Government rejects binding arbitration in teachers dispute.
From a story on the CBC website –
cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c … -1.2758560
“Cameron said teachers’ conditions regarding class size and support staff levels remain a major stumbling block.
He said he believed the offer was not serious because it did not guarantee the end of the strike.
“They would vote on taking down the strike,” said Cameron. “That’s not a real proposal.””
Am I the only one concerned that Mr. Cameron has no idea how a democratic institution (like the BCTF and most unions) works? Is he unclear on the concept of democracy?
In an important situation like this the only way the Executive of the union could make such a decision is at the direction of the membership (a vote).
The fact that Mr. Fassbinder appears to unquestioningly accept Mr. Cameron’s opinion … what can I say?
By the way: apparently HTMF has yet to be host to a Liberal Digital Influencer – what HTMF don’t rate?
There are calls for a general strike and rallies are planned for three days Sept 10 - 12 rallyforchange.ca/
Wed. Sept 10 at 10 am rally at Rotary Waterfront Park
Thurs. Sept 11 at 10 am at Jenifer Rice’s office across from Overwaitea
Fri. Sept 12 at 10 am at the Court House
[quote=“hitest”]Government rejects binding arbitration in teachers dispute.
Government rejects binding arbitration in teachers dispute[/quote]
Good - no way should this ever be decided through binding arbitration. Last time that happened, taxpayers were the ones screwed over and our PST was increased to cover the costs.
Not only that, but this latest call from the BCTF for binding arbitration was stricly a ploy to gain PR points with the public.
Teacher need to get back in the classroom, remove their $5000 signing bonus request and agree to the 8% offered by the government…that is a very fair increase and already more than what was offered to the other 150,000 public workers who have already settled. Let the courts deal with the other issues.
Kids will go back to school, teachers can start getting paid and will have a partially negotiated deal…and then the courts can decide the rest.
These calls for general strikes and comparisons to WW1 trenches need to stop. Furthermore, I certainly hope teachers will be asking some very serious questions of their union management about why there is no strike pay. Teachers pay some of the highest union dues in the province, yet the union was only able to pay teachers for TWO days? Something is seriously wrong here…and if I was a teacher I would be PISSED and be expecting the BCTF management to start answering some serious questions about where my money is going.
Wondering if the students of Prince Rupert are planning to take part in “walk in’s”?
[quote=“bthedog”]
Good - no way should this ever be decided through binding arbitration. Last time that happened, taxpayers were the ones screwed over and our PST was increased to cover the costs.
Not only that, but this latest call from the BCTF for binding arbitration was stricly a ploy to gain PR points with the public.
Teacher need to get back in the classroom, remove their $5000 signing bonus request and agree to the 8% offered by the government…that is a very fair increase and already more than what was offered to the other 150,000 public workers who have already settled. Let the courts deal with the other issues.
Kids will go back to school, teachers can start getting paid and will have a partially negotiated deal…and then the courts can decide the rest.
These calls for general strikes and comparisons to WW1 trenches need to stop. Furthermore, I certainly hope teachers will be asking some very serious questions of their union management about why there is no strike pay. Teachers pay some of the highest union dues in the province, yet the union was only able to pay teachers for TWO days? Something is seriously wrong here…and if I was a teacher I would be PISSED and be expecting the BCTF management to start answering some serious questions about where my money is going.[/quote]
Can’t speak to everything bthedog. I am just a retired teacher with nothing to gain from the outcome. Maybe, according to you, I will lose as my taxes will go up. But I would like some clarity from you and maybe other people who have sided with the government.
First of all I am not sure what you mean by it was strictly a ploy to get public support. Does that mean the majority of the public support the idea of arbitration. Does that mean that the majority of people are not afraid of the consequences of an unbiased person or panel looking at the issues and deciding?
Secondly, I realize that the government doesn’t want to look bad like they did with the doctors 12 years ago but I am not sure if the situations are comparable. But even if they are it seems that the government’s stance that they want a fair deal for teachers falls flat if they fear that what they consider fair isn’t all that fair.
Third to suggest that the teachers just go back to work and let the courts decide isn’t quite that simple. (And by the way, If you are going to let the courts decide on one thing why not an unbiased arbitrator for another). The government does not want to sign a contract without E80 which is their way of circumventing any court decision that goes against them.
