Sapper Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 you would think that given that they have lost twice and there is evidence they provoked a strike .... a reasonable person would conclude that a massive smack down is coming from the courts who were not amused at round 2 and will probably send a message in round 3. Given this anyone with a shred of common sense would recognize that the BC Liberals are in fact playing with our tax dollars and rather than negotiate a resolve seem content to stick it to the taxpayers much like they did with the HEU 100 Million dollar settlement. If it was their parties money that would pay the fine I wouldn't care as much. However all these court costs are making the fast cats look like dollar store foddeer in comparision and to pay the settlement that is coming - how many more cuts to eduction and health will occur? You know that the money they stripped out of education to give to corperations through tax cuts won't be scaled back. Also given that the teachers will never recover the money lost in this strike no matter what the final raises are, this silly nonsense that its just about the money arguement no longer holds any water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefcakeBo Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The money is still an issue. The reason being that if the government gives in on class size and composition then they will also have to hire a lot more teachers. Say you cut class size by 10% then you also have to increase the number of teachers by 10%. Roughly 3000 teachers and the cost of that is nearly 200 million a year. That's a big amount that the government can't afford without raising taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The money is still an issue. The reason being that if the government gives in on class size and composition then they will also have to hire a lot more teachers. Say you cut class size by 10% then you also have to increase the number of teachers by 10%. Roughly 3000 teachers and the cost of that is nearly 200 million a year. That's a big amount that the government can't afford without raising taxes. See that's the thing. If we include the following over the last few years. Convention center $1.3 billion BC Place $563 million + And paying that issue over power in California (still confused about that as we sell them the power they sued us for) which cost almost 3/4's of a billion $ We have enough money to go around and then some. It isn't the fact we have NO money, it's the fact they're wasting it instead of budgeting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 To all that are just calling this the teachers strike, need I remind you that we're also locked out. The teachers were fine "working to rule" as a form of protest, and could've been for a while. The Liberals really escalated things when they brought in the 10% wage hit and then locked out during non class times. It ripped open the wound created 12 years ago when the government ripped up the contract. Sorry Christy, school closures aren't just in the teachers. So we're conveniently ignoring the fact that of all teachers who voted, 86% voted for a strike, hoping to mount negative publicity on the employer? Sorry...it's a strike caused by the employees and the union, not a lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Not quite new, that article is from February, but the evidence was, to my understanding, the primary reason why the Liberals lost their second court case (remember, they never appealed their first loss). This is why the government is so desperately trying to take the court case off the table within the language of any new contract. It's the only reason the strike/lockout exists, or a deal would have been done long ago. The bottom line is that this isn't about wages. And anyone that thinks the teachers are being ridiculous needs to consider the precedent that would be set if we say it's okay for the government to rip up contracts, even though it's illegal, as long as they retroactively make it "okay" within the language of the new contract. That should scare the hell out of more people, frankly. Original article was from February, but it has been updated as of late yesterday with new evidence that the Liberals lied. Don't let the door hit you on the way out CC is my first thought (and wish). This article was originally published in February of 2014. Court documents released by the B.C. New Democratic Party Wednesday have thrust B.C. Premier Christy Clark into the first crisis of her post-election administration. And it’s one that threatens to do irreparable damage to relations between Ms. Clark’s Liberal government and the province’s teachers. MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY Court papers show B.C. Liberals wanted to provoke teachers strike, Dix says B.C. teachers, government hold contract talks after divisive court ruling Clark promises education shift, stresses private-sector needs Underlying the plan was the notion that if the teachers went on strike, it would upset the public, which would then side with the government in its intent to force the legislation on teachers.For a few weeks now, Ms. Clark and Education Minister Peter Fassbender have vigorously been denying comments made in a recent B.C. Supreme Court judgment stating that in 2011 the provincial