ronthecivil Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Two problems: the government provoked the strike, and the government changed the work rules. The court determined that the government wanted to provoke a strike to create a negative opinion about the teachers. The government also unilaterally changed the work rules and therefore was not bargaining in good faith. As an employer you do not have the right to unilaterally change the work rules when there is a collectively bargained agreement in place. The government tried this twice and the court rebuffed their efforts both times. The fact is the government should be accountable to the people of BC because it broke the rules; and just like any other employer, under employment law, the government is subject to damages for breaking the work rules. Frankly, $2M for twelve years of damage is chump change-$166,666.67 per year, 41,000 teachers in the province, so this is about $4.07 per teacher per year. Agreed, especialy when you compare it how much it would cost a year to reverse these decisions, 250 to 400 million dollars, A YEAR! Clearly they just need to ensure the class limits and other previsions required are included in the next deal. No legislation, no provoking, just tough, clear, negotiation. If the teachers want to go on strike for months (as is their right IMHO) so be it, we need to solve this problem with no chance of a court challenge. Eventually they will get hungry enough to take the deal. That's how the system is supposed to work. But what we can't do is just keep shovelling money after problems. The education budget continues to escelate despite decreasing enrollement. That situation can not last, no matter how painful the solution may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 It is a global economy. We must remember that while businesses pay taxes directly, those taxes are paid indirectly by those businesses' customers. Taxation is passed on in the price of the product or service. What we really need to do is stop wealthfare, by giving some businesses a competitive advantage over other businesses. Agreed. However if the prices they pass on to customers is higher than the competition then the customers don't pay period, the business goes under, and we don't get any taxes at all from that business. Does that mean we should subsidise individual business? No, they should sink or swim based on their own merits. But a good business climate including globally competitive tax rates in which an equal playing field is set is certainly a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gross-Misconduct Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Christy Clark doesn't care about teachers or education. She only cares about photo-ops and brain washing the public with propaganda during election season. Besides that, she and the Liberal party care about staying in power by appeasing their business partners who bank roll the Liberal party. BC has the highest child poverty rate in Canada? The BC Liberals couldn't care less. Children can't vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 But that said, if someone ran on a platform to put the taxes back they way they were, do you think they would win? Nope, just do what they just did. Slip it in there with no one noticing. Tax rate on $150,000+ income just jumped to 45.8% "temporarily". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Two problems: the government provoked the strike, and the government changed the work rules. The court determined that the government wanted to provoke a strike to create a negative opinion about the teachers. The government also unilaterally changed the work rules and therefore was not bargaining in good faith. As an employer you do not have the right to unilaterally change the work rules when there is a collectively bargained agreement in place. The government tried this twice and the court rebuffed their efforts both times. The fact is the government should be accountable to the people of BC because it broke the rules; and just like any other employer, under employment law, the government is subject to damages for breaking the work rules. Frankly, $2M for twelve years of damage is chump change-$166,666.67 per year, 41,000 teachers in the province, so this is about $4.07 per teacher per year. I'm interested in seeing the fallout........the real challenge is that the government has to immediately go back to 2002 language and rules on class size and composition. That means that can be no more than 3 IEP's per class, and no more than 30 students per class. Right now, most teachers are well over the limit of three IEP's per class. One teacher in my school has 8 in his class........so now, admin and district offices are going to have to figure out how to fix that problem asap. On top of that, any teacher who has filed a grievance over too many IEP's in the last 12 years will likely be receiving compensation from the government. I'm no more for the BCTF than I am the government, but what the Liberals did was morally repugnant and it is coming back to bite them, in spades. They will end up funding education far more now than when they decided to tear up the original contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I'm interested in seeing the fallout........the real challenge is that the government has to immediately go back to 2002 language and rules on class size and composition. That means that can be no more than 3 IEP's per class, and no more than 30 students per class. Right now, most teachers are well over the limit of three IEP's per class. One teacher in my school has 8 in his class........so now, admin and district offices are going to have to figure out how to fix that problem asap. On top of that, any teacher who has filed a grievance over too many IEP's in the last 12 years will likely be receiving compensation from the government. I'm no more for the BCTF than I am the government, but what the Liberals did was morally repugnant and it is coming back to bite them, in spades. They will end up funding education far more now than when they decided to tear up the original contract. Or you just appeal the decision and then make sure you negotiate it (at the risk of a prolonged strike if need be) into the next contract and then it doesn't matter anymore. If all else fails use the not withstanding clause to overrule the courts. As much as it sucks for teachers having to deal with a lot of special needs kids in their class (the downside of mainstreaming or whatever they call it) there's not a lot of money to do much about it. We need to stop the never ending increases to education budgets in a world of declining