And fourth, I have no idea where all of the BCTF funds have gone, but I am guessing a good portion of them have gone into fighting court battles with a government that has used an unlimited amount of tax payer dollars to fight losing battles.
As a former teacher, I certainly do have a bias, and if it were just about salary and benefits, the teachers wouldn’t have a case. They have lost money that they are unlikely to gain back (unless they decide to stop funding a lot of their classrooms with money out of their own pockets). If it were just about money paid to teachers they would be foolish to be out on the picket line. But it is not just about money. It is about adequately funding the school system and defending rights guaranteed in our constitution, rights that are there for all of us.
What I find fascinating yet almost scary is the general publics discontent and willingness to pick sides. I want them to come to an agreement as much as the next guy but are both sides not doing what they are mandated to do? The BCTF is fighting for better wages and working conditions for their members and the government is doing their best to manage education within their means. There is no bad guy. They’re just at odds and a resolution will be found. Hopefully soon.
As many speculate I agreeI believe that this Government has a dead-line date - somewhere around the beginning of the last week of September - where they will have saved enough money by not paying the wages of the teachers and the support workers, and they will miraculously arrive at the conclusion that the two sides are not that far apart after all and a settlement will emerge from the wreckage. as well
[quote]
Can’t speak to everything bthedog. I am just a retired teacher with nothing to gain from the outcome. Maybe, according to you, I will lose as my taxes will go up. But I would like some clarity from you and maybe other people who have sided with the government.[/quote]
Yes maybe you will. The last time the government went to arbitration with a public sector working group, the PST was increased to fund an additional $400 million given to the doctors (something many taxpayers did not agree with). The taxpayer was on the hook for that increase. As someone who is probably on a limited income due to being a pensioner, you are the exact type of person who could be negatively affected by any type of tax increase. Maybe.
[quote]
First of all I am not sure what you mean by it was strictly a ploy to get public support. Does that mean the majority of the public support the idea of arbitration. Does that mean that the majority of people are not afraid of the consequences of an unbiased person or panel looking at the issues and deciding? [/quote]
When I say it was a ploy to get public support, I mean it was an empty suggestion by the BCTF. They already knew the government was never going to agree to binding arbitration, due to this governments last attempt at going this route 12 years ago. Furthermore, the government had already clearly stated that binding arbitration was not ever going to be an option to settle this dispute. If they already knew this, then the BCTF could easily go to the media exclaiming themselves to be the potential saviours of this strike by being the more “progressive” group by offering a “real” solution such as binding arbitration, knowing full well it would never be accepted by the government. Now they can claim that they are not the ones keeping kids out schools and that they have offered a real opportunity to solve this strike, when TRULY they knew from day 1 it was never going to work. It is a media relations ploy to its core IMO…and a very good one.
Furthermore, one could argue that binding arbitration usually always ends well for the union and not the government. Additionally, BC voters gave this BC Liberal party an increased majority government last year, knowing full well what was coming with the re-negotiations of the BCTF. IMO that was a mandate of support for this government to protect BC taxpayers from BCTF contract demands that would be unaffordable. This was not a mandate to hand over the financial decisions of the province over to an independent arbitrator.
Considering what happened 12 years ago by agreeing to binding arbitration, a result that negatively affected taxpayers and the governments reputation, why would this government EVER agree to go that route again with a public sector union? It is clear they do not feel binding arbitration leads to a fair deal, and I agree with them.
I agree, it is not as a easy as I suggest and yes I agree the government wants E80 included in negotiations. I understand why they would want E80 circumvented, they clearly feel it is a bad deal for taxpayers.
I am sure that is part of it…that and this union doing everything in their power last year to unseat the BC Liberals and pouring money into the BC NDP’s campaign, which failed horribly.
[quote]
As a former teacher, I certainly do have a bias, and if it were just about salary and benefits, the teachers wouldn’t have a case. They have lost money that they are unlikely to gain back (unless they decide to stop funding a lot of their classrooms with money out of their own pockets). If it were just about money paid to teachers they would be foolish to be out on the picket line. But it is not just about money. It is about adequately funding the school system and defending rights guaranteed in our constitution, rights that are there for all of us.[/quote]
I agree, it is 100% not just about money. It is about two parties who despise each other, who are trying to cause as much political damage as possible. Both sides have kept it ugly and both sides are equally to blame.
