What does the bctf know about collective bargaining? Their normal tactic for the last few decades is to whine and cry then dig in their heels and refuse to bargain till a contract is imposed. They met their match at the last round when the province let them walk the bricks till the tf came to their senses and returned to the table.

Seeing Iker on the news looks like he can now wear a pony tail and I think everyone knows what you find directly under a pony’s tail:D

Good luck with that Jimmy. There’s almost zero chance that the SCoC will give leave to appeal but keep spending your union dues on lawyer fees. The back story, of course, is that all the teachers will be in a snit (again) and will do their work-to-rule thing. Get to work at 8:59 am and take off like a fart in a hurricane at 3:29 pm.

sparrow, the BCTF defines collective bargaining as collective demanding!!

Where in thee world do they come uo with the money for lawyers? Seem to recall they couldn’t even shell out strike pay. Now they blow another wad on lawyer fees, doesn’t make sense.

I think this is just posturing. SOC hears about 10% of the appeals made on BC Appeal Court decisions – and the BCTF thinks a case that had a 4/5 decision stands a good chance of being picked. Not likely. But, they can at least pretend they tried, and I wouldn’t be surprised if secretly they hope they don’t get picked. In any other case, just another waste of teacher’s money.

I have to admit, and someone please enlighten me, but not sure what really happened here. My understanding in 1998 Glen Clark did a contract with BCTF via legislation, because the BCPSEA wouldn’t sign it. Essentially he did an end run around his own bargaining unit.

Now, 2001 seems to be the year everyone talks about Christy Clark – ripping up teacher’s contracts. But had not the 1998 legislated contract expired at that time. What I’m trying to figure out, is, was there a contract in place that they changed the terms, or had it expired, and the new contract the imposed terms different to those of the prior contract. It makes huge difference – at least to me, because in one case, the government reneged on a signed deal, in the other, the government honored the signed deal, then imposed their will after it expired.

Iker on CBC this morning call in show puts a line on his mentality. When asked why the BCTF does not sit down with government and figure out a classroom strategy that works – as not all classes are equal and a one size does not fit all situations. His reply was that they tried to sit down with government but they would not supply more funding. Did not address anything on maybe working on a different model that works for classrooms – just that the government should put in more dollars to the current model and how awful they were for not doing it.

Ski51 the 2001 contract was legislated as the BCTF would not bargain. I believe the 1998 contract was back dated and came into effect just before the provincial election – wasn’t actually negotiated in 1998 or something like that. That is the main problem with being legislated back to work, you don’t get what you want in the contract wording and it bit the union in the butt. That is why it is not a stripping away of anything, it is just a new contract for the next term, there is always a give and take in a contract. Just in this case the BCTF were ok with the give, just not the take. Christy was the minister in charge of the file at the time.

ski51, you are somewhat correct. More accurately in 1998 the Glen Clark NDP Government was unable to reach a contract with the BCTF. The NDP Government was trying to negotiate a contract deal that would fall under their 0-0-2 restraint guidelines but the BCTF would have no part of it. Ultimately, a contract was reached when the NDP put 3 Deputy Ministers in a room together with the BCTF. Without consultation with or from the BCPSEA, School Boards or the public, a “sweetheart deal” was reached. Basically the NDP gave away the farm!

Once Clarke was turfed, the incoming NDP Premium Ujjal Dosanjh declared the contract to be unaffordable, but chose to leave in place and honour the backroom deal. The BCPSEA opposed the deal as did the vast majority of School Boards, all declaring it to be unaffordable. Carole James served on the Greater Victoria School Board from 1990 to 2001, including seven terms as chair. She gained a province-wide profile in her unprecedented five terms as president of the BC School Trustees Association. Carole James opposed the deal, the same Carole James who succeeded Ujjal Dosangh as NDP Leader and Premier of the province!

The contract eventually ran it’s course. It was only after it had expired that the new Liberal Government made changes during negotiations for a new contract. They removed some of the most unaffordable aspects of the “sweetheart deal”! Clearly, they did not strip anything from the contract while it was in place! The BCTF has been wasting time, energy and money ever since, fighting to have the terms of the expired contract carry forward into any and all future contracts.
I liken the BCTF’s actions to that of a worker who happens to receive an exceptional raise one year, and then demands that they receive the same exceptional raise every year thereafter! Unrealistic of course, but nobody ever accused the BCTF of being realistic! A bit of a “spoiled child” scenario, in my opinion!

