[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.