School districts across B.C. planning deep cuts to balance budgets

[Graeme S]

A lot of people have focused on the fact that teachers are asking for more money, and a lot of it. In order to understand the entirety of what's happening between the teachers and the province, I'd like to go back to just after I graduated high school.

Fifteen years ago, BC teachers felt as though they needed additional resources: class sizes were beginning to get stretched. Teachers were having to face the decision of whether to sign a waiver to their class size limits (25 elem/28 high) or to reject students in their catchment area and send them to other schools nowhere near where they lived. As a result, they decided to make the sacrifice and sign a 3-year CBA which gave them a 0/0/0 wage increase. In exchange, the government was to take that money and invest it into additional jobs in the districts. In some, for more teachers at various levels and positions. In others, aid workers (counsellors, disability workers, special needs instructors and the like).

However, once the contract was signed, the government essentially expressed an opinion which I'll translate into the colloquial.

Oh, yeah. That thing where we said we'd take your raise money and just use it to hire more people. Well, we actually don't really have the money for that, so we're just not gonna do it. Yeah. Sorry about that.

Teachers, as you've no doubt guessed, were pissed. I, as a young impressionable youth, joined my mother on the picket lines on my days off from working at Starbucks when the teachers went on strike at the end of the CBA. The teachers insisted that since they had not gotten the conditions which they had previously bargained for, that they should be given raises which would essentially have covered what the government had offered in the last round of CBA as well as what they should receive for that round.

So when looked at as a single data point, what the teachers were asking for was outrageous. It was essentially a 4/4/4 over three years; which actually was 12 over 6, which is a much more reasonable 2/2/2/2/2/2. And yet, because nobody really goes deep when it comes to media matters this way...nobody saw it that way.

Oh, and also: Conrad Black.

Conrad Black used to own most of the newspapers in Canada. He was also fiercely anti-union, and was quoted as saying to the editors of the Vancouver Sun and the Province: "As long as I own these newspapers, there will not be one positive story about the teachers while they are on strike."

How's that for media manipulation?

So because the teachers were asking for an 'outrageous' sum, and the government was unwilling to give them the resources they had asked for in order to reduce class sizes, there was no deal or settlement in sight. What happens now, you might ask?

The government decides to legislate that class sizes and composition are not actually part of a teacher's pay/working conditions/benefits package. Now, this is in spite of years of precedent, and the fact that it is part of the working conditions and CBA negotiations in (I believe) EVERY OTHER JURISDICTION IN NORTH AMERICA.

Well...I shouldn't be so cruel. The wording said that administrators would have to consult with a teacher before modifying the size or composition of a class size. It didn't say the teachers could refuse what an administrator was suggesting...but it did say there was consultation. A friend of mine who was teaching in Victoria for awhile told me about one consultation that she had with an Administrator. She sat opposite her principal, and he said, "So this coming year, you'll have one class that has two students on the autism spectrum, one who is not diagnosed with any learning disorders but is believed to have some, as well as at least four ESL students of various levels. Alright, that's done. Can you just sign here that says we sat down and had this consultation?"

So the teachers are now limited to negotiating only for pay and are even MORE pissed. So they file a lawsuit that asks the justice system to decide whether or not that was illegal. That takes almost ten years to get through the justice system, so I'll leave that here as a sort of starting point for later.

So the incredibly pissed teachers, who have just filed a lawsuit and are on strike, are understandably unhappy and are not at all interested in signing a contract unless it's on something at least closely resembling their terms. And the government is just really not interested in that. So they legislate a 'back to work' contract, and say "there you go: we made a contract through law and not negotiation, so start working again."

This happens for the next two or so contracts, rinsing and repeating.

However, there are some other things that are happening within the teaching body that might not be noticeable to most people--and even some within the BC Teachers' Union.

First: the boomers are retiring.
The boomers, fiercely pro-union and pro-teachers are slowly retiring. As they age out, and younger teachers move in there comes a sharp decrease in the number of teachers who knew what it was like to teach to smaller classes, and to be able to negotiate for things like class size and prep time and all that. More and more young teachers come up from the bottom and simply look at the situation as it is: "The law says we can't negotiate for anything but money, and we're really overworked, so we need more money!"

