But you gotta love the internet.
In recognition that all sides are expected to return to bargaining today, here are a couple of interesting articles:
One from the Tyee:
thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/08/06/Go … chers-Now/
and one from the Vancouver Sun:
vancouversun.com/business/Ed … story.html
Hopefully, all parties will begin with a willingness to accept what the courts have previously mandated and move constructively from there with the goal of opening schools as soon as possible after Labor Day.
Otherwise…
FYI - an update from Ms. Jones, Superintendent of Schools, on the School District 52 website:
“We need to ask parents to find other arrangements for their children effective Tuesday, September 2, 2014 for an indefinite period. Though administration will be present at schools, school busses will not run and we will not be able to provide adequate supervision to ensure adequate safety for students.”
You might want to keep your eye on the website for further updates…
I believe that it is another Sleazy move on the Liberal’s part , why not deal directly and face to face with the teacher’s union . When I was involved with the school system we went through many teacher’s strikes . The government puppets always pulled the same shit as Ms. Christy’s Dog and Pony Show are doing now . I would love to see where much of that so-called money will go in this situation , It will be of no value to the children and will just be like another Pecker Check to many .