Teachers lost wages during strike to be given to parents

[quote=“sunflowergurl”]Mediator walked out…now what?

cbc.ca/m/news/topstories/b-c … -1.2751718[/quote]

Maybe now someone will stop pissing around playing word games and tell us exactly what they are so far out on. Wages? well last I heard they were in disagreement over about 1% so if that information was correct then thats a red herring being thrown out to make the teachers look bad.

If its class size and composition well…

Why cant we exempt schools from the carbon tax, stop funding private schools, religious schools, and tax all non charitable church activities and properties. Surely that would pay for any shortfalls.

Minister of Education Peter Fassbender issued the following statement today:

newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/08/b … ation.html

I found this part interesting:

“The gap is much bigger than what the BCTF has been making it out to be, which was that the parties were close on all matters except class size and composition. Over the past few days, it’s been a very different story behind closed doors.

“The union made no substantive effort to get anywhere near the zone on wages and benefits. Their moves were so small that their compensation demands remain nearly double what 150,000 other B.C. public-sector workers have settled for. They even insist on a special $5,000 signing bonus that no one else received.

“It is wrong and misguided for the BCTF leadership to expect a bigger compensation package than all other public-sector workers simply because they are willing to shut down schools."

I am thinking if this is all true then if they give in to them they will have all the other public-sector workers looking for the same.

[quote=“sunflowergurl”]Minister of Education Peter Fassbender issued the following statement today:

newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/08/b … ation.html

I found this part interesting:

“The gap is much bigger than what the BCTF has been making it out to be, which was that the parties were close on all matters except class size and composition. Over the past few days, it’s been a very different story behind closed doors.

“The union made no substantive effort to get anywhere near the zone on wages and benefits. Their moves were so small that their compensation demands remain nearly double what 150,000 other B.C. public-sector workers have settled for. They even insist on a special $5,000 signing bonus that no one else received.

“It is wrong and misguided for the BCTF leadership to expect a bigger compensation package than all other public-sector workers simply because they are willing to shut down schools."

I am thinking if this is all true then if they give in to them they will have all the other public-sector workers looking for the same.[/quote]

A signing bonus is just ridiculous. I fully support teachers in a COST OF LIVING increase and maybe a couple percent for where they fell behind inflation in the past. I do not support signing bonuses and other bullshit. You want 5k for agreeing to a deal thats good for you? fuck off. Maybe if you’re getting a raw deal I can see it grudgingly accepting for a small payoff but for a good deal? no, I dont think thats right at all.

We have teachers on this board, are you pushing for this crap or have your representatives chosen to do this without consulting you? Either way if you want the public to support you then you better rein these people in. We all want you to be paid fairly and working in a great environment but expecting a signing bonus for agreeing to a contract is way out of line.

[quote=“jesus”]
A signing bonus is just ridiculous. I fully support teachers in a COST OF LIVING increase and maybe a couple percent for where they fell behind inflation in the past. I do not support signing bonuses and other bullshit. You want 5k for agreeing to a deal thats good for you? fuck off. Maybe if you’re getting a raw deal I can see it grudgingly accepting for a small payoff but for a good deal? no, I dont think thats right at all.

We have teachers on this board, are you pushing for this crap or have your representatives chosen to do this without consulting you? Either way if you want the public to support you then you better rein these people in. We all want you to be paid fairly and working in a great environment but expecting a signing bonus for agreeing to a contract is way out of line.[/quote]

Just a retired teacher, Jesus but I will give it one more attempt even though I have no idea what has been said in the negotiation room or in the BCTF strategy room.

There are three large sums of money on the table.

For improvements in health benefits, prep time etc. the teachers would agree to withdraw all grievances related to the stripping of the contract in 2002. It is a large sum of money, but the government could be shelling out a large sum of money should they lose the October appeal. Probably, this will come off the table and the two sides will battle over it in costly (lawyers always win) court cases once we know the outcome of the appeal court.

The second large sum of money is salary. At this time - I believe - the teachers are asking for 8% over 5 years plus a signing bonus while the government has offered 7% over 6 years with no signing bonus although they had originally offered $1200. I am not going to argue one way or another about the signing bonus except to point out that there can be an advantage to the employer. If I make $50,000 and want a 2% increase, that will cost my employer $1000 for the year. If I agree to 0% with a $1000 signing bonus, I still get my 2% and while my employer is still shelling out the 2% for this year, the base salary remains at $50000 rather than $51000 for future negotiations.

Either way, the two sides are close enough that a mediator or arbitrator would have little difficulty finding a solution.

The last sum of money deals with class size and composition which, as far as I can see, is the line in the sand for teachers. It was taken out of the contract in 2002 and the courts have ruled that it was done so illegally. The government appears unwilling to address this issue and often refers to this as a benefit and thus out of the affordability zone. And while they are appealing the court decision which is their right, they have been unwilling to make any guarantees that they will abide by the court decision should they lose in October.

