People always see shit from their own POV. The few posts in here like yours, Graeme's and our resident teacher opens our eyes a bit. Walking mile in the other people's shoes before or at least doing some research is pretty important. Otherwise you're just an ignorant buffoon. This thread has it all.

Oh, for the record, I respect accountants. They make a big difference in people's lives. They're not all pencil neck geeks like most people think. I just give them a hard time because my cousins are accountants.

Sweet deal for BCTF administrators

Quote:

Whenever I've criticized the B.C. Teachers Federation -- especially their over-the-top contract demands and illegal strike tactics -- I could always count on plenty of angry backlash from union activists to fill up my e-mail and voice-mail inboxes.

source: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/ne...e36d16&k=66349

Rather interesting article about BCTF and how some teachers feel about them.

I know its getting to be 10 years old, but i'm sure not much has changed...

Shouldn't the teachers be asking their leaders ... why so greedy?

My earlier comment about benefits now also make sense..

I have little sympathy - where has this clown been the last 30 years? This shit happens on a regular basis, everyone knows to expect it.

Giving great speeches and writing long essays about how "I just want to do the best by my students" is great.

But as soundy pointed out; give these teachers one lump sum payment and let them decide how to spend the money. I guarantee you will see very quickly how much they really care about the kids.

Human nature is human nature. At the end of the day ITS A JOB, you are there to MAKE MONEY. 99% of people would not be there if it wasn't for the paycheque.

If they just got rid of their union, individuals like Ryan Harrington and the other dedicated teachers would be doing their jobs right now, and if they truly are dedicated an great teachers, they stand to gain a lot more than if they were in any union, and were constantly being pushed down to the same level as all those teachers who are just there cause they have to be to make a living.

Instead the teachers insist on having this union, and therefore they get to have the repercussions of their decision. Even if it wasn't this "1st year teachers" decision to join a union, he knew, or at least should have, known what he was getting himself into. All throughout his schooling teachers striked, I myself went through school and was involved in three separate labour disputes. My grade 12 was heavily impacted by labour disputes between the teachers and government.

TL;DR - There is a great disparity between talking the talk, and walking the walk. A lot of the teachers POV essays are great at talking the talk, but when it comes down to it, 99% of teachers are just money grubbing leeches, just like the rest of us.

Not a fan of everything in this article, but the gist of it sums up how I feel.

Not really surprised, my Aunt in Sask. was a parole officer and for the last 25+ years she's been a prison guard mainly working at halfway houses. She is all about Unions but she hates her Union so much. She has told me so many stories of the waste and staright up in your face corruption and bullshitthat goes on within the Union by the people running it. Keep in mind she's obviously biased on one end of the spectrum but some of the things she told me are pretty crazy, they basically run it with a go fuck your hat type mentality we could give a fuck about what you think and it's almost impossible to get rid of them.

In addition to mg1s response. I like to add that there are many type of unions and some are more progressive/modern than others. Our union was pretty good and the employer never really had major issues as we were very willing to adapt as we understand we need to be efficient in this day and age. As well there are many types of reps and levels of reps depending on the size of the union. I was more of a low level rep.

I never encountered any union members misusing funds or admin staff being paid lots of money or anything like that and we were pretty transparent and even communicated through social media like twitter or something I believe. Not sure how they are like now though. But I'd assume we were the same.

Most union reps do not get paid. Or get paid minimally and its done more on a volunteer basis. When those employees miss days off to attend bargaining units or union activities only then does the union pay for those days off as the employer does not pay for that time off.

ne thing I'd like to add is that for most companies the management/employet is in charge of hiring people. And they really do select some of the brightest people to work for some of these unions. One problem with unions is that whenever a bad apple falls through the crack, its very difficult to terminate them. However you still get many many Keeners that work very hard in order to make it to managent or get promotions that somewhat offset those bad apples. But its those low performing workers that are a major issue.

This is entirely not true. You thinking like this is more of a reflection of your character. Not everyone is a "greedy capitalistic pig" like you said you are.

Contrary to popular believe, most unions do consider the public's reaction when they do things. I think the bctf is out to lunch and have a poor president representing them. Just the way he speaks doesn't resonate with the public.

So today I was listening to the Kid Carson show on Sonic and the guy had this 3-5min session about how the teachers are money this, money that, not in for the money ,its more than the money. What bothered me the most was that not once, did he mention what the teachers are "supposedly" in for "OUR KIDS"... When you talk for 5mins about money... and all the listener hear is money... I think most of us can come to a conclusion what the teachers really want...

