Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.
Topper wrote:The demand for hard and fast class size/composition rules will bite and it will lead to a centralization of education services in larger centres at the loss of the smaller rural schools.
I shouldn't bite, but a couple loose thoughts (of which I'm sure you're well aware of, but I'll point out anyway...):
Are you thinking school closures are a new thing with the new contract directly tied to class size/composition rules? The district I am currently in has been closing schools for at least a decade. As I'm sure you know, many teachers/superintendents/school boards would point at the decreasing budget.
Do you think that closures are only going to happen in rural areas? My old elementary school, literally feet from the hospital has long been closed and the high school I went to, which is blocks away from the other side of the same hospital has been on a potential chopping block for years. There have been other closures in that district, but those are two of the most centrally located schools in the city.
I don't know if this went in to the contract, but there was talk of making the class size/composition rules a little more relaxed in rural areas so that your previous mentioned cattle can stay where they belong.
So much for the lone sympathetic judge and her two union friendly rulings.
Government wins the latest court round in a 4-1 decision.
Oh yeah baby!
The majority decision written by Chief Justice Robert Bauman and Justice Robert Harris finds the government acted in good faith when it consulted with teachers leading up to the introduction of Bill 22 — which took away the B.C. Teachers Federation's ability to bargain limits on class size, teacher librarian numbers, special needs student ratios, and other elements.
"Between the consultations and the collective bargaining leading up to the legislation, teachers were afforded a meaningful process in which to advance their collective aspirations," the judgement said. "Their freedom of association was respected."
The B.C. government also won its appeal of a decision to release information it says is subject to cabinet confidentiality.
The information in question was read out in open court during the B.C. Supreme Court case.
There is some doubt that a lopsided decision would be overturned, let alone even heard by the Supreme Court
It's unclear whether Canada's high court would hear the case, as it agreed to hear only eight of 80 applications from the B.C. Court of Appeal level last year.
The case was unusual, as it had five justices hearing the appeal, instead of the traditional three. Only three cases out of 453 at the B.C. Court of Appeal were heard by five judges last year.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
Strangelove [color=#FF0000]Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:03 pm[/color] wrote:
Of course it's possible the teachers might eventually choose to negotiate E80 in return for other concessions.
But I think it's more likely they refuse and a contract is imposed by the government a few weeks from now
... and the teachers eventually win in the Supreme Court of Canada (2 years from now? 3?).
So when the teachers eventually win this in an appeal to the SCC... was I right or wrong.
Read the judgement, Burning Beard linked to it. Quite damning of Judge Griffin and her failure to interpret recent SCOC precedent and then backed by even more recent SCOC precedent.
It also highlights the BCTF and Judge Griffin's cherry picking of Straszak's testimony whereas in the whole, his testimony supports governments good faith bargaining.
Some very interesting comments defining the equality of strike action as less work for less pay therefore the government had every right to with hold wages or benefits during a work slowdown and also likening a calculated government action that may lead to a escalation of a work slowdown to a full strike to a unions ability to choose where and when to strike too maximize or minimize impact.
It also separates the government from being the teachers employer. School districts are and the bargaining unit is the BCPSEA who receives guidelines from government based upon government policy.
It will be interesting to see if the SCOC even hears the case.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
Topper wrote:Read the judgement, Burning Beard linked to it. Quite damning of Judge Griffin and her failure to interpret recent SCOC precedent and then backed by even more recent SCOC precedent.
It also highlights the BCTF and Judge Griffin's cherry picking of Straszak's testimony whereas in the whole, his testimony supports governments good faith bargaining.
Some very interesting comments defining the equality of strike action as less work for less pay therefore the government had every right to with hold wages or benefits during a work slowdown and also likening a calculated government action that may lead to a escalation of a work slowdown to a full strike to a unions ability to choose where and when to strike too maximize or minimize impact.
It also separates the government from being the teachers employer. School districts are and the bargaining unit is the BCPSEA who receives guidelines from government based upon government policy.
It will be interesting to see if the SCOC even hears the case.
Nice semantics by these lackey judges.
I'm sure you will gloat with glee IF the SCOC also in the pockets of right wing elitists won't hear the appeal.
Either way your hatred of teachers smells all the way over here and I'm sitting less than a mile from the largest landfill I've ever seen.
ukcanuck wrote:Nice semantics by these lackey judges.
LOL
Yes, the five judge panel picked by the Chief Justice are corrupt and only Judge Griffin is truly unbiased. LOL
The question before the Panel was constitutional. Did the Government violate the BCTF's right of Freedom of Association with Bill 22?
The decision is an overwhelming no, the government did not.
The Panel found.
1)The Panel agreed with Judge Griffin that class size and composition are workplace conditions but found that they also "directly engage education policy" and that education policy is the privileged of the elected Provincial Government.
2) the Government held discussions with the BCTF prior to passing Bill 22 while parallel negotiations were taking place for a new teachers contract. The Government had asked for the discussion to be part of the negotiation but the BCTF had refused, hence the parallel discussions.
3)Straszak's testimony and notes showed that the Government was not only open to changing the proposed legislation but also did make some changes based upon BCTF input.
4) The Panel found that these discussion fulfilled the Government's duty to consult and used SCOC precedent to note that the consultation process was not limited to the contract negotiation process.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
ukcanuck wrote:Nice semantics by these lackey judges.
LOL
Yes, the five judge panel picked by the Chief Justice are corrupt and only Judge Griffin is truly unbiased. LOL
The question before the Panel was constitutional. Did the Government violate the BCTF's right of Freedom of Association with Bill 22?
The decision is an overwhelming no, the government did not.
The Panel found.
1)The Panel agreed with Judge Griffin that class size and composition are workplace conditions but found that they also "directly engage education policy" and that education policy is the privileged of the elected Provincial Government.
2) the Government held discussions with the BCTF prior to passing Bill 22 while parallel negotiations were taking place for a new teachers contract. The Government had asked for the discussion to be part of the negotiation but the BCTF had refused, hence the parallel discussions.
3)Straszak's testimony and notes showed that the Government was not only open to changing the proposed legislation but also did make some changes based upon BCTF input.
4) The Panel found that these discussion fulfilled the Government's duty to consult and used SCOC precedent to note that the consultation process was not limited to the contract negotiation process.
Perhaps corrupt is too strong a word but they clearly showed their bias
I don't want to get in a war of words with you, I know you're too set on your position for me to change your mind but I think it's only logical that teachers through experience are better equipped to know what class size and composition should be
Imposing a contract is by definition not bargaining
the hippie is done, his 3rd one year term ends in June, by acclimation or appointment as the commie teachers don't believe in democracy, is Vancouver teacher Glen Hansman.
Union members do not elect their President. Only delegates are allowed to vote. Hence a faction that controls the executive, known as the Coalition controls the voting process.
Union members complained about this when Susan Lambert was elected. Lambert was Iker's predecessor, and the last Coalition nomination to face electoral opposition. Iker's name was put forward by the Coalition and he ran unopposed just as Glen Hansman is doing this year.
Watch the schools with lower populations close to cut costs. Four day school week. Teachers here love it, long weekend every weekend.....what do working parents do with their kids on that day?
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
