An ’empty offer,’ ‘false hope’
NEWS/ SCHOOLS — Education Minister Peter Fassbender has rejected a BCTF offer to end the strike by B.C. teachers in return for putting the dispute to binding arbitration.
Fassbender issued a statement Saturday calling the BCTF proposal an “empty offer.” Here’s what Fassbender said:
“This afternoon, Peter Cameron, lead negotiator for the British Columbia Public School Employers Association, advised me to reject yesterday’s call from the BCTF to enter binding arbitration. I agreed.
“After due diligence and further investigation, it became very clear that it was another empty effort to give parents and teachers a false hope that there is a simple way to resolve the dispute.
“At a meeting yesterday, the BCTF made it clear that they would insist on several preconditions — preconditions that would effectively tilt the entire process in the BCTF favour. Despite several efforts by Mr. Cameron, and more than a day later, BCPSEA still doesn’t have a written proposal from the BCTF.
“This labour dispute is a serious matter that is disrupting the education of 558,000 students across B.C. Thousands of teachers and their families are suffering real financial hardship with no end insight.
“They deserve better than what they saw yesterday. Mr. Iker and the BCTF leadership have a duty to their members to negotiate anagreement — and that requires them to make hard decisions.
“Instead, the BCTF leadership is trying to avoid having the tough conversation with their members about what is realistic andachievable at the bargaining table.
“They need to get in the affordability zone on wages and benefits so we can get to work on negotiating class size and composition — which both sides agree is the most important issue.
“We are ready to provide teachers with a fair wage increase and we want to negotiate class size and composition.
“This dispute needs to be settled at the bargaining table and Iinvite them again to lift their pickets while the parties worktowards mediating an end to this dispute.”
ArmchairMayor.ca 
The rhetoric never ends with this government of false hopes and empty promises. It seems that the actual running of the province is beyond the capacity of Christy, Peter, Bill and the rest of the gang. I think they should all do us a favour…
LikeLike
Trying to take away the legal rights of teachers by insisting on language that would negate the teachers court wins is not right. It is unethical. Our government is trying to undermine the teachers on our behalf. I call BS. Stop promising tax cuts you can’t afford, and respect the legal rights of the citizens of BC.
LikeLike
Actually, binding arbitration isn’t exactly an “empty offer” since it would at least allow a third party to determine a fair wage and benefits settlement, something which the govt deemed to be a big stumbling block. It would also allow schools to re-open. As I understand it, the LIF (Learning Improvement Fund) would not be part of the arbitration, nor would class size of composition.
The toughest nut to crack in this dispute is finding a middle ground regarding the court’s decision. The courts ruled that legislation (Bill 22) that voided and prohibited terms involving class size and composition in the collective bargaining agreement was unconstitutional. It concluded that the terms of the 1999-2001 bargaining agreement should be made effective retroactively. But it did not specify how compensation should be made for grievances etc, other than to say that ” it will be in the interests of the BCTF and BCPSEA to negotiate and overall resolution to claims through bargaining”. Both sides are looking ahead to BC court of appeal case in the fall, but basically the BCTF has the stronger hand. In Clause 4 of Proposal E81 of their “Framework for settlement” the BCPSEA offer to amend the collective bargaining agreement in the event that the courts order that class size and composition provisions from the 1999-2001 agreement be restored. However, in the next clause (Clause 5), they say that if either party is dissatisfied with the outcome of Clause 4, then they can terminate the collective bargaining agreement.
So it seems that the govt is trying to use a future collective agreement as insurance against an unfavorable outcome in the courts. While the govt says that it is willing to include provisions about class size and composition in the collective agreement, they also want to be able to tear up the agreement in the event that they don’t like the ruling of the courts. For this reason, one can understand why the union does really want to take this deal.
The problem for the govt is the potentially huge financial fallout resulting from compensation to the BCTF(stretching from the years 2002-2014) if they lose their case in court. They knew back in 2007 after the courts ruled against them in the Health Services case, that Bill 22 could be challenged. But they did nothing to rectify the problem. So now their facing this mess. How do they get out of it? Well, one idea might be to hope that the strike will inflame public opinion against the union and ultimately force them to sign an agreement that protects the govt against the financial burden of a future court decision. It’s a “hail Mary” pass but they’ve got nothing to lose by trying.
LikeLike
Won’t it be rather difficult for grade 12 students to be accepted into Universities and Colleges if this strike continues in the public school sector. Maybe someone would like to discuss that little point.
LikeLike
I know people who are sending their children in Grade 12 to private high schools in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island to ensure they can apply for scholarships and follow through on the post secondary plans they have been pursuing for the past two or three years. At a cost of roughly $40,000/yr to cover living and school expenses this is an option many cannot afford.
LikeLike
Mel, your reporting on this is really beginning to look very one-sided …. where are the other perspectives on these developments eg. teachers, parents, amongst other taxpayers, and those who care about democracy?
LikeLike
It’s the KDN all over again? What a surprise!
LikeLike
This is online and free….not a newspaper. No one is forcing you to read it. What he gave us was a statement from Peter Fassbender…..how does that equate to being one sided by the writer??
LikeLike
The only empty promises are coming from the Liberal government. Only public pressure will make them want to move toward a solution through arbitration. Their own preconditions make “negotiations” meaningless.
LikeLike