A lot of the people who talk a lot about money are the younger teachers, the ones who haven't been around for ten or fifteen or more years. They never knew a time when they could get their class size down below 30 or 35. Nor do they know what it's like to not have to worry about special needs students. When I was a kid, special needs (formerly 'mentally challenged' formerly 'mentally retarded') kids who were incapable of caring for themselves were put in classes separate from the other students, where they would have several full-time caretakers who would teach them important (and I'm not joking here, I don't want you to think I'm being sarcastic because I am dead serious) skills like not hitting people when they're angry, and in knowing when to go to the bathroom, and how to use busses to get around the city.

My stepmother is a teacher. She was recently reminded of a former student and his class. She remembers him very clearly, and had taken a shining to him. Yet as much as she wanted to give him attention, she also had no less than three recent immigrants to the country, two students diagnosed with different learning disorders, one student with Oppositional Defiance Disorder, and one student who was quite deep on the Autism Spectrum.

Because of budget cutbacks, this child with Autism was only budged a part-time caretaker by the province. Somehow, the district managed to find money for a full-time care worker--likely depriving someone else of a part-time one. My stepmother teaches late-elementary students, and if my estimates are correct is approximately 5'2. Her Autistic student was easily taller than 5'8 and more than 180 pounds. Because the caretaker was even more needed during recess and lunch times (which the student shared with his schoolmates), she needed to take her break times during class. What does this mean? My 5'2 stepmother would be tasked not only with teaching her already-challenging class, but ensuring that her Autistic student did not lose control and/or try to escape the classroom.


Ah, but I digress.

Second: TOCing is quickly becoming a way of life.

Earlier on in the thread, a discussion opened up about how long it takes to move from TOC to fulltime teacher. There are nuances of course, but it is not atypical at the moment for a newly minted teacher to languish on the list for three or more years. Remember that because teaching is unionised it's based on seniority. So you sign up for a district's TOC list, and pray that everyone above you gets jobs or turns them down, so that you can have a shot at it. Then you have to hope that your style is appreciated by the teacher you replaced, so that they'll call and specifically ask for you (teachers are allowed to do this, and if they don't request a specific teacher or the one they want isn't available it goes out to the general list).

So let's assume I'm a good teacher, but I don't use the lesson plans in the way the classroom teacher wanted, or teach them in a style that isn't appreciated: no callback. Hope to slowly crawl up the seniority list and get more calls and one day land a contract.

In the meantime, of course, finding some source of income that allows infinite ditching flexibility, or is outside classroom hours...which means graveyard work. Joys.

And even then, once you secure a contract, that's not a guaranteed job.

632 Coquitlam teachers getting layoff notices - British Columbia - CBC News

In many districts, teachers are hired at the beginning of the year, and then fired at the end. This is to avoid continuing costs, and because registration is often uncertain. Many teachers are rehired at the beginning of September but there are no guarantees. Two of my friends are working contract jobs at the moment, but are literally unsure whether they will have jobs in September.

So much for job security, eh?

That having been said, once you're a teacher and have seniority, you absolutely have security. But this is not like the heyday of teaching. it can often take up to a decade after graduation (by the way, minimum of FIVE YEARS university--two degrees--to teach in BC) to really get to where you want to be. And if you graduated at 24 (six years, give a bit of leeway) then finally get fulltime at 34, and you have to work 35 years to get a full pension...you're retiring just shy of seventy.

Thirdly: the boomers are retiring...mostly.

Remember how I said above that the boomers are retiring and that's altering the way the contracts are negotiated? Well...that's mostly true. Except for one small part. And it really fucks up the TOC thing. Previously, teachers who retired just retired. They went on to bigger and better things like raising their grandkids or moving to Florida. But now, there are many teachers who are retired but TOCing. Despite having full pensions, they want to 'keep busy' and 'keep involved' and they 'miss the kids'. So if you're a fulltime teacher and you're looking for someone to teach your kids when you're off for a week with the flu, would you rather get a kid who's still wet behind the ears to watch your class, or a teacher with basically your lifetime of experience under their belt?

This is one of the other reasons it's harder for the new teachers to move up. The TOC pool is getting deeper rather than shallower, despite all the retirements of older teachers and the hiring of younger ones.

So that's what's going on within the Teachers themselves. And then a few years ago, something else happened that resulted in tighter budgets all around: Summer school was declared essential.

