CanucksCorner.com Forums

Arachnid wrote: British Columbia...the Socialist & communist nation of Kanada and why I left for the Right....

Yeahno, you're an anarchist Arachnid.

Strangelove wrote:

Arachnid wrote: British Columbia...the Socialist & communist nation of Kanada and why I left for the Right....

Yeahno, you're an anarchist Arachnid.

Truthhurtsdonut# you know it, I know it, no heaven just us greenies and their sustainable earth plan....

No heaven for you!

NEXT!!!

Strangelove wrote:No heaven for you!

NEXT!!!

I win

Strangelove wrote:The $105m fund to settle class-size union grievances is an admission of defeat!

The government does not get that money back if they were to win (LOL!!!) the appeal.

So yeah, like I've been saying, everyone paying attention knows the government is (still) going to lose in court.

Yes I realize you have never argued that point.

You say that the $105m is money the government "would have used for signing bonus"

... but the "signing bonus offer" has been off the table since June - and it was roughly half that amount.

Combining what would have been a signing bonus and with buying off the grievances that could arise from a loss in court is a huge win. The $105 million works out to be roughly $2500/teacher. If you look at the governments original offer of $1200 signing bonus, you'll notice they bought off the grievances for a bit more than $50 million. That is cheap insurance.

That $2500 will be taxable income Government win

Strangelove wrote:And when the government loses their appeal, doesn't that mean they will (still) have to hire more teachers?

No, that's covered.

Strangelove wrote:Aside from that, government also increased the "Education Fund" (is it?) by another $100m.

The education fund is being used to hire more teachers. That $100 million increase is over the term of the deal. The annual funding is still less than 1/2 what the BCTF was demanding and not much more than what the government was originally offering.

Strangelove wrote:Yeah, and I think I read they also increased the benefit package somewhat.

Yes, the union settled for less as far as wages, but that was a given (still got more than the rest of public sector).

But yeah, I think they would have received about double that $105m in grievances if they had left it to the courts.

So they give up about $100m in future grievances, get it back in the boost to the "Education Fund"

... the government is forced to hire more teachers both now and down the road (post-court-decision).

Is that a fair way to look at it?

Additional teachers comes out of the education fund, it is not on top of the deal.

The benefit package that I have heard about is more with topping up part timers. Think of it as Cameron and Fassbender sitting at the table and gorging themselves on the BCTF offer and then brushing the crumbs that fell on table across to Iker.

This deal is a slight increase on what the government tabled in their two offers in May/June but a massive departure from what the BCTF was demanding. Government Win

Strangelove wrote:I really don't know.

Saved to be used again when appropriate.

Strangelove wrote:I'm cheering for you to win this debate by the way.

And hey I'm not totally up to speed on this... so you may do just that!

I ask only that you don't say anything positive about Christy.... K?

But, by all means, keep slamming that goddamned ugly sumbitch hippy Iker!

After what she did in a backroom to that goddamned ugly sumbitch hippy I would not want to be alone with her.

.....................but a threesome with Sarah Palin.................

Topper wrote:....................but a threesome with Sarah Palin.................

Okay Topper...... YOU WIN!!

Strangelove wrote: And when the government loses their appeal, doesn't that mean they will (still) have to hire more teachers?

I could be wrong but wasn't the courts ruling that any future contract negotiations around class size and composition would supercede the courts rulings....thus no more funding for teachers?

Vader wrote:

Strangelove wrote: And when the government loses their appeal, doesn't that mean they will (still) have to hire more teachers?

I could be wrong but wasn't the courts ruling that any future contract negotiations around class size and composition would supercede the courts rulings....thus no more funding for teachers?

If that were true, why would they still be going ahead in the courts?

Management dropped E-80 from their demands, that's what broke the stalemate.

The case will proceed.

I don't care enough any longer than to do anything more than a simple googling:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... e20652683/

According to the B.C. Education Ministry, the average class size in 2014 was below the caps scrapped in 2002. Under Tuesday’s deal, the province and BCTF agreed on a $108-million fund to deal with grievances from teachers who feel that class size and composition limits were breached after 2002.

A final decision on who sets those limits – and by extension how many teachers work in B.C. – is expected only after the case is appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'm still pissed at Christy for her bad-faith law-breaking ways.

She has provoked strikes and the taxpayers are paying her court costs.