government tried to provoke a strike with the B.C. Teachers’ Federation to create the social environment necessary to impose legislation on teachers. The bill inhibited previously negotiated rights and privileges won by the BCTF. As recently as this Tuesday, Ms. Clark said this was not true. Her Education Minister refuted it again on Wednesday. But those denials look incredibly shaky in light of the documents released by the NDP that were widely quoted by the party during Question Period. The documents focus on testimony given in court by the government’s chief negotiator in contract talks with the BCTF – Paul Straszak. In that testimony, Mr. Straszak talks about the tools the government had at its disposal to “increase the pressure on the [bCTF] to escalate the strike.” Mr. Straszak is asked on the stand: “So your objective as government was to increase the pressure on the teachers to have them go out on a full-scale strike? Is that correct?” His answer: “We – yes. I’ll say that’s correct.” As bad, Mr. Straszak says he briefed the Premier’s deputy, John Dyble, on the strategy ahead of a meeting with the provincial cabinet. Mr. Straszak also talked about the tools that were available to apply that strike pressure, such as cancelling teacher leaves and restricting funding to school districts. So this allegation no longer resides in the realm of hearsay or in the mind of a Supreme Court judge. This is the government’s chief negotiator with the BCTF talking about a plan to put tens of thousands of kids out of school to fulfill the government’s political agenda. And that’s about as damaging, optically, as it gets for a governing party. Not surprisingly, the Premier wasn’t answering any of the pointed questions directed her way during Question Period. She let Justice Minister Suzanne Anton handle them. Because the Supreme Court ruling that contained the incendiary references by the judge is being appealed, Ms. Anton was able to say the government couldn’t comment because the matter could soon be before the courts. It seemed like a convenient response but an odd one, given that Ms. Clark and her Education Minister have been talking about the court decision and the judge’s comments for a few weeks now. Mr. Fassbender continued to insist on Wednesday that the government had no intention of trying to provoke a strike back in 2011. If that is the case, then someone in this matter is not telling the truth. It would mean that Mr. Straszak perjured himself under oath. Or it means that the Premier has not been telling the truth about the whole matter, which is what Mr. Dix suggested on Wednesday outside the legislature. This matter is not going away any time soon. The Opposition and the media will insist on finding out who is telling the truth here and who isn’t. Ms. Clark could claim that Mr. Straszak was not reflecting her wishes when he talked about trying to provoke a strike. But then it would be up to Mr. Straszak to give his side of the story. Did he get his marching orders from the government? Did he brief the cabinet, including Ms. Clark, on the pro-strike strategy? It’s difficult to believe that a chief government negotiator would embark on this path on his own, without the backing of government. A rogue negotiator heading off to put tens of thousands of kids out of school because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. Seems incredibly far-fetched to me. What doesn’t, however, is the notion that this imbroglio has the potential to do severe damage to teacher-government relations in B.C. and thoroughly undermine the contract negotiations that are taking place now. This matter needs to be explained. And apologies may need to follow soon after. Follow me on Twitter: @garymasonglobe Follow Gary Mason on Twitter: @garymasonglobe MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY B.C. Liberals move to stop release of BCTF-related cabinet documents GARY MASON B.C., teachers going back to war B.C. to appeal judge’s ruling restoring teachers’ bargaining rights Analysis: Court ruling a major blow to Clark’s strategy with teachers http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/clark-facing-crisis-after-ndp-revelations-about-talks-with-teachers/article16845904/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So we're conveniently ignoring the fact that of all teachers who voted, 86% voted for a strike, hoping to mount negative publicity on the employer? Sorry...it's a strike caused by the employees and the union, not a lockout. The "full" strike vote was after being provoked by the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The personal attacks stop now please/thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So we're conveniently ignoring the fact that of all teachers who voted, 86% voted for a strike, hoping to mount negative publicity on the employer? Sorry...it's a strike caused by the employees and the union, not a lockout. So we are conveniently forgetting the 2 court rulings ignored by the government, the lack of genuine bargaining since 2002, the cut backs and scaling back of necessary items within the budget to make schools and classes run properly, the lack of honesty within the government when speaking of this, the complete failure to address E-80 and E-81, the fact teachers were all but locked out at the end of last year before a real strike vote was held, the fact the government is in fact locking schools and teachers/students out, the fact the government lied about the availability of this $40 a day to parents. I mean if it is all a matter of convenience than.