When I was in grade 11, I failed math. I had to take it again in order to graduate. I could have retaken it when I was in grade 12 as I had a couple spare blocks, but my mother chose to enrol me in summer school. She paid the few-hundred dollars it cost to get me in that class, and I attended a much smaller, much more intensive (yet less intense) class with an extremely passionate woodworking teacher. Who, strangely enough, managed to help me to understand grade eleven math much better than my previous teacher had. Enough so that I more than doubled my mark.

However, at some point it was decided (and I'm fuzzy here, I can't remember if it's a court decision or a school board one or a provincial one) that any class offered in summer school is basically part of your education and therefore school boards were not allowed to charge for them.

Not a big deal, right? Well, suddenly summer school enrolment spiked. Students who previously would have taken classes during the regular year were flooding the summer school system, requiring that more classes be open at more schools; a cost that had to be carried entirely by the existing budget of the board, and could not be subsidised by user fees as they had been previously.

A similar situation happened not too long ago. The last time the CUPE support staff (secretaries, administrative aides and the like) negotiated with the government, they were granted decent raises. Something like 2.x% per year. And then the province said, “School boards will not be granted additional funds to cover the increase in pay to their CUPE employees.” Is the school board's budget shrinking? In actual dollars, no. In spendable dollars, yes.

Let's come back to the lawsuit that the teachers filed. Oh, did you forget about that? Most people have, it's been almost a decade now.

The supreme court of BC has said that the parts of the legislation which stripped out class size/composition were illegal and that you cannot simply mandate out sections of collective bargaining, especially when they heavily impact the effectiveness of a worker. There were other implications in the ruling, but those aren't relevant here. Now there were two different viewpoints on the ruling.

Teachers' view:
Now that we know the class size/composition is part of our bargaining and always should have been, we think that the contracts should return class size and composition to what it was when the legislation was first introduced in the early 2000s. This would give us a fair starting point to begin renegotiating them both, if that is what is to happen.

Government's view:
We understand that the courts have made a decision though we disagree with its findings. It is not possible to accede to the teachers' suggestion that we return to early-2000s levels, because it would cost between one and two billion dollars in the next contract cycle to satisfy the amount of hiring the province would have to do; this amounts to an unacceptable cost and is equivalent to an unacceptable increase in wage spending that is unprecedented in any other negotiation with BCGEU members.


Now, I understand where the government is coming from in that regard. That's a lot of money, and especially when the government's been facing hard times. I should say that while I generally support the teachers, I was cringing during their negotiation post-2008 crash, because as much as I wanted to support higher wages, I knew that it was literally impossible and that pushing harder would only hurt the image of teachers and unions. They absolutely were deserving, especially having gotten little or no increases before. It's a question of bad and worse timing.

All that having been said, I'd like to examine that number--and let's use the smaller one. A billion dollars is still a fucktonne of money. The province says that to return us to the staffing levels of nearly 15 years ago, they'd have to spend about a billion dollars on hiring.

What that statement says to me is that they've stripped more than a billion dollars a year from education spending from when I was in the education system. And as I recall, times were not that great. I recall sharing handouts with my classmates because the teacher didn't have enough paper allotted to print them all out. "Okay guys, sheets back to the front of the class, I'll need these for my next block."



Do I think teachers are being unfairly vilified? Yes. Do I think that the province is the only one at fault? No. Do I think that the negotiations are being held in a manner which could be considered fair? Absolutely not. When are negotiations fair when the other side can say, “Alright, we'll wait for you to disagree to what we want to give to you, and then we'll just pass a law that says that's the best you'll get.”

When I see a strike, I don't see an entitlement. I see a group of people trying to fight for what they believe they deserve. When I see teachers getting a 70% pension and other people saying “Why the hell should they get so much?” I say “Why the hell aren't we fighting to get the same?”. Earlier, I saw people say that it's a race to the bottom. I don't entirely agree, but at the same time I don't understand why we're not fighting to haul ourselves up rather than others down.

“They get such fat pensions and so many sick days! Why don't I get the same?” is a cry I hear never. The second phrase is always “They should be grateful for what they have!” or “I'd be kicking everyone's asses if I was there with them.” Someone said it earlier: without unions we'd all be working 10 hours seven days a week, rather than the typical 8 hours 5 days. We wouldn't get breaks, have minimum wage, have an LRB or worker's comp. All those things came from workers that were fed up and wanted MORE, not others to have less.