enrolment no matter how painful that may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Christy Clark doesn't care about teachers or education. She only cares about photo-ops and brain washing the public with propaganda during election season. Besides that, she and the Liberal party care about staying in power by appeasing their business partners who bank roll the Liberal party. BC has the highest child poverty rate in Canada? The BC Liberals couldn't care less. Children can't vote. I would be more pissed about the massive debt being left being if I was a theoritical child voter. Unfortunately the other major party doesn't do any better with regards to doing anything but increase the size of said debt. The fact that BC is the most expensive province, with half the people living in the second most expensive city in the world, may have something to do with that child poverty rate as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Nope, just do what they just did. Slip it in there with no one noticing. Tax rate on $150,000+ income just jumped to 45.8% "temporarily". Oh as much as it fun to play sides with the NDP/Liberals even the Liberals will raise taxes (just not as much as the NDP) and spending (especially on healthcare), but just not as much as the NDP. The secrete campaign promise is higher taxes, worse service, and unbalanced bugets for everyone. It's just the how much higher, how much worse, and how unbalanced the results turn out to be between each party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Or you just appeal the decision and then make sure you negotiate it (at the risk of a prolonged strike if need be) into the next contract and then it doesn't matter anymore. If all else fails use the not withstanding clause to overrule the courts. As much as it sucks for teachers having to deal with a lot of special needs kids in their class (the downside of mainstreaming or whatever they call it) there's not a lot of money to do much about it. We need to stop the never ending increases to education budgets in a world of declining enrolment no matter how painful that may be. my understanding that is, even if they appeal, the ruling forces them to return to the original contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Or you just appeal the decision and then make sure you negotiate it (at the risk of a prolonged strike if need be) into the next contract and then it doesn't matter anymore. If all else fails use the not withstanding clause to overrule the courts. As much as it sucks for teachers having to deal with a lot of special needs kids in their class (the downside of mainstreaming or whatever they call it) there's not a lot of money to do much about it. We need to stop the never ending increases to education budgets in a world of declining enrolment no matter how painful that may be. that, right there, is your disconnnect, and it says a lot about you. It doesn't suck for the teachers, it sucks for the kids who desperately need that help. What sucks is that there are people out there, like you, who actually think that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 my understanding that is, even if they appeal, the ruling forces them to return to the original contract. I don't think it would be enforceble if it's still before the courts. That's why people tie stuff up in the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 that, right there, is your disconnnect, and it says a lot about you. It doesn't suck for the teachers, it sucks for the kids who desperately need that help. What sucks is that there are people out there, like you, who actually think that way. I don't recall saying "it will suck JUST for the teachers". I meant it was no good for everyone. Such is the reality of an economic downturn. When there's no money there's no money, and it does suck for everyone. Clear enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted February 1, 2014 Author Share Posted February 1, 2014 "Bill 28 also allowed the government to under-fund education. As a result, B.C. has fallen behind the rest of Canada. According to the latest Statistics Canada data, B.C. is last on seven key measures of education funding. B.C.’s funding is currently $1,000 less per student than the national average. Only P.E.I. is worse than B.C. in terms of per-student funding. This is completely unacceptable for a province as prosperous as B.C. British Columbia also has the worst student-educator ratio in Canada. Among the 3,500 teaching positions cut since 2002, 1,400 were specialists such as teacher-librarians, counsellors, English language and special education teachers. The implications for class composition are grave. The Ministry of Education’s statistics show there are over 16,000 classes with four or more children with special needs. Despite the dedication of teachers, many of those children simply aren’t getting the extra help they need." http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=9441794 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Agreed. However if the prices they pass on to customers is higher than the competition then the customers don't pay period, the business goes under, and we don't get any taxes at all from that business. Does that mean we should subsidise individual business? No, they should sink or swim based on their own merits. But a good business climate including globally competitive tax rates in which an equal playing field is set is certainly a good thing. It is like government giving Walmart tax subsidies to open shop so it can undermine the local economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 from the Vancouver Sun VICTORIA — The provincial government can't afford the $1 billion it predicts it would cost to honour a court case it lost to B.C. teachers, says the education minister. Peter Fassbender said Tuesday his government will appeal last week's B.C. Supreme Court ruling, which retroactively restored class size and composition levels that the government improperly stripped from teachers' contracts in 2002. He did not provide a breakdown of his "upwards of $1 billion" estimate, and the education ministry later said it was a high-end speculative number involving retroactive costs and the reinstatement of old teacher ratios and class limit formulas. However, government figures contained in the Supreme Court ruling also put retroactive and future costs as high as $1.3 billion over the next three years. "In practical terms, the judgment is completely unaffordable for taxpayers," Fassbender said at a news conference. "It would create huge disruptions in our schools and most importantly it will prevent districts from