Did anyone catch the $3000 for extra massages benefit... LOL.. is this like "lets throw random shit and see what sticks?"

I failed you because you felt the need to criticize another person for bringing down the value of the discussion for failing without providing any counter argument, and yet chose to bring down the value of the discussion yourself in the process by turning to childish name calling.

engineers and accountants aren't all employed by a single business, in contrast to teachers who are basically all employed by the government.

you're comparing apples and oranges.

Wow, buddy, give your head a shake.......... do you hear anything loose in there?

It's called a benefits package. Have you been living under a rock? Look at the benefits package of nurses and other workers in this province. Have you heard of extended health and dental plans?

You need to stop whining. That's all you're doing. You don't like it because you ain't getting it. This is what people in this sector and other sectors bargained for in the past. Get over it.

Now can you get past the petty shit and post something that is constructive?


god bless..............

amen, Meme405: kettle, meet pot.

some of your posts add value to the thread and adds to the debate, but you also have some posts where you resort to childish name calling which detracts from your valid points and damages your credibility/reputation.

I'm just a dumb fucking tradesperson. I don't integrate into society well...:concentrate:

I use to be a union rep at my old job, I got into it because one of my mentors suggested I join to see and understand different viewpoints and in case I'm in management in a unionized environment I can better manage the employees.

I'll try to give my personal take on unions:

I do see the merits and strengths, as well as weaknesses of a union in certain field or industries. And in fact, many individuals would in fact like to join a union if given a choice between non-union and union. Yes there are many individuals that are very ambitious and don't want to be tied down with seniority or set salaries based on collective agreements, but many are willing to sacrifice that for the security and benefits of working in a union.

Unions are very democratic, contrary to popular believe, unions and their actions are made up of their MEMBERS. if the union is going on strike, it's because the union members VOTED to go on strike. The teachers voted unanimously to go on strike. They usually go on strike when it would make have a greater affect on the government, like right now during exam times. What would be the point of striking in the summer? That's why the majority of the Brazilian workers in transit, nurses, police etc are striking right before the world cup event. Unions represent their members. It's very politically motivated.


I find that unions also help promote better working conditions that "lobby" for better work standards, safety standards, and other related legislation that many private companies would probably try to get by or ignore. They also indirectly help non-unionized workers increase their pay and benefits as well.

Like I said before, the major drawback of unions is that unions do try help protect companies for targeting or firing individuals that dont deserve to be targetted.ex some managers just have personal vendetta's against some employees and the unions would protect that employee. I have seen happen before.

But more often than not, they are protecting weaker, under performing employees, and this is where I think unions need to evolve or change to be up to todays standards. They need to find better ways to let go of these people as it's hurting the union's reputation. However, the employers are pretty smart and managers usually have other ways of punishing the unproductive employees. ie. have them do boring paperwork until they quit etc. but this is misuse of resources as they should have been fired in the first place.

Unions also go into the wrong industries or corporations at times that they wont succeed in. - like for example Ikea. Lastly I also think that unions should convert to define contribution plans instead of defined benefit plans. This is costing taxpayers a lot of money. Most unions these days are no longer purely based on seniority, and it's leaning towards promotion by merit + seniority, so they slowly evolving.

To say that unions are unproductive is not true. Sweden has the highest percentage of unionized employees in the world and they are doing relatively well as an economy. Same goes for Germany. I've also met many smart people in unions, former Investment bankers, people with CA's, CFAs, skilled engineers who rather work 40 hours a week and have work life balance than make lots of money.

Imho, the rate of low paying, low benefit jobs is ever increasing, and for the Majority of people, real wages are being reduced due to inflation. The economy is disproportionately producing low paying jobs and things are only going to get worst I think. All this while employers are creating "record profits".

Companies and employers also have access to much more money and can lobby, put advertisements or skew the public's perception of unions.

ok so they still don't have a solution?

I wonder if this is going to carry on next year.

I don't know if you were trying to answer my question or not, after all I am just a dumb fucking tradesperson.

Can you answer these two questions very simply?


Use small words please. My brain is harmed from breathing so much welding fumes.

not sure if this is a rhetorical question or what you are trying to get at.

1. they are not the same. one is trained to teach, usually has a bachelors in education or equivalent, arts student may or may not have requirements such as physics / chem / bio etc that they can teach that to other students.

2. the main thing here is the ability to join collectively as a single entity or group so to speak. teachers have a single employer, and can organize better because they are joining up to go negotiate against that one single employer.

it's harder to collect a group of arts students working for 15-20 companies that all do different things in each of those offices.

yes they can make an entire career with no problems, but if they had the ability to join forces they could essentially "bargain" for higher wages / better pay / working conditions etc.

and a lot of these office workers do face problems, they dont ever get to voice it for fear of repercussions.