Do I think teachers are well paid? Yes. Absolutely. Do I think that means they should have all the shit piled on them that they do? No. Do I think more pay will compensate for the shit they have to put up with? No. But with the current system and setup of negotiation, that's really all they can hope for. With luck, something will change.

[Traum]

^^ Dude, I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write this awesome post.

[Graeme S]

I started writing it and then worried I'd hit F5 or something and lose it...and then realised it was five pages in Word.


...Then I kept writing so I could finish.

[hypediss]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

I started writing it and then worried I'd hit F5 or something and lose it...and then realised it was five pages in Word.


...Then I kept writing so I could finish.

excellent piece sir, e x c e l l e n t.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

A lot of people have focused on the fact that teachers are asking for more money, and a lot of it. In order to understand the entirety of what's happening between the teachers and the province, I'd like to go back to just after I graduated high school.

Despite having a 6-week old newborn who sleeps for no more than 3 hours at a time who is currently asleep (i.e. I should be sleeping now), I am glad I took the time to read your post. Thank you!

Is this the longest post in the history of Revscene?

Disclaimer: I also have a 6 yr old currently in Kindergarten, and I've signed him up for summer school too. So this strike has affected me negatively, and may continue to be a PITA. I think I'm on the teachers' side.

Edit: Great - baby just woke up.

[MG1]

Graeme, you are the man. I was wAndering when someone on RS would actually stop the typical dumbass comments and actually say something constructive, and from a different viewpoint.

This thread has been saved. Up until this time, it was nothing more than people posting their shit through their eyes when they were in school.

Anyway, thanks, Greame.

[Vulgate]

An article from the Vancover Sun

VICTORIA — A short history of the B.C. Liberals’ botched dealings with the B.C. Teachers’ Federation: ...

Vaughn Palmer: A history of bad faith in B.C. Liberals' dealings with teachers

[capt_slo]

Bargaining with unions s always a polarizing issue and it is very easy for both sides to share their own sympathy story and paint the other side as the villains.

I'm more interested in the numbers.

From what I've read, the class size & composition issue is the most expensive item on the table. It's been "estimated" at $1B to $2.5B per year, depending on the source. Meanwhile the BCTF claims the resolution would be $300M per year. Now that seems way too low so let's shoot for somewhere on the high side of the middle and call it $800M per year.

The original wage increase was calculated out to $576M per year. Now it's been reduced and may roughly work out to $454M per year.

All tolled, we're facing at least $1.25B per year added to a $4.7B yearly budget. And it's all up to the "evil" government to find that money. The side demanding the money makes no effort to source it. Where does the BCTF think this funding will come from? Honestly, I want to know.

When the government looks to make money through ideas like the HST or LNG or pipelines, the protestors come out in droves looking to shoot them down.

So you're left with taxes.

Your 2.00-2.25% raise won't go very far when your income tax or the PST has to go up just to pay for it.

Something to think about the next time you hear the issue of class composition thrown out there casually by a picketing worker.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by capt_slo

Bargaining with unions s always a polarizing issue and it is very easy for both sides to share their own sympathy story and paint the other side as the villains.

I'm more interested in the numbers.

From what I've read, the class size & composition issue is the most expensive item on the table. It's been "estimated" at $1B to $2.5B per year, depending on the source. Meanwhile the BCTF claims the resolution would be $300M per year. Now that seems way too low so let's shoot for somewhere on the high side of the middle and call it $800M per year.

The original wage increase was calculated out to $576M per year. Now it's been reduced and may roughly work out to $454M per year.

All tolled, we're facing at least $1.25B per year added to a $4.7B yearly budget. And it's all up to the "evil" government to find that money. The side demanding the money makes no effort to source it. Where does the BCTF think this funding will come from? Honestly, I want to know.

When the government looks to make money through ideas like the HST or LNG or pipelines, the protestors come out in droves looking to shoot them down.

So you're left with taxes.

Your 2.00-2.25% raise won't go very far when your income tax or the PST has to go up just to pay for it.

Something to think about the next time you hear the issue of class composition thrown out there casually by a picketing worker.

They could always add a new tax "hippie tax" tax all the those hippies in DT or another beer tax (like what they did to gas)

[MG1]

Maybe stop funding private schools? Then, put the money back into the public schools. In BC, private schools are funded by up to 50%. I guess it's better than in Ontario, where catholic schools (only) are funded 100%. I also hear Alberta is in a similar situation. Funding certain private schools, but not all.

