Should BC teachers get a salary increase? Myths & Realities

NOTE: There is an updated version of this post for those of you reading it in 2014!

BC teachers are in contract negotiations asking for a fair deal. What do we mean by fair exactly?

Teachers would like improvements in three areas: class size/composition, salary and benefits, and changes to the bargaining structure.

As far as class size, we want only what was taken in 2002. We want the government to go back to the class sizes in place at that time and restore the funding so Boards can achieve this.

For bargaining, we want to negotiate more items locally with our elected Boards. This facilitates diversity, community involvement, and local programs and solutions. It is not a cost item and is how teachers used to negotiate in the 1990's - very successfully.

For salary and benefits, teachers want to "keep up" and "catch up". What do we mean by that? We want to keep up with inflation, and we want to catch up with Canadians in other provinces. Teachers in BC now rank 8th in salaries across Canada, despite the fact that our cost of living is one of the highest and that BC weathered the recession better than most other provinces. BC has been out of recession since 2010 and is forecasting moderate growth for the next year.

Unfortunately, the government's position has and continues to be 'net zero'. The government claims that taxpayers cannot afford increases to public sector wages and that wages must remain flat because the government is running a deficit.

Do these arguments make sense? Are they justified? Or should teachers receive a wage increase?

Here are my answers to these questions.

Myth #1: Teachers should not get a wage increase because of the government deficit

Reality #1: There was no deficit when the Liberals took power in 2001. Through a series of income tax cuts and corporate tax cuts, the Liberals went from a surplus to a deficit. Yes, the recession of 2009 impacted government revenues. But not as much as tax cuts have. Moreover, the government has found plenty of money for spending when it feels the spending is a priority. There was money for the BC Place roof ($500 million). There was money for the Olympics (over $1 billion). There was money for smart meters ($900 million). There was money for new government network systems ($1.2 billion to Telus). There seems to be plenty of money for the CEO's of crown corporations like BC Ferries (David Hahn's pension value - over $10 million). The fact is that the government is using the deficit that it created as an excuse to take money away from public services and the people who provide them. The money is there. It is a matter of priorities.

It is simply unfair to make one group of workers pay for a deficit created by tax cuts to other people and corporations. Private sector workers are seeing increases. Other public sector workers are seeing increases (for example, Vancouver police with 8.8% over 33 months). Why should one group be singled out? Moreover how is it fair to make middle income earners pay for tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the wealthy and corporations? It just isn't.

Myth #2: The 'net zero' wage freeze is fair because it impacts all public sector workers

Reality #2: Only those workers covered by the Public Sector Employer's Council are impacted, and that does not include all public sector workers. Fire fighters are not under 'net zero'. Police are not under 'net zero'. Even school Superintendents are not under 'net zero'. Nurses are not under 'net zero' because they negotiated in 2009, supposedly before the 'net zero' mandate was implemented, but certainly at the height of the recession. How is it fair that these workers can negotiate increases and other workers can't?

Myth #3: BC teachers already have high salaries

Reality #3: After five years of university training, BC teachers begin with a wage in the low $40's, if they are full time. Many teachers only get part time work for the first 3-5 years of their career. It takes ten years of full time work to reach the maximum salary, which is about $75,000 for most teachers. BC teachers rank 8th in Canada compared to teachers in other provinces. A teacher in BC earns on average $20,000 less than a comparably experienced teacher in Alberta and $15,000 less than one in Ontario. Yet BC has the highest cost of living and the highest housing prices in the country (http://www.theprovince.com/business/City+house+prices+continue+ascent/5943834/story.html).

Myth #4: 'Net zero' isn't a pay cut, so it is fair

Reality #4: In September, when the new school year began, year over year inflation was at 3.2% according to the Consumer Price Index. When teachers got their first paycheque of the year, they had 3.2% less buying power. This is what matters. This January, teachers, along with other workers, will see increases to their CPP payments, their EI premiums, and their MSP premiums. Many contracts have automatic cost of living increases, but ours does not. Without any increase, teachers will fall behind.

Myth #5: Teachers are asking for too much

Reality #5: Teachers want to keep up with inflation. Teachers want to catch up with their colleagues in other provinces. Teachers took four years of zero increases since 1998. Teachers traded salary for smaller class sizes and those class size provisions were later eliminated. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for cost of living increases and wage adjustments to catch up with our Canadian colleagues.

Myth #6: Teachers are asking for $2 billion

Reality #6: The true number is probably many times less. BCPSEA (the employer) made many erroneous assumptions in order to come up with a hyper-inflated costing number. For example, they assumed that every single teacher would take their full bereavement leave entitlement every single year. In fact, teachers often take bereavement leave once or twice a decade or once or twice in their whole career. They assumed every teacher would take extra sick days if they were available. In fact, we know from Statistics Canada that teachers take an average of 7.7 days per year which is already less than their entitlement, so increased entitlement would only be used by a small percentage of teachers who become very ill. The assumptions used by BCPSEA were unrealistic and result in highly inflated costing estimates. They are not justified and do not reflect the true cost of the proposals teachers have put forward.