Kneecaps

[Strangelove]

I'm wondering why BCTF doesn't make an agreement with CUPE for the support staff (TAs, bus-drivers, etc)

... to cross the lines so that they can twiddle their thumbs with the right to be paid by the School Board.

It would save CUPE $70/day/per and cost the Management Side in this dispute some pretty big bucks.

Okay, now I'm wondering if some backroom deal was cut between Management/Government and CUPE.

Yeah, I'm wondering if Management/Government is somehow kicking in a large chunk of that $70 per day.

Apparently, and this is a combination of rumour, potentially half-truths and stuff heard from this guy who heard from this guy....anyway, it seems CUPE has settled their contract back in June. It was an attempt by the government to undercut the TF. Part of the deal was that CUPE got paid through the duration of strike. Word from the line, no one knows if they are getting paid during the actual strike, or will get a lump sum afterwards, but word is they're getting paid at some point; I would imagine some locals are different than others. In the district I am in, during a public board meeting, one of the local trustees said that agreeing to that deal was one of the worst decisions they could have potentially made because of all the money they will be paying out while staff are sitting at home or the beach.

Thanks for the inside information Isle.

NOW it makes sense!

I figured Management must be paying at least half of that $70 per day.

So Management is paying ALL of that $70 per day??

I can totally see it.

If there was any not-so-common sense among the media hacks out there I wouldn't have to dig for this info.

That's a lot of money-for-nothing right there.

I can remember a time when the media would have been all over a story like this from the get-go.

So $40-per-day for some parents + $70-per-day for some support staff + (Principal$, secretarie$, utilitie$) = ??

Yeah, I'm wondering how much it's costing the taxpayers (in a futile attempt) to starve the teachers out.

I'm wondering how much weight Christy's political future carries in decisions being made.

Binding Arbitration (minus E80) seems like the best way to go, but I can't see Christy & Co agreeing to that.

Christy & Co care more about future courtroom damage to the Libs politically than anything else IMESHO.

[Topper]

The demand for binding arbitration - E80, proves the union's unwillingness to sit at the bargaining table and bargain in good faith, hence Fassbender's comments today that legislation has become an option.

Iker has to be told to be careful what he asks for.

[Strangelove]

The demand for binding arbitration - E80, proves the union's unwillingness to sit at the bargaining table and bargain in good faith, hence Fassbender's comments today that legislation has become an option.

Imposing a contract as I said one week ago] has likely been the game plan all along (early October).

In no way is the union obligated (morally or otherwise) to negotiate the government's E80 (class size).

As a matter of fact, regarding class size, it's the government who is guilty of "failure to bargain in good faith"

(according to 2 judges thus far, and of course pending appeal).

IF the teachers continue to refuse to negotiate E80 it's a given that...

- the government will lose its appeal to the Supreme Court of BC this Fall.

- the government will appeal to Supreme Court of Canada.

- the government will eventually lose its appeal to Supreme Court of Canada.

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 the teachers are like: "You can pay us now or you can pay us later."

And yeah, I think the government likely wants to postpone the inevitable for as long as possible.

Can they postpone the SCC's decision beyond the next provincial election?

Maybe if Christy hadn't pissed off the teachers so much with her heavy-handed-ness E80 would be a real option.

That would have been the best thing for the Libs, the best thing for Christy, but oh well...

[isle_nuck]

b) caving to parents who have fucked up in the raising of their children and now "something must be wrong with Billy" their doctor to death and he gives them what they want so they stop wasting his time.

Ding, Ding, Ding

One of the many horrible things about this is that the kids and families who truly need the funding/assistance for a proper diagnosis end up further down the line to get the help and when they do get the help, there's less there for them.

It is also some one on one time with the kid where we don't just read, we talk to one another, I find out how he is doing, he knows I care.

The other very simple act we do is sit at the table and eat dinner as a family.

Oh yea! There's that too! Can you tell I don't have kids yet?

The demand for binding arbitration - E80, proves the union's unwillingness to sit at the bargaining table and bargain in good faith, hence Fassbender's comments today that legislation has become an option.

Imposing a contract as I said one week ago] has likely been the game plan all along (early October).

Personally, I'm surprised they are even considering legislating us back. With pretty much every sign pointing to the government trying to break the union, the best way to do that is to have us all broke and begging to be let back to work. If they legislate us back, we're not broke, we're even more pissed off and we still don't have any resembling a contract that's negotiated....which means we all get to ride this demented roller coaster from hell again in short order.

Maybe if Christy hadn't pissed off the teachers so much with her heavy-handed-ness E80 would be a real option.