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So we're conveniently ignoring the fact that of all teachers who voted, 86% voted for a strike, hoping to mount negative publicity on the employer? Sorry...it's a strike caused by the employees and the union, not a lockout. No, it's both. The teachers are still locked out. BCSPEA are being are being intentionally vague with the terms but we were notified that we were still locked unless we return to work as normal (lots of room for bargaining there). They lifted the lock out for a couple weeks in August so we could go in and prep (on our own time...so for free because we don't get paid in the summer anyway). But the lock out is back again. Once again, it's both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 How can anyone believe anything that CC says anymore? I mean, listen to this crap: Clark then took aim at several parts of the teachers' demands, including wages and benefits, a $5,000 signing bonus, and what she called "unlimited massage." "They are still demanding twice as much as other public sector workers have received," said Clark. "The teachers union needs to come to the table with a proposal that is realistic." "Other public sector employees who work just as hard have settled for far less. They didn't get a $5,000 signing bonus and they didn't get unlimited massage and an extra day off each year." Clark's statement about massages is, in fact, a mistake. BCTF President Jim Iker says unlimited massages were never on the table. He says the union is asking for $500 to $700 for massages, not the $5,000 claimed by the premier.. "There was a proposal for $3,000 in massages for members who were in chronic pain," Iker said, "and we had to take that off the table." Clark then repeated several times that she expected a solution to the strike would have to come at the bargaining table — not from legislation or binding arbitration. "This dispute needs to be resolved at the bargaining table. It needs to be resolved by our negotiating teams," said Clark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Also, the 'day off' was a day for preparation, marking, etc. Still work, not a vacation day. Also, the signing bonus was the government's idea. It's weird that she said all this stuff that's just flat out wrong, it just makes everyone irate and confirms everyone's idea that she has no idea what she's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 How can anyone believe anything that CC says anymore? I mean, listen to this crap: Clark then took aim at several parts of the teachers' demands, including wages and benefits, a $5,000 signing bonus, and what she called "unlimited massage." "They are still demanding twice as much as other public sector workers have received," said Clark. "The teachers union needs to come to the table with a proposal that is realistic." "Other public sector employees who work just as hard have settled for far less. They didn't get a $5,000 signing bonus and they didn't get unlimited massage and an extra day off each year." Clark's statement about massages is, in fact, a mistake. BCTF President Jim Iker says unlimited massages were never on the table. He says the union is asking for $500 to $700 for massages, not the $5,000 claimed by the premier.. "There was a proposal for $3,000 in massages for members who were in chronic pain," Iker said, "and we had to take that off the table." Clark then repeated several times that she expected a solution to the strike would have to come at the bargaining table — not from legislation or binding arbitration. "This dispute needs to be resolved at the bargaining table. It needs to be resolved by our negotiating teams," said Clark. The irony is that Clark GAVE those exact same perks to the Nurses and health care practitioners recently, I think as early as 18 months ago. So when she speaks of "more" than other unions or public servants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Also, the 'day off' was a day for preparation, marking, etc. Still work, not a vacation day. Also, the signing bonus was the government's idea. It's weird that she said all this stuff that's just flat out wrong, it just makes everyone irate and confirms everyone's idea that she has no idea what she's talking about. I think she knows exactly what she's saying. They're called sound bites. They don't actually have to be accurate or honest. Teachers are never going to win the media battle with politicians who've had entire careers practicing twisting and manipulating messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I think she knows exactly what she's saying. They're called sound bites. They don't actually have to be accurate or honest. Teachers are never going to win the media battle with politicians who've had entire careers practicing twisting and manipulating messages. I don't know why the media lets that kind of thing go. Why they let her just stand their and squawk from a written statement spouting inaccurate facts. We all know those things she said were lies, untruths, or even just mistakes, but who is calling her