teacher strike

[nature boy]

maybe i just don't think strikes are a correct course of action ever, but is anyone else a little annoyed with this teacher strike? it doesn't affect my kids yet, so it's not that, but what bothers me that it always comes down to a money issue.

should it? i think that's what's bothering me about it all.

especially since i have this teacher friend who one facebook keeps saying that it's the government's fault for not caring about the kids. really? did the government ask the teachers to go on strike and close schools for those days?

i guess for me, being a pastor that makes very little money and all, i get tired of people saying "well, you're not doing it for the money" when i mention that i make very little (for my responsibility list and required level of education). i can accept that i'm not going to get rich from my job, but should school teachers then? can we not say to teachers (especially to those like my friend who just posted "don't you understand that we just want a better education for your kids?") that they're not "doing it for the money" and so they can just suck it up as I do every paycheque? i work comparable hours as teachers (except because it's my responsibility and expected as part of my salary when for teachers it's "volunteer" time) and i don't ever get two days off in a row or any stats to speak of and i still work in the summer and winter (probably even harder in the winter). however, i don't have the option to go on strike and i continually get that condescending "you're not doing it for the money" talk.

it's true, i'm not doing for the money. i'm not going to get rich. but i have a liveable income. and, in my opinion, so do teachers. if they love the kids and education as much as they make believe they do, then the money really shouldn't be a factor.

i dunno. what do you guys think?

[geForce]

The "not caring about kids" argument, from what I understand, doesn't come from the striking or lockouts. One of the things that the BCTF is asking for is reduced class sizes and composition. Composition meaning, special needs kids need different resources that a regular teacher can't offer. That's what the teachers mean when they say the gov't doesn't care about the kids.

Despite the teachers' argument about class size and composition though, I still think what they're after is money. They complain about being the 3rd lowest paid teachers in Canada. That argument doesn't hold weight for me. School boards aren't federal, they're provincial. Everything's going to vary from province to province, including gas prices, minimum wage, grocery prices, Mcdonald's fry cook wages, etc.

I can empathize with the fact that they haven't gotten any wage increases in around 3-4 years, but again, that argument doesn't hold weight. We're in a down economy... welcome to the real world. I've gotten 0 or close to 0 wage increases in the same amount of time, and same goes for many others.

That being said, I'm not on the government's side either. They definitely do some shady crap as well. Like, I don't think they should be funding private schools because private schools are an exclusive privatized school system.

[se7entse7en]

I don't really know much of the issue but here are a few thoughts.

Classroom sizes and compositions seems to be a significant issue. It seems to me that schools are heading in the same direction as post secondary institutions. A teacher stands at the front, tells you everything they know, and if you leave knowing nothing... sucks to be you. That's all they have time for.

Public schools are... public. If they want a raise, who do they go to? The government isn't going to give anybody (other than themselves) a raise just for the hell of it.

The government is deducting 10% pay from the teachers 'cause they aren't working extra time, yet the government met what... 36 times in an 18 month period? Should they take a 93% pay cut too?

It's a pissing match.

The union really just seems to be looking out for... the union. They'd never accept a 10 year deal (now 6), no matter how good it was, 'cause then there wouldn't be a need for them.

Everything comes down to money and pride in the end.

[Duncan]

since alicia's a teacher, i'm a little closer to the situation. I'll try to shed some light on the situation. It's almost like a he said she said situation. I don't think one side is more at fault than the other, but to say that the teachers just care about the money is a little ignorant. Yes, economy sucks, but it's within their rights to ask for a raise. Just like you and i can ask, and if we don't get it, we can either keep working, fight harder or quit. Sure rights are rights, and we have the right to spit on someone, but we won't, but the strike is an unfortunate result of the fact that the government implemented an incremental "lockout" of the teachers. Saying that if they don't sign the agreement they tabled, they'll lock them out 45 minutes before school, and 45 min afterschool. Alicia says she's not even allowed to enter the school building to take a piss during lunch or recess because of the lockout. The incremental lockout by the government also saw them cut the teacher's pay by 5% first, and then 10% when the rotating strike happened. At this point, getting a raise is a side issue because the lockout by the government effectively means they're saying, hey, take this or we're gonna dock your pay. Sure, you may say you make an ok living, but would you be happy if your employer not only said they wouldn't give you raise, they're gonna cut your pay? That's one big factor for the strike. It's also bad blood because the BC supreme court ruled that when the government legislated the teachers back to work last year wasn't legal, but the goverment did it anyway and they tried appealing the court order.

Also, the money isn't the only thing. The teachers are mostly concerned about teaching a class of 32 kids and 1/4 of them have special needs. Back in our day, the teachers just ignored or chalked up misbehaviour to bratty kids. But these days with more public awareness of special needs, teachers are asked to take special care with these kids. And if they don't, they get reamed out by the parents and the principal. We have zero clue what it means to be a teacher these days. I get a taste from what alicia tells me, but it's not easy. They just can't spend all that time with the special needs kids. Also, over the past few years, the government has actually cut budget from special needs support so the teachers want it back.

