[raydan]

Everything else equal, if this was private sector, the bosses would be trying to cut. The teachers would be fighting just to keep what they already had and not lose anything. The threat of a strike would be an empty threat.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The difference is, Lemmy, that the majority of Canadians can't use parents and children as pawns.

It's just fine to ask for more, but not use the public as pawns to get the raise you want and perhaps consider REALITY for a second when you ask for these things.

You're wishing that a reality of the world weren't. You can't change that. The fact is that the education system involves children, so any labour dispute will affect them. You're criticizing teachers for something that they have no more power over than you do.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

In the private sector, you don't go to your boss during hard times and ask for a 15% raise especially when you're already making a good living and have excellent job security.

And you won't see teachers making big salary raises when this is all said and done. But you can't expect them not to ask. Both sides do it in every negotiation. That's how negotiation works. You start with a wish list. Eventually it gets pared down to a "need" list.

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

Everything else equal, if this was private sector, the bosses would be trying to cut. The teachers would be fighting just to keep what they already had and not lose anything. The threat of a strike would be an empty threat.

Exactly.

[dino_bobba_renno]

raydan raydan:

Everything else equal, if this was private sector, the bosses would be trying to cut. The teachers would be fighting just to keep what they already had and not lose anything. The threat of a strike would be an empty threat.

Very true, I think the respoce most of us would get would be " don't let the hit the ass on your way out". In fact we'd be doing them a favor since they wouldnt have to decide who to cut, you'd basicly be volenteering yourself.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You're wishing that a reality of the world weren't. You can't change that. The fact is that the education system involves children, so any labour dispute will affect them. You're criticizing teachers for something that they have no more power over than you do.

And you won't see teachers making big salary raises when this is all said and done. But you can't expect them not to ask. Both sides do it in every negotiation. That's how negotiation works. You start with a wish list. Eventually it gets pared down to a "need" list.

Teachers have the power to avoid a strike. Who are you trying to kid, Lemmy?

They're holding hostage the very people who pay their salary.

You start with a wish list, you don't get what you want and you put the people who pay your salary and their children out for weeks while you know, in the end, you're not going to get what you want.

That makes it even worse. I have no respect for anyone that interferes with someone else's ability to work and make money to add more money to their paycheck.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Teachers have the power to avoid a strike. Who are you trying to kid, Lemmy?
They're holding hostage the very people who pay their salary.

I'm not trying to kid anyone. I'm trying to explain the realities of the system and its negotiating process. You could just as easily say that the government & the boards are using the children as pawns to serve their agenda. It's a two-way street.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You start with a wish list, you don't get what you want and you put the people who pay your salary and their children out for weeks while you know, in the end, you're not going to get what you want.

That makes it even worse. I have no respect for anyone that interferes with someone else's ability to work and make money to add more money to their paycheck.

And I agree with some of that sentiment. But you're still putting all the blame on only one of the two parties involved. If you refuse to admit that the management side is equally to blame for using the kids to serve their purposes, then you're stuck in fantasyland.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I'm not trying to kid anyone. I'm trying to explain the realities of the system and its negotiating process. You could just as easily say that the government & the boards are using the children as pawns to serve their agenda. It's a two-way street.

The government doesn't lock teachers out. Teachers make the choice to strike. They all have a vote.

The teachers are the ones who are using the children directly as pawns constantly claiming that their job action is "All about the Children" or "For the betterment of Education". It's all bullshit.

The government is coming out and saying the books are tight, we need to save money....they're not claiming that their demands are for the good of the kids as teachers always do

Lemmy Lemmy:

And I agree with some of that sentiment. But you're still putting all the blame on only one of the two parties involved. If you refuse to admit that the management side is equally to blame for using the kids to serve their purposes, then you're stuck in fantasyland.

The management side does share some of the blame, but more often than not, the teachers are the ones at the table with unrealistic demands and being disingenuous with the public.

Governments and such often come to the table with realistic options for contracts based on the current state of the finances. In fact, they've often been generous here the past decade with teachers.

[BeaverFever]

And look whats happening now with ETFO.

Do you think if teachers agree to say, a 3-year wage freeze (as in no cost-of-living increase for inflation), then at the end of that freeze, it is acceptable for them to demand higher than normal annual increases to make up for it?

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And look whats happening now with ETFO.

