Here is the BCTF’s reasoning why E80 should be removed:
bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Publi … 0table.pdf
And here is the BCPSEA E80 proposal (on page 13):
bcpsea.bc.ca/documents/teach … 202014.pdf
[quote=“BTravenn”]
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. [/quote]
I believe the BCTF is doing exactly what you are saying they aren’t doing. At one point they were asking for an interim amount of money (not sure of the amount but it was less than what the government estimated a return to 2002 would be) to deal with class size and composition until the court decision was rendered.
And why is the government’s proposal to maintain the status quo perfectly reasonable when the status quo is based on funding levels that are based on language that was stripped from the contract and the courts have determined was done unconstitutionally and in fact ordered the language back in. Maybe it is just semantics but shouldn’t the 2002 levels be considered the status quo and a perfectly reasonable position "until the “Court of Appeal provides a decision”.
[quote] I don’t know why the teachers would feel that they would have to stay on strike, and lose income and cause a 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.[/quote]
It would be a strange position to take if there was a guaranteed outcome at the end. The teachers have voted overwhelmingly to go back to work and let the arbitrator make a binding decision. Fassbender’s request to go back to work for two weeks while the two sides continued to negotiate was certainly as much of a ploy as anything the teachers have been accused of. What happens at the end of the two weeks if there is no movement? Back on strike?
I was using the scenario suggested by the government in its own document from 2013 to resolve conflicts BEFORE a strike occurs. It looks like a form of non-binding arbitration. At an impasse the mediator suggests a resolution that either side can reject. When I said it was a snag I was referring to the current situation where a group is already on strike and will not want to return unless there is a guaranteed resolution. Teachers are prepared to accept an arbitrator’s ruling but the government is not.
[quote=“DWhite”]
I believe the BCTF is doing exactly what you are saying they aren’t doing. At one point they were asking for an interim amount of money (not sure of the amount but it was less than what the government estimated a return to 2002 would be) to deal with class size and composition until the court decision was rendered.[/quote]
The BCTF should revisit those proposals if they want to make progress on class size and composition, rather than treating E-80 as non-negotiable. They should respond to the E-80 proposal with a counter-proposal.
[quote=“DWhite”]
And why is the government’s proposal to maintain the status quo perfectly reasonable when the status quo is based on funding levels that are based on language that was stripped from the contract and the courts have determined was done unconstitutionally and in fact ordered the language back in. Maybe it is just semantics but shouldn’t the 2002 levels be considered the status quo and a perfectly reasonable position "until the “Court of Appeal provides a decision”.[/quote]
The Court did not order that the 2002 language be put back in for ever and for all times as a non-negotiable, which is the BCTF’s position.
It appears to me that there is a fork in the road.
The BCTF can negotiate class size and composition based on the situation in 2014. I have not heard the government reject that in principle. They do not want to wind the clock back to 2002 just because that was the last time there was an agreement on class size and composition.
The other option is to negotiate something for the interim until the Court of Appeal provides a decision. I would not be surprised, by the way, if the appeal court agrees with the BCTF on the particulars of the last collective agreement, but provides clarity on how the government’s right to set policies and ‘supply’ is to be balanced against collective bargaining rights, which could assist future negotiations. Until then the most stable situation is maintaining the 2014 status quo as an interim measure.
[quote]
It would be a strange position to take if there was a guaranteed outcome at the end. The teachers have voted overwhelmingly to go back to work and let the arbitrator make a binding decision. Fassbender’s request to go back to work for two weeks while the two sides continued to negotiate was certainly as much of a ploy as anything the teachers have been accused of. What happens at the end of the two weeks if there is no movement? Back on strike? … Teachers are prepared to accept an arbitrator’s ruling but the government is not. [/quote]
Yes, but the teachers have voted to let the arbitrator make a binding decision on everything but the main issue, which is class size and composition. If it wasn’t for the latter issue this dispute probably would have been resolved a while ago.