So yes everything rests on the court case. But the savings from the June job action are around what the teachers are asking for class size and composition for each of the years of the contract. In other words, this year can be funded without any effect on the budget. If the government would guarantee a similar amount of money (something negotiated) would go toward class size and composition for the remaining years of the contract, the teachers would be much more willing to head back to school.

Without the guarantee that the government will abide by court rulings, not only would the teachers be giving up on improved learning conditions for students and extra supports for special needs kids, they would be allowing a government to put itself above the law which is an even scarier thought.

Again, I am no expert. This is just my take. But people should be asking the government to clarify their position on class size and composition.

Thank you, that makes sense. However, from a strictly PR standpoint the union would be wise to remove any discussion of signing bonuses and simply stick to their raises. People, myself included react poorly to hearing about that kind of thing.

I would also suggest at this point it would be wise to lay out publicly the concessions they have made thus far and how far apart they are on the issues, and what those issues are. The government seems to be doing it on their end although they are definitely spinning the issue and withholding key pieces of information.

It might hurt their bargaining position behind closed doors but I’d like to believe that if the public sees it is ONLY a class size and composition issue they will turn on the government.

I’ll bet they are far apart on the issue of the court case.

I have no insider knowledge, but I’ll bet that one of the demands of the government is that contract language be introduced to nullify the current court rulings against the government. I know I wouldn’t accept this, I don’t think the BCTF will either.

The government introduced legislation in 2001/2002 that stripped existing collective agreements of class size composition, etc. They knew then it wasn’t legal, and the courts have consistently ruled, over and over again, that it was illegal. They ordered the government to put that stuff back in, but they haven’t. The court has held the current government in contempt, fined them, and told them to finally do the right thing.

But they haven’t.

Because doing so would be admitting that Christy Clark knew back then that it was wrong. And that she knew it was wrong all along, with all that money wasted on court cases that they knew they’d lose. Or that she ignored government lawyer’s advice (and you know, the constitution).

So now they are desperate to ‘negotiate’ an end to the court case instead of following a court ruling. Again, I have zero knowledge of the proposals, but I’ll bet that’s the one thing that they can’t agree on.

Christy Clark’s ego is standing in the way of an agreement.

Maybe, but class size and composition should never be part of the collective agreement. The requirement is not universal and really only benefits the union. I think it should be implemented on a district or school level, determined by set criteria (ESL, disability, etc.) and that would allow for flexibility if conditions warrant. So those schools that need it get it, and those that don’t aren’t wasting resource.

It was part of the local collective agreement in Prince Rupert, for example. Agreed to by both the local Board and the local union. Many districts didn’t have such provisions, or had different ones.

“I think it should be implemented on a district or school level, determined by set criteria (ESL, disability, etc.) and that would allow for flexibility if conditions warrant.” That’s how it was. It was a set criteria that determined how many students of each designation could be in a class, etc.

The arbitrary stripping of these provisions was illegal, and restricting the bargaining of these provisions is what the courts have consistently said was wrong.

So now the government wants them in the agreement, to nullify the court rulings. I think that’s a major reason for the impasse.

I think that MIG has focused in on the key issue:

“The government introduced legislation in 2001/2002 that stripped existing collective agreements of class size composition, etc. They knew then it wasn’t legal, and the courts have consistently ruled, over and over again, that it was illegal. They ordered the government to put that stuff back in, but they haven’t. The court has held the current government in contempt, fined them, and told them to finally do the right thing.”

Whether or not the government knew in 2001/2002 that what they were doing was illegal…they certainly know now. It is my understanding that the government’s current appeal is based on the fact that they can’t afford to do what the courts have ordered (twice) – it’s outside their ‘zone of affordability’.

Other issues: wages, benefits, signing bonuses etc. are distractions – cynically manipulated to make it sound like the government is protecting taxpayers – while stepping on the Charter rights. Charter Rights the courts lambasted the government for ignoring, manipulating, and misinforming taxpayers about in the most recent court decision.

Ultimately, the conclusions of the current process may radically alter the shape and future of education in this province – and not necessarily in positive ways. If you have a child who needs extra supports, know a child who has benefited from extra educational services (or could benefit – including students with intellectual / artistic etc. gifts) then Fassbinder’s recent musings that maybe the real problem is that we ‘over diagnose’ should be of grave concern. In other words, if we just ignore the problems we can make them go away.

Might I suggest, if you haven’t already, take some time to understand the issues underlying this current dispute, the implications for education, and the consequences for students and British Columbia in general– rather than getting caught up in the spin (from either side). That should be a minimum understanding for a taxpayer before making a decision about where your tax dollars should go.

Investment in education can and should be the most fiscally sound choice that we can make as a society – the benefits reach all members of society and pay off in a financially more robust economy.

Ultimately, if government had followed the courts ruling the first time, then bargaining over the last couple of years could have been about mediating the costs of the ruling through innovation rather than their current attempts to ‘make it go away’.

