I don't really disagree with that to some extent, it's also being used to tip the negotiating power into there favor. I believe your wife is a teacher you and your family have a huge interest in how this plays out and if I were you I'd be pissed.

I have kids as well and I also have an interest in how this plays out. My wife and I both work and don't have the luxury of family looking after our kid unless it's an emergency and like many we have to pay for before and after school care. I realize school is not a daycare but when schools on strike we have to pay an additional $200.00 per week for our one child. When it comes down to it those are real costs that I have to bare every time the teachers strike as a parent and as a taxpayer I'm glad the Government did what it did.

I really hope this thing gets settled before the start of the school year and this whole $40.00 thing is a mute point.

Nope, neither of us are teachers. I don't want the $40/day; I just want my kid to go to school in September.

And I do have the luxury of having the grandparents watch him, but even they will get sick of seeing each other. Plus, my wife is currently on mat leave, but she would rather focus her attention on the baby.

Successful pandering tactic is successful? We shall see... :considered:

The government giving some cash back to parents is no different than the teachers constantly spouting off how this "isnt for us, its for the kids"

2 different tactics to try to win the public. Which neither party should be using public opinion to sway an employment negotiation.

This is one of the main problems: if they put in half as much time and energy at the bargaining table as they do mouthpiecing through the media (especially fucking Iker and his weekly press conferences to announce nothing had changed), this would have been solved before it ever started.

B.C. budget runs billions short for education and health: report

B.C. budget runs billions short for education and health: report

Spending constraints will mean less funding for students and patients over the next three years, according to Conference Board of Canada

By Tara Carman, Vancouver Sun August 7, 2014

B.C. will need to spend $1.6 billion more than it has budgeted on education and $1.8 billion more on health care to maintain a constant level of spending over the next three years, according to a newly released Conference Board of Canada report.

The report, entitled British Columbia Fiscal Snapshot: Back on Solid Ground, notes that the 2014 budget caps education spending to increases of 0.6 per cent per year between now and 2017, “a rate of growth that has only occurred once in the last 10 fiscal years.”

Education spending, which the Conference Board defines as all government funding to public, private and post-secondary institutions, would need to increase by an annual average rate of 2.7 per cent, or $1.6 billion over three years, to maintain inflation-adjusted funding per student, the report said. The board took into account average funding per student, projected enrolment and inflation in its analysis.

Elementary school teachers’ salaries account for about three-quarters of the funding per student figure, said the Conference Board’s Matthew Stewart, and that figure is consistent across all provinces.

The average weekly wage for elementary teachers in B.C. is $1,022, compared with the Canadian average of $1,019, “which is pretty much on par,” Stewart said. Funding per student, however, is above the Canadian average.

B.C. Teachers’ Federation vice-president Glen Hansman said because the Conference Board combined government funding for public schools with post-secondary and private schools in its analysis, the funding-per-student figure is higher than it would be for public schools alone.

But he agreed with the report’s assertion that it will take significant reinvestment of funding to maintain service levels.

The government has budgeted the same amount of money for the 2014-15 school year as for the previous year, Hansman said, but costs such as hydro, gas for school buses and possibly wages for teachers and support staff are all going up.

“That just translates into ... cuts in service,” he said, noting that many school boards went through cost-cutting exercises in the spring.

“Even when you take declining enrolment into consideration ... the cuts have been greater than what would flow simply out of a decline in student population. The cuts have been because funding hasn’t kept pace with inflation.”

It’s a similar story with health care. The Conference Board notes in the report that the B.C. government has capped increases to health care spending at 2.6 per cent over the next three years, but estimates the province would have to increase spending by 4.3 per cent over the same period to maintain current levels of service, allowing for inflation and demographic change.

Add in another half-per-cent increase to cover new equipment or drug coverage approvals and the projected cost rises to 4.8 per cent, or $2.3 billion over budget, Stewart said.

“You can restrain the budget to anything in the short term, but in the long term with demand from the aging population and population growth, eventually it creates a large problem, unless you find productivity improvements, and provinces have not been successful on that front in the past,” he commented.

B.C.’s health spending per capita is much lower than in most other provinces once demographics are factored into the data, the report said.

This comes as no surprise to Christine Sorensen, vice-president of the B.C. Nurses’ Union.

“We certainly have seen an increased workload. Staffing levels are really challenging nurses’ ability to provide safe patient care,” she said, noting that ongoing overcrowding problems at Surrey Memorial in particular are a good example.

If the government fails to provide even enough funding to preserve the status quo, “patient care will suffer in this province, patients will wait, patients will continue to be provided care in hallways, urgent situations will be missed and patients will be put at risk,” Sorensen said.

Finance Minister Mike de Jong was not available for an interview, but said in a written statement that B.C. posted a modest surplus of $353 million for the last fiscal year despite lower-than-forecast revenues.

“This helps preserve our AAA credit rating and results in lower borrowing costs. While the fiscal plan does show continued spending discipline, spending in health and education sectors is not being reduced, and positive outcomes are being maintained.”