Public schools are for people who cannot afford private schools for their children. Maybe, the government should just privatize all schools in the province and see where that goes. I wonder what will happen to the kids with learning difficulties and other issues.


Just my two bits.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by capt_slo

Something to think about the next time you hear the issue of class composition thrown out there casually by a picketing worker.

As a first step / lead-by-example type of thing, how about if the Liberals government roll back their 18% wage increase that Crusty Cunt gave to her ministers? I am 1000% certain that the move will receive wide-ranging support from the public.

I recently read that Crusty Cunt has been quietly providing a lot of funding to independent schools (ie. private schools). I don't remember what that number is, but whatever amount it was, it was HUGE. It baffles me that public funding could be given to private schools for spending, especially when the majority of private schools are already totally LOADED and backed by well-heeled parents. Seriously, WTF?!

I'm sure there are tons of other ways where we can cough up more money to keep our public education system healthy. But we can always start with these two.

[MG1]

Private schools are for the wealthy (or catholics in some places), while the rest of us have to deal with schools full of kids who don't want to be there or kids of parents who don't give two fucks about their kids' education or well-being. Public education deals with everyone, 'cause there are no chocies........ they have to take in all the rejects. Funny thing is, the public system still produces some of the best despite the odds being against them.

And yes, the cream always rises to the top, but still....................


I wAnder how Chrity's little darling would fair in a public school.......... let's say Templeton, Britannia, or Van Tech. Yeah, eaten alive and pasted all over the walls of the school.

[capt_slo]

The last published number of money provided to private schools was 2011-2012 for $245M. Congrats! You still have to raise a BILLION dollars to pay for the rest of the BCTF demands.

Funding private schools allows families who are just on the cusp of affording the tuition to get their kids in. If it's "all about what's best for the kids" then don't be a spiteful hater when it comes to people with resources wanting "better" for their kids. Knowing how to save money for things does not equal rich.

Remove funding to private schools and brace yourselves for MORE portables being built at the local publics.

I'm all for pay cuts to government ministers. (the Libs aren't the only party to ever do that you know...)

[quasi]

Yeah, don't understand the private school argument. These are tax payers that are paying taxes towards schools through their income tax and through their property taxes (probably more money then the average parents who has there kid in the public school system). If they take the kids out and put them in public schools it would be even more of a drain the public system.

The only way to compare would be dollar per kid, as long as the same amount of money per child is going into private school as public school I see no issue at all. Now if the numbers are totally out of whack and the private schools are getting more per kid then there is an argument to be made.

[MG1]

As far as I know, most private schools specialize in something. Whether it be religious, cultural, or ?????

If you want your kids to be in a bible thumping school, then hooray! Do it, but at your own expense.

My kids are long out of the system. They went to public schools and I wouldn't have it any other way. Their education didn't stop at school......... it started at home.

[gars]

Originally Posted by quasi

Yeah, don't understand the private school argument. These are tax payers that are paying taxes towards schools through their income tax and through their property taxes (probably more money then the average parents who has there kid in the public school system). If they take the kids out and put them in public schools it would be even more of a drain the public system.

The only way to compare would be dollar per kid, as long as the same amount of money per child is going into private school as public school I see no issue at all. Now if the numbers are totally out of whack and the private schools are getting more per kid then there is an argument to be made.

This

Private and Religious schools only get up to 50% of the regular funding that Public schools get. Imagine if they cut that funding and a good 50,000 kids now join the public schools - we would not be able to afford it.

[quasi]

Originally Posted by MG1

As far as I know, most private schools specialize in something. Whether it be religious, cultural, or ?????

If you want your kids to be in a bible thumping school, then hooray! Do it, but at your own expense.

My kids are long out of the system. They went to public schools and I wouldn't have it any other way. Their education didn't stop at school......... it started at home.

I agree with you about the public school, I've went to both, my wife was strictly private and my kids in Public school I'd have it no other way.

I still don't see a problem with giving "X" amount of dollars to every kid no matter what school they go to. Private schools are heavily subsidized through the parents, they do pay for that privilege. I don't have the figure so if Private Schools are getting more then there fair share that's fucked up and should be fixed.

