BCPSEA opposed to trustee philosophy of "What Trustees Do."

It appears as though BCPSEA does not represent the trustees. Here is what the trustees association believes about local solutions for local problems by local people.

"British Columbia is a large province with many communities, each having different priorities, needs and unique educational requirements. British Columbians elect their 60 boards of education to improve student achievement according to the diverse needs of these communities. As locally elected representatives, the trustees on these boards best understand their respective communities’ particular strengths, challenges and demands.

Trustees engage their communities in building and maintaining a school system that reflects local priorities, values and expectations. School trustees listen to their communities; guide the work of their school district; and set plans, policies and the annual budget."http://www.bcsta.org/what_trustees_do

In direct opposition to this philosophy is the BCPSEA position on local bargaining.  On the other hand, BCTF has presented a proposal on changing the split of local/provincial issues that is directly in line with the trustees' belief.  Their proposal is to place more non-cost items into the hands of local trustees and local union reps. 

To have local boards around the province negotiate the many items that locals have identified as not having been touched in nearly 20 years would actually seem to be the more efficient route.  BCPSEA has had the opportunity to negotiate many items over the past 20 years and has not.  Perhaps they need some help.  Perhaps dividing up the workload among 60 districts would save them a lot of time and would ensure that everything gets covered. It is clear that BCPSEA has had trouble negotiating the few items that are actually deemed provincial let alone the many that can be negotiated locally.  Think about it. When you have too much work to do wouldn't you think it wise to get a few more people involved so the workload can be shared?

It is clear that when local problems are solved by local people that the result will be fewer grievances, fewer expensive arbitrations, as well as less labour unrest.  One really has to wonder if the reluctance to make changes to the split of issues is more about control than about efficiency.

They have come in with their bottom line,that being less than nothing

Black Press, through a recent editorial made the following statement:

 “This fight was not unexpected. We have a government and union leadership unwilling to budge.”

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this and I think it needs to be cleared up.

It isn’t the union or its leadership that is unwilling to budge.  The union bargaining team fully expects to budge.  We put forward our proposals and we get no counter proposals.  Are we expected to bargain with ourselves?  Should we be thinking, “They didn’t respond with a counter proposal, so we should move a little closer to their sub zero mandate?”  How is that bargaining?

Clearly, it isn’t bargaining.

It is the government (through their bargaining agent, BCPSEA) who refuses to budge.  They have come in with their bottom line, that being less than nothing and they are sticking to it.  Mr. Abbott even indicated that several times during news interviews. 

The only way for bargaining to occur, is for both sides being willing to “budge.”  It’s time for the government to change their mandate and allow BCPSEA to have that “budging” room.

Why are they taking away recess?

The recent decision by some school districts to cancel recess while the teachers are on a legal job action brings to mind some serious questions regarding the thinking of some current school district administrations.

First off, I think that parents and the public know where the buck stops in this situation and in this case it is in the hands of district administration.  The Labour Relations Board (LRB) has declared the withdrawal of certain services as well within the law.  One of those services is “before/after school, recess or noon hour supervision.  They have said that these supervisions “will continue to be provided by teachers subject to the Employer utilizing management and excluded staff to the best extent possible to replace teachers for these activities.”  Therefore teachers cannot be required to do supervision unless all available management and excluded staff have been utilized. 

But what has happened in those districts where they have decided to cancel recess?  Have they utilized all management personnel?  School District 23 (Central Okanagan) says they don’t have enough people to take over that 15 minutes per day.  SD23 has at least twice as many administrators and excluded staff, in the district, as they have schools.  Surely they can find enough administrators to take on that short but rewarding task of being with the children during recess. What’s the problem? And in case they have misinterpreted the LRB ruling, if they truly have used all of their management staff then they can legitimately request that teachers do that work.  They aren’t doing that why?  Is it because they haven’t utilized management staff to the best extent possible? 

They have been given choices by the LRB.  Why have they chosen the meanest solution by cancelling recess?