Also, he mentioned that teachers don't make 80k a year. I wonder if he has seen some of the numbers that's been floating around/public.

I regret not calling in and telling them about this thread on revscene.net. Free publicity for RS and better informed Mr.Carson is.

Regardless of his opinion, I switched to sonic so I can listen to him - great DJ!

"Most" unions don't NEED to care what the public thinks - the idea of a strike is to put economic pressure on their employer and the only one really hurt is the employer, and maybe some downstream customers, which naturally puts more pressure on the employer.

Public sector unions, however, really need to remember that their actions don't directly impact their employers; the ones most affected have ZERO direct control over the situation. Their best hope is to get the public on their side so THEY can put pressure on government, but invariably the public are the ones who suffer from their actions.

But of course, most unions don't understand this; they just go straight for the ol' Union Playbook Page 1 and fire up the job action, because well... you're a union and that's how you roll.

:heckno:

:seriously:


^sorry, was out of word..................

Of course this strike is about money. But, the current stumbling block is about money that will never find itself in my bank account.

The proposals for salary increases are close and I have no doubt that both sides could come to a resolution in an afternoon. However, the government is still unwilling to increase workload funding (used to hire more specialist teachers and CEAs); the BCTF wants 225 million per year while the government won't budge on the current funding of 75 million per year. Also, the government is doing everything in their power to make sure that they aren't held accountable ($ wise) for the illegal stripping of our contract in 2002 since retroactive grievances could total over one billion dollars. I don't know if 225m/year is realistic, but I know that the current 75m/year isn't enough; I hope the sides can find some middle ground, and quickly.

People need to actually listen when dollar figures are mentioned in the media.; don't assume that "the money" is going into the pockets of teachers; if salary were the main issue then I doubt the strike would have occurred at all.

*Disclaimer: I realize that the media does a fantastic job of making the public assume that salary is the focus of the negotiations. My local newspaper ran a front-page article that mentioned no numbers other than the small differences in proposed salary increase. Believe me that the money for teachers is a wash, but the money for students is far from settled.

We all know exactly what the problem is, and how you all want more money for the kids. We get it. The problem is there is no more money. That's it, and we don't want to up our taxes to pay for more.

Take a pay cut, and we will fund your 225 million.

Contrary to teachers belief, government money doesn't grow on trees, those of us out here actually trying to make a living fund everything the government pays for, and in this economic climate, many of us are stretched to the limits as well.

Meanwhile teachers who work 9 months out of the year are averaging $74,000. You do realize that extrapolated out to a full year that is equivalent to almost 100k?

As stated on every page since like page 6, the supply of able bodied and adequately trained teachers is evident. The demand IS NOT. Therefore the market price for your services is declining, and yet because of your unionisation you guys are artificially pushing the price of your salaries upwards. This has been happening for the last decade, this time around we have finally reached a point that the government has finally said "enough is enough, we can't afford this any longer".

EDIT: When I say "we" I mean me, but my opinion is a prevalent one, so it may very well be more of a "royal we".

Also don't think I say any of the above from a position of disrespect to the role teachers play, I am saying this from a purely economic standpoint. I have a good deal of respect to those who teach, I just don't see the need to pay them more in this current market.

Meme405,

I completely disagree that that problems lies in the fact that the provincial government has no more money. It may be true that there really is no net increase in total provincial revenues, but that should not be the problem. If there isn't enough money for public education, take a cut from something else. What is plainly evident to me is that the BC Liberals simply does not want to spend any more money on public education. I will not speculate whether Crusty Cunt really has a grudge against public education even though her history is suggestive of it. But what I will say is that in the past 12+ years, the BC Liberals government has been slashing public education funding, and that is not acceptable.

Anyone else notice that you don't really see many cars honking when driving past school? I drive by 2 schools on my way to work and I haven't heard a single honk this whole week.

Remove class sizes from the table. Make it about increase in wages. It's very simple then. Let the class sizes be determined by the community. Let the parents do the fighting on that one.

Christy is full of shit when she says she wants it to end. Wait a little while longer and it will be a moot point when the Supreme Court tells the government to rip up all contracts then you get to start from scratch.

BCTF now wants mediator. Government said no and left the bargaining table. why? Yeah, government won't be taking a chance like that. They will only do shit if it's to their advantage. Kiss ass suck a banana much like their leader does. Who do surrey people make fun of? Ladner girls, lol.

If only Christy Crunch's ex husband could share stories with us....... Then Kid Carson would be enlightened.