I do not know why you dismiss Fassbender’s proposal to go back to work while negotiations resume as a “ploy”. Parties can and usually do continue to work together while they are conducting negotiations, or waiting for other dispute resolution processes to be completed. If there is no movement at the end of two weeks, yes the teachers can go back on strike if they want to.
I hear rumblings, by the way, about calls for a General Strike. Tired old drums like that aren’t worth beating. The teachers need to instruct their negotiators to negotiate.
I am totally baffled. You seem to know a lot more about what is happening behind the negotiating doors than I do.
I don’t know if the BCTF needs to revisit their proposals. I imagine their proposal is still on the table. My question would be why hasn’t the government moved off the “status quo” position, a position that is based on numbers that were determined unconstitutional.
We are where we are, and I don’t think you can blame just the BCTF for the lack of progress as you seem to be doing.
Negotiating for whatever reason has not worked and the court case just complicates things further.
The teachers have presented a viable alternative to get the schools open. What is the government suggesting as an alternative? Non-binding as their framework suggests? Something else?
"When it comes to the issues of class size and composition, Fassbender says the government wants to negotiate those at the table. ”When I had Mr. Iker and Mr. Cameron in my office, I said ‘let us take the court case and any attendent results of any grievances that are attached and put it to the side until it runs its course. None of us know how long that’s going to be, let’s park it. But, let’s deal with class size and composition at the bargaining table.”
“I can say very clearly, we want to negotiate a settlement, we want a mediated settlement." -Peter Fassbender
m.news1130.com/2014/09/08/provin … bitration/
“This means that the legislatively deleted terms in the teachers’ collective agreement have been restored retroactively and can also be the subject of future bargaining.”
m.thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2014/ … n-Bill-22/
Regardless of the wrongdoings and mistakes that have been made, both parties need to leave the past behind and move forward. Time to get back to the table and negotiate in good faith.
“We’re ready to negotiate anytime." - Jim Iker
It might be helpful to take a moment to go beyond the media sound bites and the interpretations of many and look specifically at the rationale explaining the BCTF stand on E.80.
The rationale for the BCTF stand – from a document available on the front page of the BCTF website entitled: Why must E80 be removed from the bargaining table?
“It is government that made the court case relevant to this round of collective bargaining….the government applied for a stay of Justice Griffin’s ruling that restored the stripped language. Because the stay was granted, the language was legally restored but cannot be implemented or relied upon during this round of bargaining.”
“In this context, BCPSEA introduced proposal E80 which assumes that the restored language does not exist. E80 is a proposal that enforces the status quo. It simply refers to the class size limits in the School Act but does not guarantee them. It does not address composition or ratios for specialist teachers except to “establish a fact-finding committee… to better inform decisions in the allocation of the LIF.” Moreover by entrenching LIF in the collective agreement (but not the funds attached to it), it continues to give the employer ultimate control over how the limited resources are to be allocated.”
“The government wants to have E80’s weak language put into the collective agreement because, due to the bridging language, it would carry forward into any future collective agreement. In other words, E80 would negate a ruling from a superior court that upholds the restoration of the language.”
My comment:
Maybe it would be helpful to have a specific response from BCPSEA outlining how it believes the BCTF interpretation is erroneous or from Mr. Fassbinder responding to the BCTF statement and how it represents misinformation.
And if you don’t believe what’s on the BCTF website, how about the viewpoint of a constitutional lawyer.
blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/09/0 … as-to-say/
Last week, I sent emails to all 82 MLAs. Most of my responses were of the automated variety. Of the 10 or so personal type responses I will mention only two. Both Andrew Weaver of the Green Party and independent Vickie Huntington are on the record as favouring arbitration.
Huntington referred me to her latest column in her local newspaper. Note that she does not take sides. She is critical of both. But her conclusion is arbitration.
vickihuntington.ca/content/b … bc-hostage
Andrew Weaver even has a petition calling for arbitration. He has written more detailed accounts of the dispute.
andrewweavermla.ca/2014/09/0 … -petition/
Now you may not agree with them, but if anybody in the legislature can rise above the political rhetoric of the Liberals and the NDP, it is those two. While I suppose Weaver has a party platform to follow, I imagine he is on his own here and Huntington is a two time winner as an independent with nobody but her constituents to answer to. And both of them supported the Liberal budget earlier in the year so neither has a reputation of having an anti-government bias.