My take? If government feels the call for arbitration is an “empty ploy for public support”, then they are saying it is a bluff. They should call the bluff and go for it. If they are afraid that the resulting decision will go in favour of the teachers, then maybe the government was wrong in the first place, starting 12 years ago with an illegal contract strip. According to DeJong today, they have already saved $163 million based on the last weeks of June. There is also, according to DeJong, a healthy surplus. So…tell me again about why the children of BC can’t get better supports for their learning? Tell me again why teachers, who have averaged less than 1% per year improvement over the last 16 years (while inflation runs at around 30% for the same period) dont have a right to negotiate for a fair increase. What the teachers are asking for wont even cover inflation over the next five years.
Teachers are the only side offering a vision for ending the dispute. Time for people to pressure the other side.
" Tell me again why teachers, who have averaged less than 1% per year improvement over the last 16 years don■t have a right to negotiate for a fair increase."
Who said that you don’t have the right to negotiate a fair increase? Binding arbitration is not negotiation. In fact, here is what minister Fassbender has said:
“We are ready to provide teachers with a fair wage increase and we want to negotiate class size and composition."
You also said, “Teachers are the only side offering a vision for ending the dispute.”
That is untrue.
“This dispute needs to be settled at the bargaining table and I invite them again to lift their pickets while the parties work towards mediating an end to this dispute.”
250news.com/2014/09/06/fassb … bitration/
I am a completely neutral party in this dispute as my children have been out of the public system for a long time. It does appear to me however, that your view is somewhat skewed by your affiliation. I am not picking sides, just calling it like I see it.
I find the suggestion that the Liberal government has a planned deadline (near the end of September) to end the impasse to be disconcerting. If true, the current state of affairs would appear to be nothing more than a cynical manipulation of students, teachers, parents and taxpayers…for what purpose?
The red herring of Liberal government’s failure to convince an arbitrator in a previous dispute with a public sector union as reason not to enter arbitration this time is interesting. Is it that the Liberal government is so unconvinced of their ability to put together a compelling argument to convince an arbitrator? Is it that their arguments are more ideological than economically sound? Or is it simply that they are worried that, in facing an impartial arbitrator, they are at risk of another public lambasting – similar to that received from the courts?
As for protecting the interests of the taxpayer which taxpayer is that? To paint all taxpayers in a stereotypical manner belies the complexity of society. Doesn’t the fraction of a penny that you save on your taxes potentially come out of the pocket of a taxpayer struggling to support the needs of a child who needs special education supports?
To suggest that the Liberal government is somehow the ‘defender of the taxpayer rights’ in some sort of epic battle between the Union and the taxpayer is absurd – remember that a key element of this process stems from the Liberal’s attempt to do away with Charter Rights: rights that apply to every taxpayer.
If the Liberal government has an agenda that will lead to some sort of resolution near the end of the month: does that not make the cry that ‘the negotiating table is the only place to end this dispute’ – a public relations ploy of the worst kind?
So a question: how does one influence a government to take the issues openly and seriously? The fact that they won the last election with a majority does not give the Liberals carte blanche: it puts an even greater responsibility to listen to the voices of the majority that elected them.
Yes - I think the government does think it is a ploy #1 and #2 yes, they feel too much will be awarded to the BCTF, which they would feel is unfair to taxpayers. This governments past history with arbitration proves that point, as they basically lost the arbitration with doctors 12 years ago and had to cough up an additional $400 million (this was not a good deal for taxpayers, yet we got stuck with the bill). Do you blame them for not wanting to go that route? In addition, they were elected last year with an INCREASED majority, in the face of absolute media certainty and polling that they were about to face their worst defeat in their party’s history. I think that is a pretty clear voice that BC voters support the BC Liberals way of governing. Everyone knew this battle was coming last year, that is why the BCTF threw so much support behind their BC buddies the NDP…unfortunately it has backfired and now they are in the situation everyone pretty much expected them to be.