Do you think if teachers agree to say, a 3-year wage freeze (as in no cost-of-living increase for inflation), then at the end of that freeze, it is acceptable for them to demand higher than normal annual increases to make up for it?

No, it's not acceptable.

It's time to step back down to the real world.

Not everyone gets an annual raise and when they do get an increase, they don't get a huge one to make up for slow years when they had a freeze.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The teachers are the ones who are using the children directly as pawns constantly claiming that their job action is "All about the Children" or "For the betterment of Education". It's all bullshit.

That's a point of view, but it's a biased one.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The government is coming out and saying the books are tight, we need to save money....they're not claiming that their demands are for the good of the kids as teachers always do

Clearly, because what the government is attempting isn't good for kids.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The management side does share some of the blame, but more often than not, the teachers are the ones at the table with unrealistic demands and being disingenuous with the public.

That's, again, your perception. The government is also making unrealistic demands.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Governments and such often come to the table with realistic options for contracts based on the current state of the finances. In fact, they've often been generous here the past decade with teachers.

Management NEVER comes to the table with more realistic demands. They both come to the table from straight out of left field.

[Tricks]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/st ... utube.html

Ontario's turn now.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The teachers are the ones who are using the children directly as pawns constantly claiming that their job action is "All about the Children" or "For the betterment of Education". It's all bullshit.

That's a point of view, but it's a biased one.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The government is coming out and saying the books are tight, we need to save money....they're not claiming that their demands are for the good of the kids as teachers always do

Clearly, because what the government is attempting isn't good for kids.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The management side does share some of the blame, but more often than not, the teachers are the ones at the table with unrealistic demands and being disingenuous with the public.

That's, again, your perception. The government is also making unrealistic demands.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Governments and such often come to the table with realistic options for contracts based on the current state of the finances. In fact, they've often been generous here the past decade with teachers.

Management NEVER comes to the table with more realistic demands. They both come to the table from straight out of left field.

Give me some examples of unrealistic demands the government is asking for.

[Tricks]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

K, found this at the Taxpayers federation. It's from Sept 2011 so it's slightly dated:

BCTF demands:

$1:

•    A 22% increase in salary (the maximum would move from $74,353 to $90,944 a year).
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $618 million
•    Doubling high school prep time from one spare per rotation to two; and increasing elementary prep time from 90 minutes per week to 357. Plus: two days off to write report cards, plus one hour off per individual student interim report.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $417 million
•    Up to 10 days off for the death of any friend or relative—plus two days more if travel is involved.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $80 million
•    Sick leave provisions for Teachers On Call.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $81 million
•    Up to 26 weeks of fully paid leave per year to provide direct or indirect compaasionate care to any person.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $49 million
•   Eight days off a year whenever a teacher wants.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS $122 million
•    Topping up parental and maternity leave to allow up to 5 years of leave per child.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $41 million
•   [b] 5 more days off for professional development, at teacher’s discretion. [/b]
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $80 million
•    Up to five days off a year to care for their child or any other person.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $80 million
•    Unlimited leave for teachers for union business.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: To be determined
•    Big benefits upgrades—fully pay MSP, extended health and dental, applying to all teachers (no matter how many hours they work).
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $82 million
•    Employer pays all professional fees.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $5 million
•    A number of improvements to Teacher On Call pay, including paying them $2,200 per month whether they work or not.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $60 million
•    Retirement bonus of 5% a year to any teacher with 10 years or more service at age 55.
TOTAL COST TO TAXPAYERS: $445 million

http://taxpayer.com/blog/06-09-2011/bc-taxpayers-cant-afford-teacher-demands

Those are in addition to the existing professional development days

I appreciate the value of teachers but that's a pretty sweet deal by anyone's standards

2.16 billion dollars. Wouldn't that double the BC deficit?

Really doing their part. This is like selling a house for double what it's worth an claiming it's their opening and they're willing to take concessions.

[Tricks]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The government is coming out and saying the books are tight, we need to save money....they're not claiming that their demands are for the good of the kids as teachers always do

Clearly, because what the government is attempting isn't good for kids.

I'd say not wanting the province to be in a shit ton of debt and trying to balance the books is good for the kids.


But that's just me.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Clearly, because what the government is attempting isn't good for kids.

The government is required to do what's best for the Province.

The teachers consistently do what's best for them. Period.