providing the right mix of supports that our students actually need." B.C. Teachers' Federation president Jim Iker said he was "disappointed" at the government's appeal and did not believe Fassbender's financial figures. "If the government says the cost is $1 billion, they should provide a specific breakdown or admit that they have actually shortchanged B.C. kids by $1 billion since 2002," said Iker. He accused Premier Christy Clark and Fassbender of thinking they are above the law by not honouring the court decision. In the court ruling, Supreme Court Justice Susan Griffin said legislation the government passed in 2012, known as Bill 22, was virtually identical to a 2002 bill she had previously ruled as unconstitutional because it violated teachers' rights to bargain class size and composition clauses. Teachers hailed the ruling as a long-awaited victory for collective bargaining, while the government has dismissed it as one judge's incorrect interpretation of higher court rulings. As the teachers and government publicly disputed figures, talks scheduled to resume Thursday on a new collective agreement were pushed off at least a week to Feb. 12. The last teachers' contract expired on June 30, 2013. Relations between both sides have soured since the court decision, in which Justice Griffin blamed the Liberal government for trying to provoke a teacher strike two years ago so that it could impose legislation on the BCTF. Griffin cited confidential government documents, specifically "internal notes" from Paul Straszak, the former CEO of the government's bargaining agent, the Public Sector Employers' Council. George Abbott, a former Liberal MLA who was education minister at the time cited by the judge, said Tuesday he wasn't trying to spark a strike. "No, from my perspective as minister there were more than enough problems at the table without attempting to provoke strike action," Abbott said in an interview. Abbott said he's not sure what Straszak documents Justice Griffin referenced, and he did not review the private notes of all staff. "I'm not going to comment on what may have been contained in anyone's notes," he said. "I don't know under what circumstances what they said, what the context was for the notes, nor whether they were being hypothetical and strategic or reflected something else." Fassbender also disputed Justice Griffin's characterization that the government bargained in bad faith, dismissing that as "the judge's interpretation." However, Fassbender declined to release the internal government documents cited by Justice Griffin in her ruling. Meanwhile, B.C. school boards admitted Tuesday they aren't sure what will happen next in a labour dispute that is now stretching into its 12th year. The court decision has "sent shock waves through all school districts" as they grapple with already-tight budgets and the unknown financial ramifications of a continued labour fight, said Surrey School District chairman Shawn Wilson. Surrey, like many school boards, has staff busily trying to figure out the implications of the court ruling, he said. "Some school districts have said you go back to the contract as it was before 2002 and others are waiting to hold, and some want to get legal opinions," said Wilson. "There's a lot of uncertainty out there." Surrey would have to hire 168 new teaching staff and assistants to meet 2002 class size and composition levels, Iker and the teachers' union said Tuesday. That includes 80 additional English language learner teachers, 51 special education teachers, 19 counsellors and 18 teacher librarians, said Iker. That could cost anywhere between $10-$15 million, depending on salaries and benefits. The Surrey School Board doesn't know yet if the BCTF figures are accurate, said Wilson. But he said Fassbender's $1 billion provincewide estimate is reasonable. "We're talking big money here, this is not chump change," said Wilson. It would be "catastrophic" for school boards to absorb those costs, he said. Some districts are already wrestling with aging facilities, declining enrolment and school closures. At the Vancouver School District, board chair Patti Bacchus said $41 million and around 500 additional teachers would be required to return her district to 2002 levels, though she acknowledged that is not a total estimate of the cost of the court decision. "I'm extremely disappointed that government is choosing to squander more tax dollars on what will likely be a losing court battle," she said of the appeal. Legal experts aren't surprised the government has decided to keep fighting. "It's far from a frivolous appeal in my mind," said Ken Thornicroft, a University of Victoria labour lawyer. The Supreme Court of Canada has altered its stance on collective bargaining rights in recent years, which could strengthen the B.C. government's case, he said. Thornicroft said it's likely the province will seek a stay of proceedings while it takes the case to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which would then make the recent court ruling non-binding for school districts until the appeal is heard. If the appeal eventually goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, Thornicroft said, it would likely be at least another five years before the case is finally settled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverpig Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm not a fan of the NDP, but I'm not a fan of the Liberals either. My wife was a teacher in BC (and hopes to be one again) and this annoys the crap out of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm not a fan of the NDP, but I'm not a fan of the Liberals either. My wife was a teacher in BC (and hopes to be one again) and this annoys the crap out of us. Then she should be spearheading education system reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 More money wasted in this appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 More money wasted in this appeal. lol... more money wasted by the BCTF by not actually fixing the system. Government's just fighting idiotic fire with more idiotic fire. The stupid stalemate will continue until the public and/or the teachers wake up and demand better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 lol... more money wasted by the BCTF by not actually fixing the system. Government's just fighting idiotic fire with more idiotic fire. The stupid stalemate will continue until the public and/or the teachers wake up and demand better. Love how you blame the BCTF when the government broke the law. Multiple times. Also love how you just sit here and whinge for a revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.