[quote]
According to DeJong today, they have already saved $163 million based on the last weeks of June. There is also, according to DeJong, a healthy surplus. So…tell me again about why the children of BC can’t get better supports for their learning? Tell me again why teachers, who have averaged less than 1% per year improvement over the last 16 years (while inflation runs at around 30% for the same period) dont have a right to negotiate for a fair increase. What the teachers are asking for wont even cover inflation over the next five years. [/quote]
No one is arguing that you do not have that right…you have every right to advocate for the most wage increase/funding possible for yourself/profession. People just don’t have to agree that your demands are reasonable/affordable or acceptable. I also do not necessarily think that just because their is surplus, that all or any of that money should be going into the governments offer to the BCTF.
Putting forth the option for arbitration when the opponent has already (twice) said they will never agree to it (for very valid and understanding reasons) is not a vision. It is a very transparent attempt at PR posturing. That being said, BOTH sides have made concessions to original offers and both sides have asked the other to end the strike…I say both sides are lacking serious vision, both are trying to win the PR battle.
People ARE pressuring the other side…many parents (and unions) are supporting the BCTF in their battle, so the pressure is there…I am not sure why you don’t think it is.
[quote=“bthedog”]
…they feel too much will be awarded to the BCTF, which they would feel is unfair to taxpayers. This governments past history with arbitration proves that point, as they basically lost the arbitration with doctors 12 years ago and had to cough up an additional $400 million (this was not a good deal for taxpayers, yet we got stuck with the bill). Do you blame them for not wanting to go that route? it is.[/quote]
I know there is absolutely no way that you and I will agree on this topic but I would still like some clarification.
You talk about fairness to taxpayers, but I am a taxpayer, teachers are taxpayers, most parents are taxpayers, some kids in high school are taxpayers. Which group of taxpayers is being treated unfairly? I don’t think taxpayers are being treated fairly when corporations are given huge tax breaks and subsidies while the rest of us are given increased hikes in hydro, ICBC, ferries, MSP premiums, etc all while being told that taxes have not been increased.
We can argue the pros and cons of that as well, but my point is that fairness to a group of people that includes a myriad of sub groups is pretty hard to determine.
In the doctor arbitration award, you claim that the government’s loss was not a good deal for taxpayers. Again, what group of taxpayers? An unbiased person looked at the situation, heard both sides, and made a judgment that he thought was fair. Maybe we don’t like the extra taxes we had to pay for medical services, but an unbiased person decided that IN FAIRNESS, the doctors needed to be compensated a certain amount. And part of the reason for the judgment was the shortage of doctors that might have continued which would have been unfair to taxpayers who were unable to get proper medical treatment in an appropriate period of time.
In the current case with teachers, that shortage is not an issue. So I can’t imagine an arbitrator coming in with a massive award for teachers. If you are worried that teachers will get more than the 8% that they are asking, don’t be. I am guessing that the arbitrator will likely decide on something between the 7-8% over 5 or 6 years that the two sides are quibbling over with some kind of signing bonus to make up for the two years of zero that teachers took while other public sector unions got some increase. There might be an adjustment to prep time or not or to the dental plan or not but there is hardly any reason for people to be concerned that the bank will be busted especially with the savings that have already been realized from the strike.
The only reason this is being held up is the government’s unwillingness to give up E80 which is the escape clause from any future court rulings, that they apparently think will go in their favour. (Why else spend millions on an appeal unless you are just stalling for time.) So if they think they are going to win the court case, no need for E80.
We have a government that is unwilling to take responsibility for past mistakes. We have a government that is unwilling to have an unbiased arbitrator look at two relatively close proposals and decide what is fair compensation. In the meantime, kids are not in school, parents are scrambling, teachers are not working, small businesses are losing while teachers hoard whatever money they have. And we have the prospect of an ugly atmosphere within the school the longer this drags on.
That’s unfair to taxpayers.
This is a very difficult issue because whatever side one is on the other side is completely, absolutely, undoubtedly, undeniably, and totally wrong.
My main news source has been the CBC, which is of course part of the much reviled, always to be distrusted MSM, unless of course they happen to be covering an issue involving the Harper government, in which case they are invariably a bunch of liberal propagandists who never get the story right and want Justin Trudeau to be the next prime minister including so that their budget will be increased. I admit that I have not sought out truth and enlightenment by reading the Tyee. I have only so much time in a day for reading news.