Getting back to that “sweetheart deal” the following is an excerpt from an editorial that arose during the 2012 negotiations, when Adrian Dix was the NDP Leader:
“Fortunately, the not-so-distant past provides us with a pretty good idea how Dix would likely go about negotiating a BCTF contract, because when he was NDP Premier Glen Clark’s Chief of Staff in the dying days of the NDP regime of the late 1990s, Dix helped orchestrate a notoriously one-sided “sweetheart” deal with the BCTF.
Although the contract was sold to the public as a fiscally restrained 0-0-2 settlement, the arithmetic of the contract terms yielded a very different 11 per cent total, once the province’s school district administrators crunched the numbers. The real cost of Dix’s 0-0-2 BCTF contract amounted to an additional $1.3 billion (in 1990s dollars) for B.C. taxpayers and it lead to the now famous headline, “NDP math: 0+0+2=11.”

Funny how an educated group of people, like the teachers who run the BCTF seem to think that math is fine when 0 + 0 + 2 = 11!

Thanks Hart Guy. Now it makes sense. I think if the BCTF had a brain, they’d save their cash, and use it to convince the rest of us that the NDP is the solution to all our problems, and get a change in government next election. I find it somewhat offensive we are constantly labelled “right wing” idiots because we have a different world view – which apparently the majority of voters have. If the “left wing” doesn’t like it, they need to use the democratic process to educate those of us in the dark as to why we are in the dark. And it can happen. I’ll save this for the free for all, but an NDP’r the other day, actually managed to explain to me why a national child care strategy is a good thing and my opinion is changing on that.

Should the SCoC decide to take this case it will not be on the basis of class size and composition. It will drill down to the core of the matter..Can a duly elected governments right to legislate be restrained by the terms of a public service union’s contract? By this measure the bctf’s attempt to appeal is doomed for failure.

I’m sure other provinces and the feds are watching this very closely…the federal government has already put a big target on the practice of banking months of unused sick days until retirement for next round of bargaining and said in no uncertain terms it will end. I concur whole heartedly!

WILL YOU NOW STOP WASTING YOUR UNION MEMBERS MONEY?

For anyone interested in reading the full ruling it can be found here:

canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2015/2015bcca184/2015bcca184.html

I am only part way through but this statement rings true.

The Province recognizes that the legislation affects teachers’ working conditions and covers subjects on which teachers hold strong professional views. However, it contends that the legislation goes beyond the subject matter of typical collective agreements (such as job security and seniority rights) by addressing issues for which the Province is politically accountable. These issues include education policy under the School Act, resource allocation within the education portfolio—between potentially competing priorities such as class size and composition, salaries, technology in the classroom, new school building and seismic upgrading, among many other matters—as well as resource allocation across competing government portfolios—for example, between investments in hospitals and the operating budgets of schools.

Akin to giving a kid with a sweet tooth the key to the candy store.

Funny, I remember years ago of having several classrooms with 30 plus students. I suppose if the schools weren’t pushing for every child to move on to the next grade, much of this nonsense could be resolved.
Back in the day, if a child couldn’t make the grade, they took the year over again. Very many of them went on from there, successfully. Now we seem to have grade 12 grads who can’t even read. Some college students too.
Makes me wonder if some of these modern teaching methods might be a bit questionable.

Don’t worry cristy crunch is giving our tax dollar’s to private schools and to hell with the public school system.

It would be interesting to how many of you nay sayers still have children in the public school system.
Cheers

I have kids in the public system. Two of our kids already finished their k-12 years and one was homeschooled in grades 11 and 12 due to teachers who could not explain what they were teaching to the tune of most of the kids dropping to a C,D, and F. When asked for help the teacher would call the kid stupid for not understanding the lesson so noone asked for help. We found out about it at a teacher interview from talking to other parents in the same boat. We went to the principal and he told all the concerned parents that they would look into it and ask him to change his teaching methods. That was enough for us and our daughter finished 11 and 12 through home schooling program. Back up to As because the teacher from vanderhoof was able to explain the lesson to where a 16 year old could mentally grasp it.

But enough on that. Every child in BC has a right to education and is required to be educated – look it up – be it from public to private to reserve schools. BC funds the child not the school or school board. How do you distinguish French Immersion, Montessori, or any other type of alternate school when funding the child. They should fund the child 100% no matter where they get their education but narrowing the funding gap is a start.