We won! We won! From a story posted on the Huffington Post:
huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/11 … ref=canada
From being near the top in the ranks of child poverty and underfunding education, health care woes and social service cuts…the BC Liberals have finally had a first place finish.
“British Columbia had the greatest concentration of wealth in the top 10 per cent, with the top 10 per cent* holding 56.2 per cent of all wealth in the province”.
Thank you BC’s Liberal government: without your valiant efforts to save taxpayers money…our richest would have looked soooooooo impoverished.
As for the other 90% …. well, they probably send their kids to public schools – how tacky! :}
From the “Left leaning Broadbent Institute.” Of course.
Sorry, but the term “child poverty” as used in this country is offensive to those in the world that suffer from true poverty. In reality, it should be termed " kids with shitty parents so let’s blame the government" syndrome.
What I found interesting about the article is that our middle class is among the richest in the world, even overtaking the US in the rankings. So long as the government keeps handing out those signing bonuses we shouldn’t have to worry about falling behind.
Related to falling behind it is true that BC Teachers are the second lowest paid in Canada.
HTMF reaches new low as the usually erudite BTravenn tosses out (mildly) sarcastic dig at teacher negotiations. DWhite in an uncharacteristic moment of frustration threatened to leave HTMF for good. "Where is this all heading? he sighed. “HTMF sure isn’t as good as it used to be.”
[quote=“DWhite”]
HTMF reaches new low as the usually erudite BTravenn tosses out (mildly) sarcastic dig at teacher negotiations. DWhite in an uncharacteristic moment of frustration threatened to leave HTMF for good. "Where is this all heading? he sighed. “HTMF sure isn’t as good as it used to be.”[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that you’ll get over it.
Signing bonuses are a bad idea. They come across as a cash grab and erode credibility. As for the Huffington post article, I don’t see the teachers dispute as a poverty issue.
I’m familiar with the BCTF’s numbers, but there are many variables and overall comparisons are difficult.
According to Global, teachers here are near the middle of the national rankings. Starting pay, for instance, is higher than in Ontario, but BC teachers fall behind as experience levels increase: < globalnews.ca/news/1346218/wage- … ss-canada/ >.
This G&M article talks about how if education administrators are factored in BC stacks up very well, second highest in fact.
< theglobeandmail.com/news/bri … e17309702/ >.
That confirms some impressions that I’ve had that non-union SD administrators (and consultants) are very well paid indeed, relative to numbers of people they supervise. The government has been clamping down on salaries and bonuses paid to public corporation executives. Maybe they need to rein in the school boards when they negotiate senior personnel pay. Perhaps there is an issue there that the government and the BCTF might actually agree on.
I found this G&M article interesting: < theglobeandmail.com/news/bri … e20378154/>.
It covers a range of issues, and it’s consequentially difficult to draw overall conclusions, but one issue that stands out is that while Alberta pays very well, they have no class size caps, while Ontario - another ‘have’ province amenable to comparisons with BC - has fewer caps.
Perhaps there are some trade-offs around the government’s E-80 proposal versus the BCTF’s desire to bring back 2002 contract language on class size and composition. If working conditions are guaranteed, teachers in this province may not be paid quite so well, compared to their counterparts in other provinces that have more flexible arrangements.
Perhaps the current arrangement that E-80 would maintain is actually more favourable to teachers than what their counterparts in other provinces have, where there are no caps and a lot of flexibility.
As for “HTMF reaches new low” and your thoughts about walking away, I suspect that you share my disdain for some of the self-indulgent and childish abuse that is sometimes hurled at others here.
Sorry DWhite, I understand your frustrations, but:
- Neither HTMF nor the HTMF community appear to be at fault here –HTMF is nothing more than a board that allows free discussion (within very broad limits) of issues that people wish to talk about. The highs and lows reflect only on expectations of the reader: maybe your expectations were unrealistic?