The CBC has a useful compilation of stories on the teachers strike here: < cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c … 7%20strike >.
And here is an article from a local perspective with a formidable collection of links: < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … t-off.html >.
By way of background, a BC Supreme Court judge said that the government violated collective bargaining rights by passing legislation that took class size and composition issues out of the collective agreement.
The government has appealed that decision, which is of course wrong, ridiculous and a waste of taxpayers’ money. They should just admit that they were wrong and suck it up.
Of course the constitution, as well as protecting collective bargaining rights, also protects our right to appeal decisions to higher courts. Most days of the week, somewhere in this fair land an appeal court decides that the trial judge got it wrong. Less frequently, but quite often, the Supreme Court of Canada says that the trial judge or an appeal court or both of them got it wrong. No one should be faulted for appealing a court decision.
The cost of an appeal should not be over-stated. An appeal does not re-hear all of the evidence. It generally accepts the facts as the trial judge found them and considers whether the law was correctly applied. An appeal considers fewer issues and often takes far less time.
I found this story, which focuses on the legal issues, to be helpful, at least as an introduction: < cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c … -1.2758511 >.
It explains that the government is arguing before the appeal court that the trial judge went too far; that the government has to be able to set policy, including around education issues like class size and composition. I don’t say that the government is correct in this particular case, but I can see where they are coming from. In our democracy the government is elected to set policies and pass budgets and supply bills to fund implementation of those policies. That is an area on which our courts do not trespass. There are very difficult, high level legal issues here.
The liberal journalist from the reviled MSM says that whatever the outcome of the appeal the issue will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court of Canada. If the government wins before the appeal court it may be the BCTF executive who is being ridiculous, wrong and wasting members’ money by appealing the decision to the highest court to finally determine the matter.
I also gather from the CBC that E80 is the main sticking point. It is essentially a clause that the government has proposed that would hold class size and composition at current levels. More could be said but that is what it comes down to.
The BCTF opposes E80 because it would supercede the contract language on class size and composition that the government removed from the collective agreement by legislation and that the court reinstated (which is being appealed). The BCTF has characterized E80 as an “escape clause” to avoid the consequences of a court ruling that the government lost and likewise the consequences of the appeal, assuming that the government loses that as well.
I have read the court decision < courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ … 21cor1.htm >. I think the BCTF is mischaracterizing its’ consequences.
The court did not reinstate the class size and composition language because, in its’ wisdom, the judge felt that the previous language was best or the last word on how to deliver quality education in the province. The judge was neutral as to the content. Those terms were reinstated for no other reason than because that was what was there before and the language had been improperly removed by legislation. The judge restored the status quo ante, whatever that was.
Those terms are not locked in for ever and for all times by a court ruling. Class size and composition are still subject to collective bargaining.
Here are my conclusions as a small ‘l’ liberal taxpayer and unrepentant CBC news reader.
-
The government is not refusing to negotiate class size and composition. E80 is a proposal made in the course of collective bargaining to maintain the status quo with respect to class size and composition.
-
The BCTF rejected that proposal, which it is free to do. But rather than making a counter-proposal on class size and composition its’ negotiators are avoiding collective bargaining by characterizing E80 as an “escape clause” from the court ruling. That is just an obscure way of saying that they prefer the old language in a collective agreement from way back when, before the issue went to court.
The BCTF should be more plain spoken about their position rather than talking as if the court endorsed the old language around class size and composition. What the court really endorsed was collective bargaining. With that in mind, the BCTF should consider countering E80 by proposing new language that is responsive to the current situation.
-
The BCTF says that it has offered binding arbitration, but only if the government drops E80. They are not proposing arbitration, they are proposing that the government capitulate, since by all accounts E80 is the most difficult outstanding issue between them.
-
There is nothing wrong with E80 going to arbitration along with the less difficult issues. The government proposes the status quo on class size and composition and the BCTF (presumably) proposes something else. There would seem to be a connection between class size and composition and what would be a fair wage under the circumstances. The arbitrator considers the submissions and decides.
