[编者按：工会周五提出的通过仲裁结束罢工的提案被BC教师联合会拒绝，目前看，BC省近50万学生的复课之事仍遥遥无期。为学生和家长焦虑，继续关注事态发展。下面是教师联合会发言人Peter Cameron写给教育部长的信。有报道说，周日（9月7日），BC家长同盟在美术馆北门外集会示威，强烈要求立即复课。]
From BCPSEA:
September 6, 2014
Honourable Peter Fassbender
Minister of Education
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Dear Minister:
I am writing to advise you of the result of my investigation of the BC Teachers’
Federation (BCTF) proposal for "binding arbitration" (announced at its media
conference on September 5), and also of the conclusion reached by BCPSEA with
respect to the proposal.
By way of immediate background:
binding arbitration — five minutes or so before his public announcement. As a result,
of course, there was no opportunity to consider the proposal or to explore whether
there was any way such a proposal could be acceptable.
the proposal. I heard nothing back. After an hour, I called Vince Ready and asked
him to convene a meeting with Jim and me to discuss Jim's proposal. Vince set up a
meeting for mid-afternoon, and I e-mailed Jim again asking him to provide me with a
written version of the proposal. Again, no response.
and myself. Jim replied that the union hadn't prepared it yet in written form.
BCPSEA is aware of the legal requirement under the Public Sector Employers Act that
employers' associations comply with the strategic direction of the Public Sector
Employers’ Council (PSEC), and we are also aware that PSEC policy directs us not to
agree to giving a third party the authority to bind employers to a settlement proposal that
could be outside the PSEC wage and benefit mandate. We know that this policy is
based on past experience — including the last arbitrated settlement in the provincial
public sector, where an arbitrator directed that government fund an increase that
ignored any fiscal constraints and required a significant increase in taxes.
In my investigation directly with Jim Iker, he made it clear that he wasn't interested in
the consideration of any fiscal parameters. In addition, the proposal contains a number
of direct and implicit pre-conditions that are unacceptable. The following are two of the
problem areas:
composition before even beginning the process. This is contrary to the very court
decision the union claims it is upholding. Paragraph 679 of the second decision of
Justice Griffin notes that the old collective agreement language is not "clad in stone,
as it can and likely will need to be the subject of ongoing collective bargaining."
(accepted in fact, if not theory, by all the other public sector unions). It sets "wages
and benefits" as one issue, and "preparation time" as another. The BCTF and
BCPSEA do not agree on the cost of the BCTF preparation time proposal, although
it is very expensive by either calculation — $86 million for elementary teachers
alone, by the employers' calculation.
As a result of the above investigation, I have concluded that the BCTF proposal was
never intended to be a serious proposal, and was merely a vehicle for a press
conference to give false hope to BCTF members and the public. Particularly telling was
the fact that the BCTF did not prepare anything in writing.
The proposal, therefore, should be rejected for all the above reasons. I have discussed
my conclusions with the bargaining committee, with trustees on conference calls today,
and with Michael Marchbank, BCPSEA Public Administrator. As a result of those calls, I
intend to convey my conclusion to Jim Iker and Vince Ready today.
Yours truly,
Peter Cameron
Chief Spokesperson
c: Honourable Mike deJong, Minister of Finance
Jim Iker, President, BCTF
Vince Ready, Mediator
Michael Marchbank, Public Adm
September 6, 2014
Honourable Peter Fassbender
Minister of Education
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Dear Minister:
I am writing to advise you of the result of my investigation of the BC Teachers’
Federation (BCTF) proposal for "binding arbitration" (announced at its media
conference on September 5), and also of the conclusion reached by BCPSEA with
respect to the proposal.
By way of immediate background:
- Yesterday, BCTF President Jim Iker phoned me to say he would be proposing
binding arbitration — five minutes or so before his public announcement. As a result,
of course, there was no opportunity to consider the proposal or to explore whether
there was any way such a proposal could be acceptable.
- Shortly after his press announcement, I e-mailed Jim to request a written version of
the proposal. I heard nothing back. After an hour, I called Vince Ready and asked
him to convene a meeting with Jim and me to discuss Jim's proposal. Vince set up a
meeting for mid-afternoon, and I e-mailed Jim again asking him to provide me with a
written version of the proposal. Again, no response.
- At the meeting, I asked Jim whether he had brought a copy of the proposal for Vince
and myself. Jim replied that the union hadn't prepared it yet in written form.
- It is now afternoon of the next day, and I still haven't received the proposal in writing.
BCPSEA is aware of the legal requirement under the Public Sector Employers Act that
employers' associations comply with the strategic direction of the Public Sector
Employers’ Council (PSEC), and we are also aware that PSEC policy directs us not to
agree to giving a third party the authority to bind employers to a settlement proposal that
could be outside the PSEC wage and benefit mandate. We know that this policy is
based on past experience — including the last arbitrated settlement in the provincial
public sector, where an arbitrator directed that government fund an increase that
ignored any fiscal constraints and required a significant increase in taxes.
In my investigation directly with Jim Iker, he made it clear that he wasn't interested in
the consideration of any fiscal parameters. In addition, the proposal contains a number
of direct and implicit pre-conditions that are unacceptable. The following are two of the
problem areas:
- The union requires the employers to drop our proposal on class size and
composition before even beginning the process. This is contrary to the very court
decision the union claims it is upholding. Paragraph 679 of the second decision of
Justice Griffin notes that the old collective agreement language is not "clad in stone,
as it can and likely will need to be the subject of ongoing collective bargaining."
- The union frames its proposal in a way that rejects the idea of total compensation
(accepted in fact, if not theory, by all the other public sector unions). It sets "wages
and benefits" as one issue, and "preparation time" as another. The BCTF and
BCPSEA do not agree on the cost of the BCTF preparation time proposal, although
it is very expensive by either calculation — $86 million for elementary teachers
alone, by the employers' calculation.
As a result of the above investigation, I have concluded that the BCTF proposal was
never intended to be a serious proposal, and was merely a vehicle for a press
conference to give false hope to BCTF members and the public. Particularly telling was
the fact that the BCTF did not prepare anything in writing.
The proposal, therefore, should be rejected for all the above reasons. I have discussed
my conclusions with the bargaining committee, with trustees on conference calls today,
and with Michael Marchbank, BCPSEA Public Administrator. As a result of those calls, I
intend to convey my conclusion to Jim Iker and Vince Ready today.
Yours truly,
Peter Cameron
Chief Spokesperson
c: Honourable Mike deJong, Minister of Finance
Jim Iker, President, BCTF
Vince Ready, Mediator
Michael Marchbank, Public Adm
No comments:
Post a Comment