I basically get unlimited benefits through my work. Well, obviously there's a limit but it's pretty damn hard to reach it with the benefits package I have. *shrug*


I know I tend to bash unions in general on here, despite the fact that two of the three I worked for in the past were actually quite awesome. However, that awesomeness of those two unions actually helped me see just how overbearing they can be. In the case of IATSE669, one of the "perks" of the union contract was that for every 6 minutes (after the initial 12 minutes past due) that you're late for your lunch break, you get paid an extra $x until the first hour, at which point you start getting paid even more until you're able to wrap to eat. I understand the reasoning behind having such a clause in the contract, but it can be seen as a union nitpicking every fine detail and simply being overbearing to the employers.

One thing I don't like about unions, however, is that if a motion to strike is given the green light by the required number of members, those who voted against it have no say or recourse (apart from quitting) after it goes ahead. They can't cross the picket line without risking being fired, and if they're tight for cash (for whatever reason) they may not be able to survive on strike pay for very long. I genuinely feel that union members who want to cross the picket line (or otherwise defy the restrictions their union has placed on its members) should be allowed to without fearing repercussions. That, I feel, is the greatest downfall of the modern union and one no one really seems to want to bring up.

Let's be clear, your being dumb and your being a tradesperson are not interrelated.

My stance against the teachers has not changed after this weekends round of negotiations. As I have stated in a previous post, if it were up to me, I would reduce and rollback teacher salaries permanently, so in my view, the Province's offer of 7% over 6 years is more than fair and the teachers already.

Now this isn't because I'm jealous of teachers having 3 months off, their benefits (pension, extended health, etc..) or their salaries, as a couple of the founders of RS and some other members know, I'm in two different fields that has rewarded me very lucratively financially and with salaries substantially more than teachers and with similar benefits (extended health, dental, life insurance, etc...). Rather my stance against the teachers and the BCTF is based on my view on keeping cost to the taxpayers/taxes low, there is only a limited amount of public money to be spent and simply the supply and demand of teaching.

Enrollment numbers of students in BC continue to fall, while the number of teachers and teachers on call continue to grow. Unlike some of the other public sector employees like nurses, police officers, doctors which are facing a shortage of qualified recruits and workers, the number of able and willing teachers with their credentials out there waiting for permanent postings just keeps growing. I think the teachers really have to look into this issue with some of their senior teachers who are just hanging around or are taking up other TOC positions when they are in semi retirement. From a purely financial viewpoint, there really is no need to increase salaries to entice new workers or recruits into teaching.

All the BCTF keeps screaming is they want a fair deal for teachers, well in my opinion, and others can disagree, a starting salary of $43,790 (in 2013 for Vancouver teachers) and an average salary of $71,485 (in BC with allowances in 2012-13) is more than fair for a work cycle with 3 months off, pension and benefits for a occupation with a current oversupply of workers which isn't too highly specialized with too many graduates with their BA and B.Ed. I don't care that compared to some Provinces, BC teacher's salaries are less, at the end of the day that is all unions will keep pointing at, one Province gives more to their teachers, then teachers from the other Province will just point at that and back and forth we go. BC teachers already have a fair deal and salary in my personal opinion.

What I will side on with the teachers and BCTF however is the need to increase funding and resources into the infrastructure of our schools with the upgrades on buildings, facilities, programs and supplies for students. With only so much public money to be spent, I would rather any funds be allocated to that then salary increases or benefits to the teachers when there is already an oversupply of eager, ready and willing teachers out there looking for postings.

So in short, while teaching is an honorable occupation, their salaries and benefits are already more than fair and the Province I hope will not give into the BCTF salary demands, rather allocate those resources and funds to the schools and system.

I have family which works for a bank, the bank employs 79000 employees. Many of which work in a very similar capacity just at various locations in Canada. 13000 are here in BC, that means that they are roughly 1/4 the size of the BCTF. They could easily unionize and have a large impact. And that's just one bank. Think about if all the tellers from every different bank unionized.

And yet they have not joined together in a union, and they do not strike. My family has somehow managed to make a living.

And yes they could join together and "Bargain" for higher wages, but then they would need to make a union, and then they would need a union administrator, and if big enough they would need to have many others working in that union as well. Then these people need to be paid, and where does that pay come from? Right out of the pockets of the union members. So right off the bat a bunch of the gains they make will end up just going to pay for the union they just created, at the end of the day even a 3% bump in each employees salary would probably end up just going to the union.

Also you would have to look at if the bank as an employer is not paying them adequately are their salaries artificially low? Can RBC continue to operate if it has to pay each employee 5% more?

Finally do these employees actually DESERVE a raise? Are they specialized, and their positions difficult to fill? How many people are ready to fill the shoes of those who quit.