I don't know. From talking to other teachers (mainly the older ones) and from the feeling in the union meetings, anything that would potentially wipe out the court decisions would be a deal breaker, even if the negotiations had gone smoothly. A lot of the older bloc seem pissed that we didn't fight harder 12 years ago when they first went after the class size and composition language and now see us close to the finish line of hopefully cleaning up a mess that should be been dealt with at the time.

[Topper]

(according to 2 judges thus far, and of course pending appeal).

Only one judge, Susan Griffin, and she's ruled on the matter twice, oddly without over ruling herself.

[Strangelove]

Imposing a contract as I said one week ago] has likely been the game plan all along (early October).

Personally, I'm surprised they are even considering legislating us back. With pretty much every sign pointing to the government trying to break the union, the best way to do that is to have us all broke and begging to be let back to work. If they legislate us back, we're not broke, we're even more pissed off and we still don't have any resembling a contract that's negotiated....which means we all get to ride this demented roller coaster from hell again in short order.

Haven't you heard?

An Essential Services Order is already in place.

Christy fought hard for that once upon a time.

Yeah so, she probably wants to keep the evidence of her two-faced-ness to a minimum bro.

Although... she doesn't seem to mind providing evidence of being a lying beaaatch.

Yeahno, it would do too much damage to the Libs politically to allow this to go on much longer.

And as Harvey Oberfeld pointed out 3 days ago, Christy doesn't want to give up her fabulous trip to India:

http://harveyoberfeld.ca/blog/teachers- ... ack-oct-6/

Apparently there is no better place to get one's nails done and it's all expenses paid!!

[Strangelove]

(according to 2 judges thus far, and of course pending appeal).

Only one judge, Susan Griffin, and she's ruled on the matter twice, oddly without over ruling herself.

Yeahno, I was trying to say Susan Griffin has the wisdom of two judges!

(may be a tad Pauserish but at least I didn't Pratt it)

(and it wasn't baldfaced like Crooked Christy)

[Topper]

(according to 2 judges thus far, and of course pending appeal).

Only one judge, Susan Griffin, and she's ruled on the matter twice, oddly without over ruling herself.

Yeahno, I was trying to say Susan Griffin has the wisdom of two judges!

(may be a tad Pauserish but at least I didn't Pratt it)

(and it wasn't baldfaced like Crooked Christy)

It is something that is ignored in the media. Both rulings came from the same judge. The BCTF definitely likes to play up the two court case ruling so that is what we hear........over and over again.

While the BCTF argues it is a collective bargaining issue, the government argues it is an education policy issue. If you look at how Griffin's ruling is implemented across the province it removes any flexibility local school boards have in reacting to changing school populations.

I touched on this in a much earlier post.

I our school district I know of two communities served by 1 room elementary schools. there has been much talk of closing them and busing the kids to larger centre but each time compassion wins over economics and the school is kept open. The main argument is you would be putting K-7 kids on the bus for 3 hrs a day. I don't have any qualms with that.

Now if those 1 room schools need special needs teachers due to class composition rules, the additional cost of staffing would tip the balance, those schools would close. Parent loose, students loose and the BCTF, through their own doing, looses a couple of job positions.

Now if the district has some flexibility, they can offer extra incentives to the teacher for the additional load, keep the school operational and parents and students happy.

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.

[Strangelove]

You make some great points Topper, but Christy created this mess (and now she's backed the BCTF into a corner).

Judge Griffin was very damning in her judgement:

http://northerninsights.blogspot.ca/201 ... beral.html

Now no way would I ever want the NDP back in there, but DAMN do I hate Christy!

[Topper]

You make some great points Topper, but Christy created this mess (and now she's backed the BCTF into a corner).

Judge Griffin was very damning in her judgement:

http://northerninsights.blogspot.ca/201 ... beral.html

Now no way would I ever want the NDP back in there, but DAMN do I hate Christy!

A rather red link, unfortunate it isn't in Spanish.

As I said, one judges opinion is that it is a work place issue.

Look for small school closures/consolidation and an increase in School Districts switching to a four day week to shave costs. With the only benefit being a shrinking of the ranks of the BCTF

On an aside, I much prefer the MILF over the Hawaiian G&T.

[Strangelove]

A rather red link

My first one.

Sorry, in a hurry....

On an aside, I much prefer the MILF over the Hawaiian G&T.

To be honest I despise both of them equally.

But then I don't suffer politicians gladly to begin with...

[ukcanuck]

First up, thank you for a genuine response. I will endeavour to return the favour.

For a start UK

I believe that taxes are due on profits.

The point was already made that mining is speculative.