-
In view of the complexity of the issues before the appeal court, the best solution would be for the government and the BCTF to negotiate an interim arrangement around class size and composition while the appeal court(s) clarifies the law, particularly to find an appropriate balance between collective bargaining rights and the government’s powers to determine and implement policy, including on education.
I wouldn’t go for binding arbitration either. I hope the Premier stands firm, this could get out of control.
All aboard the gravy train…
FYI,
Teachers have voted over 99 per cent in favour of binding arbitration - schools could be back in session within a day or two…if the government will accept the BCTF proposal.
[quote=“chien22”]FYI,
Teachers have voted over 99 per cent in favour of binding arbitration - schools could be back in session within a day or two…if the government will accept the BCTF proposal.[/quote]
Alright, but the Minister and Premier have both said that they won’t agree to binding arbitration and gave their reasons why. They’ve also offered a solution to get schools back in session while working towards a resolution. Something has to give. There’s a large gap that needs to be bridged. Why not get back to the table and negotiate? Today’s vote was a waste of time and effort.
Here is something maybe of interest.
A Framework for Long Term Stability in Education. It is the Liberal plan from January, 2013 to get a 10 year deal with teachers.
bced.gov.bc.ca/pubs/working … udents.pdf
There is a section on bargaining with a bunch of steps that need to be taken before a mediator is brought in and then what happens if an impasse still occurs.
[quote]
If there is no agreement by July 15, the mediator will issue recommendations for settlement.
If neither party rejects the mediator’s recommendations by July 25, they become the basis for the new collective agreement.
If government rejects the mediator’s recommendations, it must provide an alternative offer for settlement by August 7.
If the BCTF rejects the mediator’s recommendations or government’s alternative offer, they must issue strike notice by August 31. If they do not, then the mediator’s recommendations or government’s alternative offer will be deemed to be accepted and form the new collective agreement. [/quote]
Now we are long past the preliminaries but here we are with what the government has suggested would be non-binding arbitration. The mediator - eg Vince Ready - would suggest how he feels the impasse should be resolved. Both sides can reject the suggestion but it would be difficult to do so without facing extreme public pressure.
The BCTF really has nothing to lose. They are prepared to accept binding arbitration (without E80) so really the only thing that would likely force them to reject a mediator’s report would be the inclusion of E80 and knowing how important that issue is to teachers it is probably unlikely that a mediator would do so.
The government really has nothing to lose, especially considering that this plan is their idea. They can still reject the mediator’s report and try to offer something else that may or not be acceptable. However, to reject a mediator’s recommendation would put them in a highly unpopular position.
The only snag is that the strike is in progress. Teachers would not be willing to go back before the mediator has made a report because if either side rejects the report they would be back out. So for this to work, the mediator would have to make a very speedy decision. Because Vince Ready has already listened to both sides it probably wouldn’t take too long.
Just throwing it out there although I doubt that Christy, Jim and the two Petes read HTMF.
So long as the BCTF’s negotiators continue to treat the 2002 contract language on class size and composition as non-negotiable, on the false premise that it is some kind of constitutionally protected sacred text that cannot be altered, which it’s not, any process will fail, whether it is negotiation, mediation, or arbitration.
The irony, of course, is that the two Court rulings resulted from the government reneging on what it had negotiated through collective bargaining back then, but now it’s the BCTF’s negotiators who are refusing to engage in collective bargaining on those issues.
The government’s E-80 proposal is to maintain the status quo on class size and composition, rather than return to 2002. That strikes me as a reasonable position, at least until the Court of Appeal provides a decision and guidance on how much latitude the government has to set education policy.
The teachers need to instruct their negotiators that all issues, including class size and composition, are subject to good faith collective bargaining. That can include negotiating a framework for settling issues through mediation or arbitration, or reaching interim agreement pending the results of the Court appeal.
I don’t know why the teachers would feel that they would have to stay on strike, and lose income and further disrupt the school year, while the mediator (or an arbitrator) is working on the issues. That would be a strange position to take.
Mediation and other ADR processes are widely used in the commercial realm because they allow the parties to carry on with business as usual, so that losses and damage to the relationship are avoided while unresolved issues, which can be technically challenging, are being worked on independently.