-----------------

Transfer the above to the BCTF:

1. BCTF represents 41 000 teachers. The actual union employs some 200 people. I don't know how much the union costs to operate as a whole, but last I checked it had 8 presidents, these individuals’ salaries and expenses equaled over $1million a year.

^That's a lot of money the teachers are giving up to somebody just to gain this right to "bargain".

2. Are they being paid unfairly low wages? Well since most people seem to agree in this thread that teachers are paid very well for the job they perform (and it’s a prevalent opinion by just about everyone else besides teachers), I'd say they are paid pretty fairly. Sure you could say that if they dissolved the union that their wages would go down, and you would probably be right, but their wages would go down only because they are making artificially high salaries right now; Salaries which they have continuously pushed upwards through countless previous job actions until now, Salaries which have gotten so large that the government can no longer afford to pay them.

3. Do they actually deserve a raise? Well there are thousands of people waiting to become teachers, so the supply is there and the positions for these people are not; therefore, in terms of supply and demand...no.

I was interested in a point made by 7seven, one that I hadn't really considered much previously when talking about the strike.

Enrolment.

Check out this report:

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reports/pd...stats/prov.pdf

Since 2009 the number of enrolled students in this province has decreased by 22000 students.

Now check out this report:

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reports/pd...ats/public.pdf

The total number of teachers has only gone down by 519.

In percentage:

Students went down by 4%. Teachers went down by only 1.5%.

EVEN MORE INTERESTING:

During that period the average salary of a teacher went from $69,631 to $73,920.

I get where you're coming from, but on the stance of union members should be allowed to cross the picket line if they want, i'd have to disagree. These employees enjoy the pay and extra benefits of being in a union, which were given to them because the union had fought for them. The employer isn't just paying you higher wages and extended benefits because they are nice in a lot of cases.

So then there's a strike looming. If you're in a union you have a pretty good idea months in advance whether there's a good chance you will be going on strike or not. Even if you're against it, you still have time to prepare for whats coming. Do you think it's fair for an employee to reap the benefits of the union, but when the time comes to strike, they are allowed to just say "Nah im good, have fun on the picket line boys i'm going to keep working. Oh and when your strike is over i'll take any extra pay increases you got from the strike."

You're either all in when you join a union or you shouldn't join one, because there will be situations where you might have to strike when you don't want to.

Having worked in a union though, there are some things that pissed me off about a strike. I believe strike pay was something like 250 bucks a week, which isn't much when you have bills to pay or a family. But when the union found out people we're taking on other jobs while on strike, they made the members sign a waiver stating that they can't collect strike pay if they are working somewhere else as well. To me thats bullshit. You paid union dues for that strike pay, and now when you want to get another job so the strike doesn't bankrupt you your own union tries to screw you over.

So yeah, it's definitely give and take being in a union

Yeah but you knew months in advance about the potential strike, so most people would be more conscious of their budget at that point.

When you are on strike, you are supposed to be STRIKING, not working another job.

I can understand if the strike took months to resolve, but a little 2 week thing event would not be difficult to plan for.

I have 2 jobs. I pretty much pay for everything in the household due to our financial situation. If my union had went on to actually strike (Translink here), I would still be going to work to my 2nd job. They cannot prevent me from working my 2nd job. That being said, I would still have to fulfill my requirement to be on site to strike.

Any strike HURTS. Whether it be 2 weeks, to months. If you have bills to pay, strike pay is usually LESS than what you would normally get paid. In some instances, strike pay would be more for a few employees.

Being on strike for 2 weeks can mean missing rent payment/mortgage payment for most. But if you have single mom/dads out there, that can be also mean not being able to afford food on the table, or pay for daycare. The list goes on.

You can argue that people should be better with their money, but I can guarantee not everybody have the savings that they would like in their bank account.

Even with months of advance notice of full strike, it is very hard to find a 2nd job to accommodate your current work schedule and strike schedule.

We were required to be on strike duty one day a week for 4 hours, split up between everyone who worked there during the week. So basically you had the whole rest of the week doing nothing, so why not get another job as well? The longer everyone can stay on strike the better it is for the union, no? Kinda hard to get what you want when everyone is broke after a month and the company knows it.

And that strike lasted 4 months, so it's safe to say all the financial planning at that point was out the window.

Kind of like enticing a hockey player to sign a cheaper offer by sweetening it with a no trade clause that then leaves you unable to trade a lump of coal?

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...74273026_n.jpg

1. The term bully is WAY over-used and abused and really, REALLY doesn't apply here.
2. If the government is a "bully" then the BCTF are terrorists holding the schools and kids hostage. "MEET OUR DEMANDS OR THE SCHOOL YEAR DIES! CAPITALIST PIGS!"