They know the total worth of the ore in that mine and they can calculate world prices

How so, as you say, mining is speculative, as as you also note in the quote below, prices fluctuate. I would also add that labour, energy and taxation costs also fluctuate. You only need to look at mines that were profitable several years ago at $500/oz Au but are uneconomic now at $1200/oz Au.

Obviously, the price one gets on market day fluctuates but the inherent value remains. So whether you sell it today, tomorrow, next week or next year it's never actually a loss.
Unless of course you count a profit you didn't make today as a loss...

If the price fluctuates, how does the inherent value remain? Would it not fluctuate also? What happens when that value drops below mining, exploration and permitting costs.

Okay so when you say fluctuates.. And honestly I don't know the answer to this but do you mean the price of gold actually drops significantly?

Because I remember in 1979 during the Iran revolution the price of gold shot up from 35 dollars an ounce and people were selling their jewelry in a mad scramble.

I also remember that one of the reasons bandied about as to why the price of gold spiked so precipitously was that the US government (read interest groups here, nudge nudge ) was buying up gold in order to drive up the price to destabilize OPEC which beggars a question about a free markets but that's another story...

Anyway, from 35 dollars an ounce in 1979, to 1200 dollars in 2014...
That's a pretty healthy increase not a necessarily a fluctuation.

Of course the costs have changed and that's your point ...

Oh that's right, it cost money to explore and permit a mine. Do not forget the success rate of an exploration project becoming a mine? Upwards of $1- $2 billion for a porphyry copper mine these days. No revenue is received from that project during exploration and permitting. Remember you did say it is a speculative business.[/quote ]

Fair point, but can not all of the above be explained by inflation and the decrease in the spending power of the dollar?

The price of everything ( except wages, hello BCTF ) has easily doubled and tripled

What was a great wage at 50,000 a year is uneconomic know

And isn't the speculative nature of any business exactly the responsibility of the investor?
You play you pay?

I believe that when a company secures the mineral rights whether by lease or title or claim they have obtained an inherent value that is a tradable commodity.

and therefore have the right to claim exploration costs against that value. If it is an active mine then they can also claim their operational costs against their profits.

You have lost the track of you speculative belief here. The company or individual prospector is assuming all the risk, not the public.

I don't think I have lost the plot.
Of course all costs must be weighed against profits but I think that the potential, in a mine exactly because every ounce in the ground belongs to all of us and the public needs to see a return as well.

In this case manifestly as taxes or royalties if you prefer, but presently there is an unaccounted for profit by the very fact the deposit exists



Yeah I'm hearing you scream in disgust at this point...

Except we aren't talking about the tax a mining company should pay for what it physically produces. We are talking about why should a mine get to defer tax on the profit they make off of what amounts to the people's savings account.

How are they deferring profit on something that has yet to be extracted at unknown costs and an unknown sale price? You have acknowledged the speculative nature of the business and have acknowledged prices fluctuate, also you have acknowledged that taxes should be paid on profits.

I'm finding it hard to believe that tech would devote such resources as you describe with the heavy lift helicopter
Without knowing what's in the ground and without hard science to back up their estimates.

That's a sellable commodity in of itself and tech must surely being drawing investment and shareholder profits must improve without taking an ounce out of the ground.

And that's what I'm talking about.

You said yourself that mines take options on each other so there is a buying and selling of risk

Much like big banks selling debt to each other that caused the last global collapse.

Should governments be required to refund tax revenues on forward paid taxes of the in situ value when operational costs increase or commodity prices decrease?

I don't know, maybe that would be reasonable, people get tax rebates

As for the teachers, since their binding arbitration vote was an overwhelming success, I hear they will vote next week on holding negotiations on Mars, but only conditional on the government dropping E.

Haha that's a good one

I'm pretty much spitballing about this mine thing. It's clear something has changed in this province
Another great premier WAC Bennett wouldn't accept that we aren't wealthy enough to build a bridge without tolls

Pretty soon you won't be able to cross the fraser without paying one

We can't limit class sizes and provide resources for all of our kids

We can't raise taxes on the middle class, blobber will explode

We can't touch multinationals so it's got to be business here that can't leave.

The idea that big business gets a free ride because they provide jobs and wealth isn't working out too well


On my way back here I stopped in at Canadian tire to pick up a couple of hockey sticks I could find none made in Canada and they averaged over a hundred dollars each

They are all graphite and Kevlar now so somewhere in Malaysia is a high tech hockey stick factory making sticks that we should be making

When I got home I looked closer at the labels of all my gear... Nothing made in Canada

[ukcanuck]

(according to 2 judges thus far, and of course pending appeal).

Only one judge, Susan Griffin, and she's ruled on the matter twice, oddly without over ruling herself.

