And what was the BCPSEA signing bonus on both offers?
The BCTF dropped their wage demands and asked for a 5K signing bonus. You make less then 50K right? So for you that's more then 10% up front, and then 8% spread out over 5. You're way more educated then me, so I don't think I have to explain the math. Don't you think saying they "came down to 8% over 5" is somewhat dishonest, when they did it in combination with asking for 4 times the signing bonus the government had on the table originally?
Haha....yea, I figured that one might be coming! During my district 'study session'
there were a lot of pissed off teachers in the room about that figure.
It was explained to us by the head of our local that it was a combination of three things: an attempt to regain the 10% lost due to the lockout, retro pay for the 13/14 school year (in the current BCTF offer the percentage growth doesn't begin until this September, unlike all previous offers that had an increase beginning last Sept) and a true signing bonus. The number is still way too high for anyone to rationalize but at least that breakdown makes it a little better. It's still a joke and a massive PR misstep.
Topper wrote:My grandfather fought the public funding of private schools 80 years ago and lost. That battle is done.
I realize that, unfortunately. That money could do a lot of things in the public system. Oh well. I'll keep dreaming.
Topper wrote:Teachers continue to fight against any means testing of students (FSA for example) as it may be used against them.
The BCTF might fight against testing because it could/would be used against teachers, but teachers fight against it because it really is a poor way to evaluate students, never mind rarely seen outside of schooling. Any teacher who knows what they are doing are using tests as a small piece in the day to day evaluation of student learning. Projects, presentations, discussions and classwork should be designed to get a better understanding of how and what a student is learning. Not only is it building better skills in students for use in later life, but it's also allowing for students to show their knowledge in more than one way.
Topper wrote:Teachers continue to fight against any means testing of students (FSA for example) as it may be used against them. I have commented extensively on that as well as the Fraser Institute's well thought out work with FSA scores. Note, read the Fraser Institutes guidelines for interpretation, not the BCTF's gibberish response every year when they are published.
In every BC school I've taught in, the Fraser Institute's work is little more than fire starter. If nothing else comes out of this discussion, I promise you that when the next report comes out I'll sit down and give it the attention you think it deserves.
Topper wrote:The government offer was 7.25% with a clawback of 0.75% of benefits and a $1200 signing bonus. The new offer of 7% removes the benefit clawback while keeping the $1200 signing bonus. BCTF's 8% offer included full benefits and a $5000 signing bonus. I doubt the absolute cost of any of the deals from either side changed very much other than the BCTF's offer comes in heavily front loaded (cue - the Matt Cooke offers of old) with the massive signing bonus. I don't believe the weekend of negotiation brought either side any closer as both offers are a rejig of the overall numbers.
Maybe it's the optimist in me, but when I look at the numbers I see values that are closer than they are before. Could it also be read that it's just moving things around and putting them in different spots? Absolutely. But again, I really do hope that the concrete numbers can be split and that a settlement can be reached soon.
Once those are dealt with, the rest should fall into place. For example look at the section on TTOC benefits. One side wants the pay rate set at a schedule of 170 days, one at 180. Call it 175 and move on. There's bigger things to deal with. (Yes, I know this is a simple and glossy way of looking at it, but if the TTOC schedule is what ultimately breaks down the negotiations both Iker and Cameron need to be taken out back)
Then I get to some of this stuff and I shake my head. I went to look at the similar grid on the BCTF member's portal and it's pretty much the same, but there's a few parts where the language is more specific on one, but not the other. (I'd link here, but at this time I can't find a public version of our offer online and I'm not willing to download it from the site and upload it here). For sure at the link you provided there is much more detail on the BCTF benefit demands.
I will say that while some of the things in benefits, mat leave and beyond are things that any union would fight for, no one needs $3000/yr in massages. I'm a marathon runner and last year I had minor knee surgery; I've been to a bunch of physio and massage in the past year (some on my dime because as a new teacher I don't always have a contract and therefore medical) and I haven't even cracked $1000. I hope $3000 is just a negotiation point.
Please keep showing me things from the opposite point of view. I'm going to follow my union, but I don't want to be a lemming.