NDP finance critic Carole James accused the government of improving its own balance sheet by downloading costs onto school boards, health authorities and taxpayers, citing increased hydro rates, ICBC and MSP premiums as examples.

“You’re paying more, you’re getting less in services, less in support,” she said.

On the revenue side, the Conference Board said B.C. represents a good-news story, with its forecasts even more optimistic than those of the government due to the strength of the lumber and shipbuilding sectors, Stewart said.

“Overall, British Columbia is in a sound fiscal position and, while it will face mounting cost pressures for health and education spending, it is in a much better position to deal with these challenges relative to most other provinces,” the report concluded.

James disagreed, saying in an interview that a strong economy needs a healthy, well-educated workforce. The Conference Board analysis shows the government’s projections for health care and education spending, though higher than previous years, will in fact amount to billions in cuts because of rising costs.

“To think of seeing those kinds of massive cuts in education and health care simply is not sustainable, nor is it responsible, because it will have a huge impact on the economy of British Columbia if we start seeing those kinds of cuts to both critical services in our province,” she said.



http://www.vancouversun.com/business...?size=620x400s

How come only parents get it? Shouldn't everyone who lives in BC gets the money as well? Because to me it is unused tax revenue the gov have (coz teacher on strike so they don't pay them) Since everyone who lives in BC pays tax towards education we all should get $40/per day from the gov.

The $40 a day is good will from the government to help out parents with young kids who have to utilize day care while school is not in session. The $40 a day is not to give the citizens back their unused money.

The government and teachers are in this stalemate because the government is pushing the budget to the limit. Money is tight, you ain't seeing shit back from the government, just be happy if they don't raise your taxes after the teachers are done taking all our lunch money.

What HappySlip is getting at is, why do I (as a SINK/DINK) have to pay towards the education of other people's kids, and when there is money being saved in that same fund that I paid towards, it's only paid out to people with kids. Is the government unfairly rewarding certain lifestyles (w/ kids) over others (no kids)?

/devilsadvocate /toomuchphilosophy /rabbithole /stirthepot

This logic seems false to me, as you don't singularly pay for the education of other people's kids.

You pay taxes, which pays for a plethora of things, which includes public education.

So, of the 100% taxes that you pay, if 0.4% is used for education, and 0.94% of that 0.4% was unused due to the teacher's strike, you're saying it makes financial and common sense to return said miniscule percentage to every single tax payer?

Yes I pulled the numbers out of my ass, but the government is not rewarding people with children; they are using money that they've collected to address an ongoing problem.

Whether this address is correct or not, or whether the government is using any of the collected money correctly is another issue, but to say that this $40 payout is "unfair" is stretching it, in my humble opinion.

So why give the money to parents then? They already don't have enough funding for education,shouldn't the gov kept the money and use for education instead of just giving it to parents?

Politics, nothing more. The Government is trying to gain favor with parents and weaken the teachers negotiating position. Normally when there is a strike teachers use the money that was saved as one of the bargaining chips, the Government is taking that away from them by spending it.

In a perfect world the money would be used to help class sizes or whatever is deemed to be the biggest issue is in the classroom.

To help those parents with daycare costs. It is a freaking joke to be honest. They're willing to pay out $13.6 million a day to keep kids out of school. Tells you a lot about our Gov't doesn't it.

Because politics.

It's all leverage. Why aren't teachers picketing all summer? Don't they want their cause to stay relevant to the topic of the day?

Union uses children as pawns for pressure at the end/start of school year for negotiating a deadline. Gov. found a temprary workaround this time in the form of a minor cash stipend.

Both sides have a long history of fighting dirty and that won't end anytime soon.

There is a collective social benefit to having kids. You actually subsidize other people's children in a variety of ways.

It could even be argued that as a non parent it is YOU who is leeching of the hard work of parents raising the future generation. Certainly your pension and RRSPs would be worthless without a future generation, which is just one example of the economic benefits of children to the childless.

You know the government is running a massive deficit building massive debt right? If they should give everyone in the province a handout for a few bucks saved from this, by that logic they should come collect more tax from you to cover the things that are over spent or under funded right?

I think what you meant to say was:

"[the gov't] has to pay $13.6 million a day to families to help with daycare costs, since the teachers are keeping the kids out of school. Tells you a lot about the teachers, doesn't it."

easy to spin any argument any way you want.

The point of picketing is to be at the workplace when work is supposed to be in session to prevent people from going into work. Pickets for any other industry would make sense year round, but there's nothing to picket in the summer for the school system.

so the question is...are kids going back to school in September?

or are they gonna extend it even more...perhaps October? :suspicious:

Plenty of things happen in the summer at school, maintenance, painting etc etc.. oh things that make teachers' job easier in the fall.

Also is it smart to keep people you will be working with all year round out of a job for minimal political benefits?

Timpo, are you asking because you still haven't bought your school supplies?
:troll:

B.C. teachers' strike: talks resume with time running out

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-out-1.2732810

they're talking about october