[Traum]

The real question is -- how did we manage to afford it in the past? Bear in mind that there has already been a lot of cuts to public education funding, and the teachers haven't really had a real wage increase in a very long time.

[MG1]

Education is way more expensive now than it used to. Not only because of increased wages, but due to rising cost of everything else. Plus, as mentioned earlier, more and more damaged kids in the system. One of my dearest friends is a long time principal and some of the stories he's told me............... man, our society is totally messed up. And, it's not getting any better.

[falcon]

[QUOTE=MG1;8484254]Private schools are for the wealthy (or catholics in some places), while the rest of us have to deal with schools full of kids who don't want to be there or kids of parents who don't give two fucks about their kids' education or well-being. Public education deals with everyone, 'cause there are no chocies........ they have to take in all the rejects. Funny thing is, the public system still produces some of the best despite the odds being against them.

And yes, the cream always rises to the top, but still....................


I wAnder how Chrity's little darling would fair in a public school.......... let's say Templeton, Britannia, or Van Tech. Yeah, eaten alive and pasted all over the walls of the school.[/QUOTE

I went to private school and my family was far from "wealthy" or "rich." We cut out a lot of other things in life to be able to afford it including vacations, nice clothes, eating out etc. While some people might think that sounds stupid, I'm glad my parents did it.

[meme405]

Graeme, your post is well written, and it does succinctly explain some of the history behind the entire process.

I'm not going to harp on a few other items too much, but I do think its odd how the BCTF seems to get fucked consistently. Maybe BCTF needs smarter representative or management in order to prevent them from taking their own contracts up the ass every time.

What I will point out is this:

Originally Posted by Graeme S

That having been said, once you're a teacher and have seniority, you absolutely have security. But this is not like the heyday of teaching. it can often take up to a decade after graduation (by the way, minimum of FIVE YEARS university--two degrees--to teach in BC) to really get to where you want to be. And if you graduated at 24 (six years, give a bit of leeway) then finally get fulltime at 34, and you have to work 35 years to get a full pension...you're retiring just shy of seventy.

I said this earlier in the thread as well. This point means absolutely nothing. Its hard out here for any profession; engineering, or accounting, being a lawyer, etc. You think these are easy professions to break into?

They all require Degrees as well. And in many of these professions you will be into your early 30's before you are making any sort of "good" money as well.

True those that become successful can go much farther than any teacher in terms of income, but that's not their fault, but those that are mediocre, will average a salary very similar to that of a teacher.

Like I said before, if there are so many people applying for teaching positions that there is a waitlist for the job, maybe we should consider cutting the pay of the teachers, and using those funds to hire more teachers.

I'm not saying that from a perspective of societal degradation, im saying that from a "look there ain't anymore money in the budget, so we better find another fucking way to make this work" perspective.

There is plenty of other industries who have downturns and people are forced to take pay cuts or leave their jobs for other positions because the money simply isn't there anymore. Why should teachers be immune to this?

Look at 2008, how many people lost their shirts when that happened, I mean an entire fucking industry lost their jobs, and countless others were dragged to the bottom right along side them.

What happened to the teachers, absolutely fucking nothing, they just maintained their salaries like it ain't even a thing.

Originally Posted by Traum

The real question is -- how did we manage to afford it in the past? Bear in mind that there has already been a lot of cuts to public education funding, and the teachers haven't really had a real wage increase in a very long time.

And yet according to Graeme (and yourself since you praised his post so highly), they shouldn't be receiving a pay increase. Their pay is fair. See Look here:

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Do I think teachers are well paid? Yes. ... Do I think more pay will compensate for the shit they have to put up with? No.

So the answer here is not to pay them more, the answer here is to search for other solutions that solve all the other problems teachers face.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by meme405

True those that become successful can go much farther than any teacher in terms of income, but that's not their fault, but those that are mediocre, will average a salary very similar to that of a teacher.

...<snipped>

There is plenty of other industries who have downturns and people are forced to take pay cuts or leave their jobs for other positions because the money simply isn't there anymore. Why should teachers be immune to this?

Look at 2008, how many people lost their shirts when that happened, I mean an entire fucking industry lost their jobs, and countless others were dragged to the bottom right along side them.

What happened to the teachers, absolutely fucking nothing, they just maintained their salaries like it ain't even a thing.