Your right:

Health care - don't need that.
Infrastructure - fuck that
paying down our debts - why money's free ain't it?
social housing - fuck those homeless people
police - a better educated public all but replaces the need for law enforcement
transit - Haha transits for uneducated poor people

^do you see? Not easy to find money in a budget that's balanced on the edge of a knife.

For records sake:

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s...pse339f8bd.jpg

^That's how the government spends it's money. You tell me where you feel they should pull extra salary for you from.

Do you see which series of numbers is INCREASING in the above? That's right it is education, they are planning on spending MORE in education even though statistically enrollment in our education system is dropping at over a percent a year.

EDIT: Crusty cunt and her goon squad of idiots are not doing fuck all for my industry either, so don't think I support her. This has nothing to do with the government and their tactics, this has to do with: Where the hell do we try and sever the bleeding?

Slightly off topic, but the honking is bloody annoying.

If you support the teachers, park and tell them - don't surprise other drivers around you lol

I wish I have time to dig up some numbers like you have just done, and it is great that you are doing that. But let's look at healthcare and infrastructure/transit.

Healthcare as we have it is in serious need of reform. IMO, the single most effective method to slash costs is to open up the floodgates for private sector healthcare, but regulate the salary levels and treatment costs so that we won't see a mass exodus of healthcare professionals jumping ship to the private sector nor a US-style free-for-all (healthcare) business environment. Especially in Metro Vancouver, there is no shortage of people who are willing and capable of paying for private sector healthcare. Doing so will dramatically ease the cost pressures on the public sector healthcare system. Even with this scheme, I do not necessarily support dramatic cuts to healthcare funding because doing so means we have simply created a 2-tier class system. But with a private sector to cater to those can afford their services, the public sector can provide significantly better services to those who couldn't afford the private sector treatments.

As far as infrastructure is concerned, I am very skeptical of developments such as the Hydro's Site C. It is hugely expensive, and consumers and taxpayers alike are paying through their noses for it (esp in the upcoming years). Despite the city's population growth and general increase in total energy use, our per capita usage is actually going down. Do we really have a need to build something like that?

IMO, the BC Ferries is a lost cause. I am not saying we should just "fxxk the Islanders and let them rot", but the losses have to be cut. From selling off / privatizing the entire BC Ferries business to discontinuing only the unprofitable routes, the province needs to explore some possible options.

Obviously, these suggestions are by no means exhaustive. I'm sure people more familiar with other sectors can comment on how costs could be better controlled.

.

This is a great summation of the problem with unions… in any normal industry, to promote a healthy level of competition and continued learning, your job and salary are contingent on your performance as well as supply and demand. When you allow workers to stagnate, the industry does the same.
If all software companies were unionized, we'd still be using dial up modems.

:facepalm: @ BC Ferries they are a world of problems.

In terms of your comments regarding health care and infrastructure, much like how so teachers are claiming people other than teachers don't understand the needs of education funding, you do not understand the needs of these sectors.

I currently am involved with several BCH projects including recent upgrades at GMS, and the northwest transmission line. People are simply unaware at the shocking needs for upgrading our transmission systems. In many cases these are systems which are ageing and we are just throwing money at them to keep them operating, when in reality it is simply time to completely overhaul or replace them.

On top of that Site C is something that has seen 100's of studies, including feasibility and economic viability, environmental assessments and so on. The project is one that was promised to be funded in part by both the federal and provincial governments, because it represents such a great opportunity for BC to become a huge leader in clean energy. On top of that regardless of what you think about our power usage and our need for it (of which there is a need), even if we didn't have the need for it, we sell a lot of electricity to our friends south of the border during peak periods. So Site C represents an opportunity to make money. Will that money cover the cost of building the site? I have no idea, but given how stingy the government is in projects like this I have a distinct feeling that over the life of the project it very well may.

Have you ever driven down through Oregon and seen all those windmills?

Oregon has in total like 1900 windmills which overall has cost them some 6 billion dollars.

In comparison site C will cost about 8 billion dollars.

Do you know what the differential is between the power generation of the two projects?

Site C will generate double the power, meanwhile it will not cost HALF as much to operate year to year, and the life cycle of Site C is like 4 times longer than any windmill. (the dam is expected to produce for 100 years)

Is Vince ready?

okay, that was bad, but is Peter Cameron willing to let go of his $225.00/hour wage or does he still get paid until it's over?

This is so weird. Earlier in the day, Cameron said

Now he's saying they're open to the idea?

I guess poll results are a powerful thing. Mind you, the media can report whatever and however it wants by twisting and stretching the truth.

Sounds like Cameron resigned. Vince won't be around till next week. Cameron has been at it since February. Pretty nice gig.

EDIT: sauce

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ator-1.2682810