Yeahno, I was trying to say Susan Griffin has the wisdom of two judges!

(may be a tad Pauserish but at least I didn't Pratt it)

(and it wasn't baldfaced like Crooked Christy)

It is something that is ignored in the media. Both rulings came from the same judge. The BCTF definitely likes to play up the two court case ruling so that is what we hear........over and over again.

While the BCTF argues it is a collective bargaining issue, the government argues it is an education policy issue. If you look at how Griffin's ruling is implemented across the province it removes any flexibility local school boards have in reacting to changing school populations.

I touched on this in a much earlier post.

I our school district I know of two communities served by 1 room elementary schools. there has been much talk of closing them and busing the kids to larger centre but each time compassion wins over economics and the school is kept open. The main argument is you would be putting K-7 kids on the bus for 3 hrs a day. I don't have any qualms with that.

Now if those 1 room schools need special needs teachers due to class composition rules, the additional cost of staffing would tip the balance, those schools would close. Parent loose, students loose and the BCTF, through their own doing, looses a couple of job positions.

Now if the district has some flexibility, they can offer extra incentives to the teacher for the additional load, keep the school operational and parents and students happy.

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.

Your missing the argument that teachers know better how to compose class sizes and composition that a bean counter in Victoria

Teachers what to be consulted and each district has a local BCTF so it wouldn't be difficult to be flexible at all.
You should have qualms with kids on a bus three hours a day, lack of sleep affects their test results. To be at school for 8 they will have be up at 5:30 and won't get home till 5 pm in many parts of the province kids would never see daylight except through a classroom window.

[Meds]

Your arguments are old school bait and switch.
Derisive personal comments linked to Cold War propaganda.

Communism does not describe the political ground upon which unionist and social minded people stand.

Dave Barrett is no more a communist than Jimmy Pattison is a nazi.

Yet this is the first page in the right handed play book, divert attention to the irrelevant and hope everyone missed the obvious.

(Sadly it seems to work on Mëds)

It's not so much a tactic that works on me.....it's that I don't subscribe to a LW view and a totally socialistic or communist system (not say your a commie).

I just subscribe to a pragmatic view, you know, do what works. Running a country or province into the ground by instituting laws, taxes, etc., that will drive away the big businesses that offer employment and higher incomes is just retarded. It's even more retarded to then talk about increasing spending and forgetting about any kind of budget so long as everyone gets what they want.....and then the money runs out and we are fucked.

Obviously the value of some things is intangible, but it's still what we have to work with, and for some reason the left wing side of the equation lives in a fantasy world where the rules that apply just don't apply.

Ironically, in this particular thread and the conversation regarding the teachers, I'm on the side of the teachers for the most part. They deserve a fair wage, and, more than that, they deserve to have the government honor what the courts awarded them.

[ukcanuck]

Your arguments are old school bait and switch.
Derisive personal comments linked to Cold War propaganda.

Communism does not describe the political ground upon which unionist and social minded people stand.

Dave Barrett is no more a communist than Jimmy Pattison is a nazi.

Yet this is the first page in the right handed play book, divert attention to the irrelevant and hope everyone missed the obvious.

(Sadly it seems to work on Mëds)

It's not so much a tactic that works on me.....it's that I don't subscribe to a LW view and a totally socialistic or communist system (not say your a commie).

I just subscribe to a pragmatic view, you know, do what works. Running a country or province into the ground by instituting laws, taxes, etc., that will drive away the big businesses that offer employment and higher incomes is just retarded. It's even more retarded to then talk about increasing spending and forgetting about any kind of budget so long as everyone gets what they want.....and then the money runs out and we are fucked.

Obviously the value of some things is intangible, but it's still what we have to work with, and for some reason the left wing side of the equation lives in a fantasy world where the rules that apply just don't apply.

Ironically, in this particular thread and the conversation regarding the teachers, I'm on the side of the teachers for the most part. They deserve a fair wage, and, more than that, they deserve to have the government honor what the courts awarded them.

Consider the Scandinavian countries, Europe and the UK all more lefty than BC and all doing well enough, the Mediterranean countries not so much. But freaking Norway has an absolute free post secondary system. Imagine no student loan debts...
Switzerland is looking at bringing in a minimum guaranteed income for everyone.
The UK is in the same swing canada is with Harpo but they still tax the shit out of everybody in a lefty way.

The idea that big business can't be taxed lest they take their money elsewhere has to reexamined because it's not the only way all other jurisdictions handle things.


However going back to the education budget the Libs have cut taxes and lowered the budget in education for years.
They had money for the Olympics and they had it for the roof on bc place

They seem to be able to find money for projects that are important to them

But they don't send their kids to public schools do they ?