But the teachers aren't without blame. Yes, they're asking for a higher than norm raise (12.75% over 4 years). They also have in the past asked for some ridiculous benefits like something like 10 weeks of bereavement leave or something like that. I don't know if they're still asking for that but who knows. On top of this, where else can you work for 10 months of the year (technically less than 9 months if you factor in the 2 weeks over xmas, and 2 weeks in spring break, and the however many personal + sick days they're entitled to during the school year) and still get a full year's salary. You can even pick summer school shifts over july/aug to supplement your income, or heck, just take a 2 month vacation! It's not the worst job in the world.

an article at the province that sheds a little light on the situation. If you go to the end of the story, there's a timeline widget that you can scroll through to see what happened since 2013.

But yea, to a certain extent, shaun's right. it's a pride thing. Although i think the money issue is a bigger issue with the government than the teachers. If you asked most teachers, i'm sure they're ok with any slight raise. It doesn't have to be huge. They just want more help in the classroom. But no one wants to back down and unfortunately it's always like this in a CBA

[se7entse7en]

I know the teachers also went on strike a year ago and it seems like, "They're at it again", but I think it's more accurate to think of it as, "They're still at it". It was my impression that the BCTF caved last time hoping for a change in gov't.

That didn't happen, and so here we are.

[Duncan]

i believe the government legislated them back to work so the teachers were forced back on the job

[Duncan]

[se7entse7en]

I think I had my years mixed up a bit. I think I was referring to this:

"The BCTF spent most of the last school year in job action before its union members reluctantly agreed to a new one-year contract ending June 2013." - http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/24 ... 39975.html

[Duncan]

yea, they agreed to a 1 year contract but after that happened, they went on strike again after that because the government was still playing hardball

[geForce]

[geForce]

[geForce]

In regards to the classroom size/comp issue, here's an article that got a lot of hits on Reddit.
http://mmehawtree.blogspot.ca/2014/05/d ... y.html?m=1

While I think teachers like this have great intentions, but sometimes I think things like this strike have confused some teachers. I totally get that classroom size and composition are important, and special needs kids need special care. However, in this article, the teacher made "special needs" seem like such a loose term.

I understand the kid who didn't have breakfast, the kid with no shoes, or the kid who keeps screaming, but then she loses me when she starts talking about rowdy boys, a kid who's parents are going through a divorce, a kid who's cat died, or that kid who lost a tooth. That and she has a class of 23 kids. That all seems like pretty normal, everyday stuff to me. I mean heck, 25-30 years ago, my elementary school class sizes were 27-30 kids and "special needs" wasn't even a thing yet.

I'm sure this article isn't representative of every teacher's perspectives though, but it's evident that some teacher share her opinions.

[joel]

by the way if you don't get a raise each year at least by some margin, you are technically making less money than you did the previous year, it's called inflation. Cost of living increases every year. 12.75% over 4 years is likely more than that, but this is a negotiation and they did just take a pay freeze for a few years, so I assume they are looking for some compensation for that as well.

i would be more concerned if our public workforce like teachers and medical professionals didn't have unions to provide some accountability on government spending. these unions are fighting to ensure sufficient financial support is funded to these public sectors.

if you think about it long term, if you underpay teachers here, then what happens is the best teachers move to places or occupations where they are compensated better. even things like salary do eventually impact the long term quality of education. then you have a lower quality workforce and a lower quality of education, and a poorly educated generation in the future.

i sort of recall an article and previous post on this subject already, about how the socio-economical importance of certain professions don't align with salary at all.

i think teachers are underpaid for what they do and how important they are for our society. i don't balk at my tax dollars going to the salary of a teacher. i have much more qualms about it going to some big corporations and make some already exorbitantly rich person that percentage point richer.

[geForce]

I'm not saying teachers don't deserve to get paid. I'm saying their argument for wanting to be paid more than the next province over is a flawed argument. Also, that they're complaining that they haven't gotten a raise in 4 years is sad but this the same situation as many others in every other sector in North America now. Yes, getting 0% raise means making less money YOY, but many others share this same struggle. I don't think it's the government undercutting the teachers.

Teachers who have 10 years experience are guaranteed to make over $80,000 per year. I know a lot of people in the private sector who have worked way more years and make significantly less. These people are also skilled workers with degrees and whatnot.

So yeah, they get no sympathy from me when they complain about money issues.

What I do agree is that more funding is needed for education. Not necessarily to pay teachers more, but to hire more teachers and open more schools.

[joel]

you are mistaken, bc teachers are not guaranteed to make 80k+ after 10 years. 81k is currently the maximum salary a bc teacher can make, and it is dependent on more than years of experience, including education level and age group that they teach.