on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I don't know why the media lets that kind of thing go. Why they let her just stand their and squawk from a written statement spouting inaccurate facts. We all know those things she said were lies, untruths, or even just mistakes, but who is calling her on it? The idealistic Walter Cronkite and truth discovering Woodward days of news ship sailed a LONG time ago. The news is a business that survives off readers/page hits and is easily manipulated by politicians to serve their message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The idealistic Walter Cronkite and truth discovering Woodward days of news ship sailed a LONG time ago. The news is a business that survives off readers/page hits and is easily manipulated by politicians to serve their message. How is calling out the Premier as a liar not good for business ie.drives pages hits/news sales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 How is calling out the Premier as a liar not good for business ie.drives pages hits/news sales? Costs you future interviews/stories/leaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 http://www.vancouversun.com/news/story.html?id=10171977. British Columbia had the lowest paid teachers in Canada and faced classrooms with the most students per educator in Canada as of 2011. Whew! I’m glad I got that off my chest. These are the facts, well documented by Statistics Canada in its lovingly titled reports Education Indicators in Canada: An International Perspective 2013 and Summary Elementary and Secondary School Indicators for Canada, the Provinces and Territories, 2006-07 to 2010-11. These facts deserve a little unpacking Teachers in B.C. are the lowest paid in Canada. Statistics Canada collected data on teacher salary grids in 2010-11. These give clear comparisons across provinces of salaries for teachers, but to compare salary grids, we must compare teachers with particular levels of training and years of service. Statistics Canada chose to compare teachers with the minimum statutory training required to be a teacher in their province. In all provinces, teachers with additional qualifications are paid more, but it is roughly the same increment in all provinces: about $5,000 extra for teachers with one additional year of post-secondary training, and about $10,000 extra for Master’s degree holders. Statistics Canada’s numbers show teachers in Surrey (the largest school district) had a starting salary of about $42,000, $4,000 below the national average and the lowest in the country. After 10 years, they would reach their peak salary of about $64,000, which was about $6,000 below the national average for that length of service, and lower than that of teachers in all provinces except Quebec. (Quebec teachers take longer to reach their peak salary, which was over $71,000 at 15 years of service.) When we think of the relative attractiveness of teaching as a profession for a new entrant, B.C. shines as the worst paid place in Canada. You can check these numbers out for yourself at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-604-x/81-604-x2013001-eng.htm, and especially Table D2.1 at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-604-x/2013001/tbl/tbld2.1-eng.htm. Classrooms in B.C. have the most students per educator in Canada. The number of students per educator (mostly teachers, but including other support staff like educational assistants and some administrators like principals) was 16.8, the highest of all provinces in 2011. The other provinces ranged from 15.9 in Alberta to 11.8 in Newfoundland and Labrador. B.C. also bucked the over-time trend in class sizes. Between 2006-07 and 2010-11, all provinces except B.C. experienced reductions in the number of students per educator, and the national average dropped from 14.7 to 13.8, a big decrease. In contrast, in B.C., class sizes rose slightly over the period with the number of students per educator rising from 16.6 to 16.8. Again, these numbers are publicly available from Statistics Canada at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/81-595-m2013099-eng.htm, especially Table 13 at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/2013099/tbl/tbl13-eng.htm. The B.C. Liberals kept their campaign promises to keep tax rates low, but they have sacrificed the education of our children to pay for it. Personal tax rates in B.C. for the highest income people are lower than all provinces except Alberta, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. Personal tax rates at the median of the income distribution are lower than all other provinces. Small business tax rates are lower than all provinces except Saskatchewan and Manitoba. But these low tax rates come at a cost: they generate less revenue, and we therefore have less to spend on public goods and services. Hence, results in B.C. having the lowest paid teachers in Canada and the largest class sizes in Canada. don't know what's going on with the formatting there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Costs you future interviews/stories/leaks. Yeah, so basically we're farked is what you're saying. What happened to this place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Yeah, so basically we're farked is what you're saying. What happened to this place? Earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.