- That you believed BTraveen’s verbose puffery to be erudite – which generally connotes scholarly and intellectual – is your choice. As for being possibly shocked by his mildly sarcastic dig at teachers: it appears to be nothing more than a poor paraphrase of Ms. Clark’s – 5000 massages dollar sound bite.
- When you choose to remove your voice from a conversation – which you appear to suggest you might do – the conversation will be reshaped. (A favorite tactic of some groups is to demean their opposition to silence their opponents.) Where is this all heading? Your decision to stay or go – will help answer that question.
- As for your frustration – frustration often comes from a sense of failure in trying to accomplish something. (It doesn’t mean you failed – just that you may have misjudged the task). You can choose to walk away…or you can choose to refocus and redouble your efforts. But remember, the elitist side always beckons seductively: ‘I suspect that you share my disdain for some of the self-indulgent and childish abuse that is sometimes hurled at others here.’BTravenn
Take care.
This has become a pretty nasty labour dispute. Hopefully it will be over soon.
I agree, but I hope it is a negotiated settlement. The relationship between the BCTF and the provincial government has been strained for a long time, before the Liberals were elected into office. The relationship needs to heal and that starts with coming up with a mutually agreed upon deal rather than anyone having something imposed upon them by the courts or legislation. I believe that the provincial government recognizes this which is why they have stated that the teachers will not be legislated back to work, and why they won’t agree to arbitration. I’d like to see Fassbender and Iker shake hands after working hard to make something work.
Talks continue today between the BCTF and the Government behind closed doors.
B.C. teachers, government, mediator, talking behind close doors
Don’t forget it was the government that offered a $1200 signing bonus at the beginning of the negotiations. I am not even sure when the teachers countered with the $5000 although I think it was at the time they lowered their % increase from whatever it was to the 8% that is now on the table.
I am not defending the bonus as an option nor the numbers on the table, but as I said in an earlier post the employer benefits just as much from a signing bonus as do the employees. Part of the numbers game when comparing teacher demands to those of the other public sector unions that settled is that teachers took two years of 0 while those other unions did not. A signing bonus can rectify that without adding anything to the base salary.
For example: Average teacher salary about $70,000. If teachers had been given comparable raises to other public sector employees over the past two years, the average salary would be closer to $72,500. If people agree that the teachers should have received something in those two years, a signing bonus of $2500 rectifies that without adding anything to the grid. Moving forward, any x% increase is on $70,000 rather than $72500 which is an advantage to the employer.
Again, I am not defending the bonus as a strategy or the numbers that have been thrown around. I am just suggesting that a signing bonus should not necessarily be seen as a cash grab especially when it was the employer who put it on the table in the first place.
Of course, it did become a distraction over the more important issue of class size and composition.
And of course, the English teacher screws up his math forgetting that the increase is over two years, compounding and all that stuff. In the first year, the salary would have been about 71250 or -1250 for that year. The second year would be 72500 or -2500 for that year. Total loss is 3750. Add the money “stolen” by locking teachers out during lunch and after school and docking them 10% and teachers are down over $4000, so the $5000 signing bonus is hardly a stretch.
Normally, I would oppose a signing bonus because money on the grid is better for the employee long term. But in cases such as this one, where back pay may be involved and the employer is looking for a way to save money by keeping the base salary lower, a signing bonus can be useful.
.
The teachers have literally walked right in the hand of the government with this strike.
The government will legislate them back before Christy’s trade mission (unless a deal is reached soon through mediation).
The government will have saved on millions of unpaid wages…teachers will be getting a contract the government has been offering and kids will go back to school, missing 1 of the 2 least important school months of the year (ie: big deal, it will all be forgotten and non impactful by the end of June 2015 anyways).
The only losers in this whole thing are the teachers, who have/will have lost a lot and will never have it recovered. Parents and students are also the loser as we will be in the same situation in a year or 2 when the teachers strike again.