The future ruling is all about class size & comp, so yeah we're talking about how many teachers work in B.C.

I believe there will also be a fine of $2m (that's the maximum) (payable to the BCTF).

Topper wrote:The demand for hard and fast class size/composition rules will bite and it will lead to a centralization of education services in larger centres at the loss of the smaller rural schools.

......and Vancouver may feel the pinch first as schools are closed in rural east Van.

Do cattle graze in Clark Park?

Topper wrote:

Topper wrote:The demand for hard and fast class size/composition rules will bite and it will lead to a centralization of education services in larger centres at the loss of the smaller rural schools.

......and Vancouver may feel the pinch first as schools are closed in rural east Van.

Do cattle graze in Clark Park?

I shouldn't bite, but a couple loose thoughts (of which I'm sure you're well aware of, but I'll point out anyway...):

Are you thinking school closures are a new thing with the new contract directly tied to class size/composition rules? The district I am currently in has been closing schools for at least a decade. As I'm sure you know, many teachers/superintendents/school boards would point at the decreasing budget.

Do you think that closures are only going to happen in rural areas? My old elementary school, literally feet from the hospital has long been closed and the high school I went to, which is blocks away from the other side of the same hospital has been on a potential chopping block for years. There have been other closures in that district, but those are two of the most centrally located schools in the city.

I don't know if this went in to the contract, but there was talk of making the class size/composition rules a little more relaxed in rural areas so that your previous mentioned cattle can stay where they belong.

And off to the Supreme Court they might go

So much for the lone sympathetic judge and her two union friendly rulings.

Government wins the latest court round in a 4-1 decision.

Oh yeah baby!

The majority decision written by Chief Justice Robert Bauman and Justice Robert Harris finds the government acted in good faith when it consulted with teachers leading up to the introduction of Bill 22 — which took away the B.C. Teachers Federation's ability to bargain limits on class size, teacher librarian numbers, special needs student ratios, and other elements.

"Between the consultations and the collective bargaining leading up to the legislation, teachers were afforded a meaningful process in which to advance their collective aspirations," the judgement said. "Their freedom of association was respected."

The B.C. government also won its appeal of a decision to release information it says is subject to cabinet confidentiality.

The information in question was read out in open court during the B.C. Supreme Court case.

There is some doubt that a lopsided decision would be overturned, let alone even heard by the Supreme Court

It's unclear whether Canada's high court would hear the case, as it agreed to hear only eight of 80 applications from the B.C. Court of Appeal level last year.

The case was unusual, as it had five justices hearing the appeal, instead of the traditional three. Only three cases out of 453 at the B.C. Court of Appeal were heard by five judges last year.

Strangelove wrote:So yeah, like I've been saying, everyone paying attention knows the government is (still) going to lose in court.

No Strangelove, you are wrong.

Did not expect to see that. The ruling is pretty blunt about the trial judge.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/ ... CA0184.htm

Topper wrote:

Strangelove wrote:So yeah, like I've been saying, everyone paying attention knows the government is (still) going to lose in court.

No Strangelove, you are wrong.

Okay, you finally got me: First time for everything!

But... wait... I'm a slippery sunnuvagun:

viewtopic.php?p=212512#p212512

Strangelove [color=#FF0000]Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:03 pm[/color] wrote: Of course it's possible the teachers might eventually choose to negotiate E80 in return for other concessions.

But I think it's more likely they refuse and a contract is imposed by the government a few weeks from now

... and the teachers eventually win in the Supreme Court of Canada (2 years from now? 3?).

So when the teachers eventually win this in an appeal to the SCC... was I right or wrong.

Partly wrong, mostly right?

Read the judgement, Burning Beard linked to it. Quite damning of Judge Griffin and her failure to interpret recent SCOC precedent and then backed by even more recent SCOC precedent.

It also highlights the BCTF and Judge Griffin's cherry picking of Straszak's testimony whereas in the whole, his testimony supports governments good faith bargaining.

Some very interesting comments defining the equality of strike action as less work for less pay therefore the government had every right to with hold wages or benefits during a work slowdown and also likening a calculated government action that may lead to a escalation of a work slowdown to a full strike to a unions ability to choose where and when to strike too maximize or minimize impact.

It also separates the government from being the teachers employer. School districts are and the bargaining unit is the BCPSEA who receives guidelines from government based upon government policy.

It will be interesting to see if the SCOC even hears the case.