The clause in question is indeed on the table. It is designated “E 80”. You can probably google it with “bc teachers’ dispute”, and get lots of hits. The issue is the last sentence, which seeks to make this agreement supersede all previous agreements on class size, composition, and staffing levels. In other words, a negotiated nullification of the future ruling of the Appeals Court, which covers a “previous agreement”. I understand that the govt made this the line in the stand. No clause, no deal. So, the government is seeking to live beyond the rule of law, assuming the ruling goes against them. Many people think that this clause is so important because even the government thinks they will lose, and it is afraid of the consequences.

The rule of law (ie. everyone is subject to the law equally, including government), is the single concept that separates a democracy from a dictatorship. That’s why this dispute is now so much more than just a spat about wages. I don’t think teachers will sign away their own democratic and Charter rights, nor should they. It is up the public to generate the pressure on government to respect the courts. Unless, of course, we’re all ok with a government that can ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms??

The reason for a lot of the lack of public support is ignorance. The government is doing a good job of painting the teachers as greedy and all we hear from the teachers side is ‘nuh uh’. If the teachers union laid out in simple terms what the major sticking points are i think theyd see most of the ignorance go away. Instead its an apparent secret and just makes the teachers look bad.

Jesus,
I agree with you substantially. However, both the BCTF and BCPSEA (the employer’s association) have, it appears, agreed that bargaining in public, through media is not wise…neither side has fully made their positions known.

Mr. Fassbinder and Ms. Clark, neither of whom belong to either the BCTF nor BCPSEA have decided otherwise and are manipulating the media and taxpayers to their point of view. That is why I suggest that individuals go beyond the sound bites and look more closely at the issues.

I am sure that you are aware, that an employee who actively criticizes an employer, is subject to consequences up to and including dismissal. In Prince Rupert, I believe that is an active concern for teachers, otherwise, I’m sure they would be providing much more information on this forum.

teacher, thank you for an excellent post.

the part that adds insult to injury is that people have to wait until after the strike to receive the money

Wages should never be part of the collective agreement. It really only benefits the union.
Sick leave should never be part of the collective agreement. It really only benefits the union.
Workload should never be part of the collective agreement. It really only benefits the union.

I think you’re confused about what a collective agreement is all about. If it only benefits the union, shouldn’t it, by definition, be in the collective agreement? And then could be negotiated? Isn’t that what the court cases have all been about?

Can you explain why you disagree with the government? They’re the ones trying (desperately, it seems!) to re-introduce the class size and composition into the collective agreement. Or did you not realize it was BCPSEA trying to put it in the collective agreement when you made your statement?

[quote=“MiG”]

Wages should never be part of the collective agreement. It really only benefits the union.
Sick leave should never be part of the collective agreement. It really only benefits the union.
Workload should never be part of the collective agreement. It really only benefits the union.

I think you’re confused about what a collective agreement is all about. If it only benefits the union, shouldn’t it, by definition, be in the collective agreement? And then could be negotiated? Isn’t that what the court cases have all been about?

Can you explain why you disagree with the government? They’re the ones trying (desperately, it seems!) to re-introduce the class size and composition into the collective agreement. Or did you not realize it was BCPSEA trying to put it in the collective agreement when you made your statement?[/quote]

My terminology might have been bad.

Wage scales, sick leave etc. might be the same across the board. But the challenge of classroom composition and size might not be. So one size doesn’t always fit all. So maybe you have a schedule added to cap class size if x and y apply.

In my collective agreement there are certain things that affect some of the workforce, but not all. So there are provisions for those affected. That is what I am suggesting we do in this case.

When I say “benefit to the union”, I am referring to the union as business. For example I am aware of a city that had in its collective agreement a guarantee that certain staffing positions will always be protected. As technology advanced there was no need to staff these positions and in the next round of negotiations attempted to remove this from the contract. Nobody would be laid off, they just wouldn’t replace them after retirement. It turned into a battle over positions for employees who didn’t exist, and a job that wasn’t required.

Thanks Teacher for the tip on E80.

Here is a link that explained it pretty well IMO.

reemafaris.com/2014/08/31/e-80-w … it-is-not/

@crazyhorse, The link you reference is an interesting one, and offers a particular interpretation. Reema Faris has written some very thoughtful blog posts on this dispute. She is a trustee in the Lower Mainland area. Another interesting post, and one which offers a deeply cautionary tale regarding the profound stakes involved in the dispute is this one:

reemafaris.com/2014/07/26/other- … moneyitis/

The BCTF legal team clearly disagrees with Faris’s more recent interpretation, the one you posted. Glen Hansman, who was present during this weekend’s failed negotiations articulates a very different point of view on cbc radio this morning:

t.co/Oun3VXqeh7

Finally, a visit to cbc.ca (bc) this morning readers will encounter a rather damning article on the role that Premier Clark played this weekend.

I wish I could see a way through all this, because it sure is a mess.

If its up to the liberal government kids will be hanging christmas stockings long before they crack a single text book

The latest news on CBC Twitter is that teachers have called for binding arbitration to end the strike. An idea which the BC Government had previously dismissed.

Fassbinder responds to the BCTF offer to enter binding arbitration with a direct, definitive attempt to avoid the issue:

cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c … -1.2757002