There really needs to be differentiation between "the teachers" and the BCTF.

Before jumping on THIS government, keep in mind that this union has butted heads with EVERY government pretty much since its formation. Their tactic has never been to bargain "reasonably", but to ask for the stars and maybe, eventually, settle for the moon.

The BCTF really isn't doing their members any favors. Teachers are especially hurting because the fund for strike pay ran out weeks ago, because it's had no time to replenish since the last strike... but the union apparently didn't take that into account and just went full steam ahead playing chicken with the PSEA.

Stupid Tapatalk doesn't parse URLs, I guess. Or the mobile app, forget which one I was using... both of them intermittently don't work.

This, to me, is the great travesty here. The employer and the union hate each other and just want to have a slap-fight, and the kids AND TEACHERS are caught in the middle.

That's one of the things on the government proposal, though... BCTF doesn't want that.

Thing is, to go ALL OUT with what the TF wants for "class size and composition", adding all the staff and facilities necessary, would add a huge amount to the total cost of the deal - I think I've heard anywhere from $700M to over $1B mentioned.

Now add to that, some of over-the-top perks they're looking for: the signing bonuses, the benefits (the $3000 massage allowance gets mentioned a lot), all these things that would also add up to HUGE dollars.

Bill Good worded it well this morning: imagine how much money could go to class size and composition if all these other things were taken off the table? But you know, it's easy to spend SOMEONE ELSE'S money.

I had an idea that would put a quick end to this, but it's probably too simple for anyone to go for: total up the government's offer, total up the BCTF offer... find a median of the two numbers. Then give that to the BCTF in a lump sum. Then they can decide how much of it they want to hand out in signing bonuses, raises and benefits, and how much to allocate toward "important" things like class size and composition. We'd see really quickly what demands are really a priority to them, and which are just "greediness" or bargaining pawns.

You know in the spy movies and what not, where the evil genius has the tank of piranhas, and the good guy pushes the henchman into it during his escape? Remember what that scene looks like? Yeah... I picture something similar happening in the BCTF if they were actually given full control over a fixed amount.

Shit like this just backs up my biggest beef with most unions (especially public sector unions): that they've become power entities themselves, many of them more interested in wielding and maintaining that power than doing what's right for their members. After all, can't show yourselves to be soft or yielding at all come bargaining time, or they'll just take advantage of you next time, right?

And of course, the inability of members to waver from the party line is another issue, but a far more troubling one: in essence, those unions have become the very thing unions were created to combat.

As hilarious as it would be to watch a teacher try and teach math by getting her students to count rocks, I really think this is an unwise thing to do...

Actually, counting rocks (using manipulatives) is good for some of the slow kids. Just saiyan.

On a side note, I went casino hopping in the US this morning and on my way back, took the Guide Merridian/264th back. Went through Surrey (man, Clayton Heights is nice), and over the Port Mann. I honked in support whenever I saw teachers pounding the pavement. I kind of got lost at one point and came across this one elementary school, Berkshire, where all the teachers were like under a tent and chilling in lawn chairs. Couldn't see a single stike sign or placard. Most, if not all, of these teachers were very young. Granted this school was off the beaten track, but it made my blood boil witnessing this. Lazy asses................ the only school I've come across that was doing this. Anyway........... someone should report those bastards and light a fire under their butts. Maybe they all need massages and foot rubs, LOL.

I just had to.. :)

ok i'm done with the petty points.. on topic now..

to the guy that was a union rep - what would happen if union members decided to do against the union? be it IKEA workers going back to stocking shelves or teachers going back to the classroom to teach? what are the repercussions?

They get fined by the union. Since you cannot teach in the public school system without being in the union, getting kicked out would not be a good. Much like Christy Clark and her refusing to pay the fines at SFU, you'd be kicked out. I recall seeing somewhere that she didn't pass anything at UVic, either.

I guess you can always take up the bible or whatever and go teach at a private school. Yes, there are secular private schools out there, but not a whole lot.

Speaking of which, there are exceptions. Some teachers way, way back got exempt due to..................... you guessed it, on religious grounds. I think most are now dead, dying, or retired.

As for crossing any picket lines, whether you be CUPE, Teamsters, etc. you get fined by your union, so going into work to be fined more than you would be making would not add up, unless you did it on principle...... in which case hard core union members would break your legs or put a golf club through all the headlights, windshields, and windows in all your cars and probably do other shit, like mess with your family. Hey, union people are pretty weird, man. I've seen it first hand. Longshoremen, IOF, Fishermans Union, etc.....man, those were the days.

Breaks my heart reading this:

A Student's Questions For Christy Clark | Justine Taylor

I'm A First-Year Teacher And This Isn't What I Signed Up For | Ryan Harrington

PS: There's more at the bottom of these articles