rivingtonpike

Even if this was the whole story (and it isn't - the "working conditions" also included significantly enhanced benefits for themselves - and it isn't true they've had absolutely no pay rise since 2002), why not split the two parts of the issue (money and class size/composition), accept the same pay deal as the rest of the public sector, get back to work, stop buggering up the kids' education and let the judicial system take its course with the size/composition issue? I really don't see why the two issues have to be inextricably linked.

Oakvillian

Yes. Yes you can. Big f**ing deal, they got shafted by their employers in the early noughties. So did the rest of us. In spades. But we don't expect the world to magically turn back to the good old days.

They need to get a grip of their union leadership and school them in economic realities. How any employees' organization has the gall, the bare-faced effrontery, to demand a return to how things were ten years or so ago, is quite astonishing to me. Where else, anywhere except in the rarefied air of a public sector union HQ, would this be a sustainable negotiating position? The economy has changed. Most employers in the private sector have had no, or sub-inflationary, pay rises in the last five years. Benefits packages have been pared to the bone. Defined-benefit pensions are a long-lost dream of a bygone era.

They should get back to work and demand that their leadership sit down in good faith with the employers and thrash out a realistic, sustainable, supportable settlement. Likewise the employers need to go back to government and establish - and put in the public domain if necessary - exactly how much money is available over what time period and how that compares with other public sector collective agreements. How can anyone, from either employer or union side, argue that strikes and lawsuits are in the best interests of anything except their own egos?

The whole nonsense over class sizes etc is a monstrous red herring. The Union's position seems to be that they want to bake-in a court decision that has not yet exhausted the process. The employers' position seems to be that they want to continue with the current arrangement until that court decision runs through all its layers of appeal, at which point the court's decision becomes binding and is retroactively applied to the current collective agreement, with both sides having the right to choose instead to terminate the CA and renegotiate it in its entirety. I'm afraid, once again, the Union's position appears a bit wobbly here. If the employers' side tried to impose a condition that was still winding its way through the appeal court, can you imagine the fuss that would be made?

rivingtonpike

Very well written and objective points made. I wish I'd written it. You make some very critical points

JonboyE

This is where the observer gets confused. "It's not about the money, we are sacrificing ourselves for your kids' education." But, actually, it is all about the money. The BCTF agreed to no pay rises in exchange for improved working conditions. Now, in exchange for having those improvements in working conditions reversed they want more money. (And this is not necessarily unreasonable.)

You also forget to mention that the working conditions were legislated in by government and were never agreed to by the employer's bargaining association. If they were legislated in without BCPSEA agreement why cannot they be legislated out without BCTF agreement?

I think the language in your post is very telling. You are on strike for money and working conditions, not for the benefit of the kids you teach. And that is fair enough. Workers have the right to organize and withdraw their labour in furtherance of a workplace dispute. Just please, spare us from all the whiny self-pitying BS about doing it "for the kids." I suspect the teachers would get a lot more public support (probably including mine) if they were honest about it.

Oink

Absolutely. They should be mandated back to work, negotiate a reasonable pay deal and leave the structure, organization and finance of education to those us who understand the systems and their corresponding variables in their entirety.

rivingtonpike

I agree

Alan2005

How long do you think before the gov does this?

They say they aren't going to, but the pressure on all sides is going to get a lot worse if this goes on for many weeks (also I suspect that teachers were hoping to be legislated back so they could continue being militant and still get paid).

Aviator

'BCTF President Jim Iker says unlimited massages were never on the table. He says the union is asking for $500 to $700 for massages'

prairiechicken

I just googled that sentence to see if it was a joke. Seriously, MASSAGES are actually being discussed in all this? WTF?

Aviator

They are, makes a bit of a joke of the whole thing, how can anyone take them seriously after that

prairiechicken

OK, so I get that Clark is probably making more of a deal of this than the BCTF might be making of it (or is simply using it to try and turn public opinion away from the teachers), but honestly to goodness, there must be more important things than this to be negotiated. And it does make a total joke of the 'it's all for the good of the kids' thing. Crikey.

Novocastrian

I dunno. A massage allowance is very important. Just ask Oink.

Atlantic Xpat

Is that with or without "happy endings"?

Zoe Bell

to put a bit of context on the massages thing , I suspect it is a part of the health benefits package.
I'm not a teacher , I work in a school. My health benefits includes up to $500 for massage therapy / physio and other "paramedical services." ( I don't know what they are tbh)

There was a near riot a couple of years ago when this amount was reduced.

I suspect the "massages" bit has been taken out of context. I also suspect that most people out there with health benefits also have this included to some degree in their package. Sometimes it needs a doctors referreal

ExKiwilass

I wish i could actually read their contract myself. I tried to get to it on the BCTF website but access denied What are they trying to hide?