 |
| Vancouver Canucks goalie Roberto Luongo - Allie from Vancity photo |
Bill Tieleman's 24 Hours Vancouver/The Tyee column
Tuesday July 2, 2013
By Bill Tieleman
"My contract sucks. I'd scrap it if I could right now."
What do British Columbia teachers and Roberto Luongo have in
common?
They all think that decade-long contracts suck.
Luongo -- who is back to being the Canucks number one goalie
after the shocking trade
of Cory Schneider to the New Jersey Devils on Sunday -- has over
nine years left on his massive $64-million, 12-year deal.
Luongo said it "sucks" earlier this year because
he was ready to move on to another NHL team -- but the duration and cost of his
existing contract scared away all other owners. It's an object lesson in the perils of long -- or Luongo -- term contracts that hasn't been lost on B.C. teachers.
If even a contract that will pay Luongo a massive $40.57 million 'til it ends is such a problem, why would teachers sign a 10-year term?
That's why they voted last week
by 96 per cent to reject the BC Liberal government plan for a
10-year collective agreement.
Taking the long view
Watching the Luongo drama, it's not hard to see why teachers
gave a thumbs-down to the BC Liberal idea -- which was part of its successful
election campaign platform but hardly a key plank.
What's more difficult to see is exactly why Premier Christy
Clark wants a deal that long when so many factors from B.C.'s economy to government
revenue to enrollment can change dramatically.
After all, if B.C. suffers a financial downturn during the
10 years, the only alternative to breaking a binding contract would be to
layoff large numbers of teachers and staff while gutting the education system.
That kind of move would anger parents, students, teachers
and staff alike.
But Clark has pulled the rug out from under apparently
productive talks that had been taking place for some time to impose the 10-year
mandate.
And she has yanked the B.C. Public School Employers'
Association, which was negotiating with the BCTF, replacing their team with
Peter Cameron, a former militant union
activist before he switched sides years ago
to bargain for BC Liberal government employers.
Ice the deal
One has to wonder whether replacing fruitful negotiations
with the 10-year mandate is merely to ensure the BC Liberals can say they tried
to meet their election pledge and blame teachers for not succeeding, or if it
is more sinister -- the first step towards unilaterally legislating a 10-year
deal over the strong objections of the BC Teachers' Federation.
The latter would guarantee unnecessary labour unrest and a
court challenge that would likely overturn the imposed contract if past legal
history of battles between teachers and the government are any indication.
And it would ensure that the BCTF only increases its public
antagonism towards the BC Liberals, though perhaps that would be the goal.
But if Clark truly wants to succeed at building a productive
and mutually beneficial relationship with teachers, it's time to put the
10-year deal -- like Luongo -- on ice.
.
3 comments:
96% of whom voted? Exactly what is 96% of the entire BCTF membership
in terms of number of members who actually voted in favour?
A ten year contract is no good. Both sides would be bound so if big events came up, what do you do. Three years is pretty long as far as most of us can see.
This is a ridiculous apples and oranges comparison. Last time I looked there was no other government looking to scoop up the BCTF and move them to their province or state. BCTF has no where else to go. They have just one potential employee.
Given the BCTF's complete inability to separate their allegiance to the NDP from the good of their members and the students they serve, a 10 year deal is an excellent way to go. Less squabbling and more focus on the job at hand.
Post a Comment