From a market perspective, that's the trade off between getting a secure job that pays less versus a less secure job that pays more. You even pointed it out youself that "those that become successful can go much farther than any teacher in terms of income". During good times, the BCTF (and probably some teachers) will bxtch that the economy is good and that they want in on some nicely padded salary increases as well, but people will just tell them to fxxk off. Then during bad times, teachers are the ones (among other secure careers) that feel relieved because they are the ones that didn't have to deal with too much job insecurity. On the whole, I'd say that system is quite fair.

Originally Posted by meme405

And yet according to Graeme (and yourself since you praised his post so highly), they shouldn't be receiving a pay increase. Their pay is fair. See Look here:

So the answer here is not to pay them more, the answer here is to search for other solutions that solve all the other problems teachers face.

I agree that the teachers' salary was fair. But after 4 years of 0% increase (with another 2 years of 0% increase to go), it is no longer at the level where it was reasonable. The 2013 inflation rates might not have been much, but in the years prior to that, there were definitely some noticeable price increases, and their salaries have not kept up.

The more pressing issue, however, has always been looking for solutions to solve all the other problems teachers face, and I have mentioned that many times in the past as well. Class size and special needs kids, in particular, are 2 of the biggest issues that I have repeatedly pointed out. I feel strongly that if the provincial government will concede on those 2 issues alone -- meaning that they simply follow the law as the BC Supreme Court has ruled -- a good bunch of teachers will be satisfied. More importantly, support for the BCTF to continue with job action will drop significantly among the general public, and this will likely force the BCTF to re-draw their salary demands, and perhaps even accept yet another token salary increase.

But no, the Liberals government just has to flat out say no...

[meme405]

Originally Posted by Traum

From a market perspective, that's the trade off between getting a secure job that pays less versus a less secure job that pays more. You even pointed it out youself that "those that become successful can go much farther than any teacher in terms of income". During good times, the BCTF (and probably some teachers) will bxtch that the economy is good and that they want in on some nicely padded salary increases as well, but people will just tell them to fxxk off. Then during bad times, teachers are the ones (among other secure careers) that feel relieved because they are the ones that didn't have to deal with too much job insecurity. On the whole, I'd say that system is quite fair.

Okay and how about those countless masses that work for 60k a year in these fluctuating markets?

They are still making about the same as the teachers, and they have no security.

Is that just their problem they don't make more and they chose the wrong industry?

Like I said, maybe its time to slash the rates of teachers until we can fund the system. There are way too many people qualified and willing to do the work, that maybe its time for the market to be redistributed.

It goes right back to supply and demand, lots of people available and willing to do the work, and not enough demand for those people. Market price dips.

[Traum]

Left on its own accord, the market will always find its own equilibrium. There is no doubt about that at all. However, I think it is fair to say that even a lot of economists will agree that the market solution is not always the best solution. In the case of public education, I think a purely market-based supply-and-demand type of solution is going to turn out very poorly. With the current over-supply of available teachers, any quick and/or major reductions will piss off the vast majority of teachers. Some will undoubtedly quit, but those who remain in the system will likely either be extremely pissed off, or they might be incompetent. With public education being a rather important part of modern society, I think it is a very bad idea to have teachers that are even more pissed off than they are now, or if they are utterly incompetent.

If over-supply is the current problem, a more appropriate approach should be measures that reduce the number of new entrants into the system. Perhaps the provincial government should just work with the universities to churn out fewer teachers? BCTF might also need to be given a quota on how many new teaching licences they can add annually. The results from this would almost certain be very slow, and it may set the stage for a future situation where there would be too few teachers around. But we can worry about those later down the road.

Maybe the BC government is already trying to achieve this by refusing to give the teachers any meaningful salary increase?

[meme405]

I agree (and I actually foresaw that argument as it is 100% correct).

But the line gets muddy after awhile, because here is the circle:

-There is a lot of people trying to break into teaching.
-It takes them a long time to gain secure employment teaching.
-They argue that they should be paid more because its so hard to become a teacher and they struggled for so many years.
-Now the pay for teachers goes up.
-EVEN MORE people want to become teachers.
-The difficulty of becoming a teacher goes up EVEN HIGHER.

Do you see the vicious circle?

At what point do others start saying "Hey wtf, im an average accountant working in a cut throat industry. I make the same pay as a teacher, but at any turn I could be fired. Maybe I should just take my CPA, and Bachelors, and go teach instead, atleast there I have secure employment."