I wrote the original version of this post in January 2012, during our last contract negotiations. Since then, teachers have had two more years of zero increases (2012, 2013). Here is an updated version - more relevant than ever.
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. We want what the Supreme Court of British Columbia said is rightfully due to us and BCs students in January this year, but is now under appeal from the government.
Some in the media are suggesting we need to "compromise". While I accept that premise in respect of wages (as does the BCTF bargaining team), as far as class size goes, it really is unfair. Imagine if someone came and stole your house. You argue that you should get it back because it was stolen. You go to court and the court says you should get it back. Is the fair solution to give the thief half your house? This is what "compromise" means for class size.
With respect to salary, 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 Canadian teachers in other provinces. Teachers in BC now rank near the bottom 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 experiencing moderate growth.
The government wants teachers to take 6.5% over six years. The government claims that taxpayers cannot afford higher increases to public sector wages and that wages must remain flat because the government "can't afford it".
Do these arguments make sense? Are they justified? Or should teachers just accept the government offer? Here are my answers to these questions.
Myth #1: Teachers should not get much of a wage increase because the government can't afford it
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).
More recently, there was money for 18% pay increases to Christy Clark's top aides in government. 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 and notably have had increases in the last two years when teachers took zero. 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: Teachers should accept what other public sector workers have taken (follow the "pattern")
Reality #2: The government likes to compare us to two public sector unions - BCGEU and HEU. If they honestly calculated a "pattern" among all public sector workers, it would be clear there is great variation. Let's take BC nurses as an example. Here is a spreadsheet on the BC government web site showing nurses wage increases since 1974. While teachers have had zeros since our last increase of 2% on July 1, 2010, in the same time nurses have had 4% of increases after their 2010 bump of 4.2%. So since January 2010, nurses had a total of 8.2% while teachers had 2%. This is a pretty different "pattern". Similarly, while CUPE/BCGEU/HEU has taken a lower prospective salary deal, they are also coming off of two years with 2/2 or 2/1.5. So if they agree(d) to take something lower for the next four years, that has to be in the context of their last two years as well.
BC teachers are in contract negotiations asking for a fair deal. What do we mean by fair exactly?
Teachers are focused on two priorities: class size/composition, and salary.
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. We want what the Supreme Court of British Columbia said is rightfully due to us and BCs students in January this year, but is now under appeal from the government.
Some in the media are suggesting we need to "compromise". While I accept that premise in respect of wages (as does the BCTF bargaining team), as far as class size goes, it really is unfair. Imagine if someone came and stole your house. You argue that you should get it back because it was stolen. You go to court and the court says you should get it back. Is the fair solution to give the thief half your house? This is what "compromise" means for class size.
With respect to salary, 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 Canadian teachers in other provinces. Teachers in BC now rank near the bottom 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 experiencing moderate growth.
The government wants teachers to take 6.5% over six years. The government claims that taxpayers cannot afford higher increases to public sector wages and that wages must remain flat because the government "can't afford it".
Do these arguments make sense? Are they justified? Or should teachers just accept the government offer? Here are my answers to these questions.
Myth #1: Teachers should not get much of a wage increase because the government can't afford it
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).
More recently, there was money for 18% pay increases to Christy Clark's top aides in government. 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 and notably have had increases in the last two years when teachers took zero. 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: Teachers should accept what other public sector workers have taken (follow the "pattern")
Reality #2: The government likes to compare us to two public sector unions - BCGEU and HEU. If they honestly calculated a "pattern" among all public sector workers, it would be clear there is great variation. Let's take BC nurses as an example. Here is a spreadsheet on the BC government web site showing nurses wage increases since 1974. While teachers have had zeros since our last increase of 2% on July 1, 2010, in the same time nurses have had 4% of increases after their 2010 bump of 4.2%. So since January 2010, nurses had a total of 8.2% while teachers had 2%. This is a pretty different "pattern". Similarly, while CUPE/BCGEU/HEU has taken a lower prospective salary deal, they are also coming off of two years with 2/2 or 2/1.5. So if they agree(d) to take something lower for the next four years, that has to be in the context of their last two years as well.
Collective bargaining allows both sides to make arguments about salary given the time and circumstances. This may differ across sectors. The government certainly doesn't insist on a "pattern" unless it wants to point to the lowest common denominator and insist that it is the only "pattern" around.
And they never compare those of us doing front line jobs with the "pattern" in management and for MLAs. Let's not forget the massive pay hikes for MLAs in 2007 that reached the double digits - as high as 48%.
Myth #3: BC teachers already have high salaries
Reality #3: After five years of university training, BC teachers begin with a wage in the mid $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 near the bottom in Canada compared to teachers in other provinces. A teacher at the top of the salary scale 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.
Myth #4: The numbers
Reality #4: The numbers explained (warning - math reading ahead!)
Teachers' last wage proposal (April 30) is for an across the board increase in each of the four years as follows: 3, 2.75, 2.5, 2.5. This adds up to 10.75% In addition, the proposal includes a "cost of living" adjustment based on a portion of the Cost Price Index rate for the previous twelve months. In the first year, it is .5 times the CPI, in the remaining four years .75 times the CPI. So if the CPI were 1% in year one, the cost of living adjustment would be .5%. If the CPI remained at 1% for all four years, the total COLA increases would be 3.25%. Add these together to get the BCTF number widely quoted in the media of 13.5%
The rationale for the teachers' wage proposal is to "catch up and keep up". The basic wage increases are the catch up portion. They are aimed at bringing teachers back to the middle of the pack in terms of teacher wages across Canada, phased in over four years. The cost of living adjustments are to ensure that the wage does not decline in "real dollars" due to inflation. Given that the proposal is for below the CPI, it is still possible the "catch up" would be reduced if there were strong inflationary pressures. In other words, if inflation is high, we would still be significantly behind our Canadian colleagues.
Myth #3: BC teachers already have high salaries
Reality #3: After five years of university training, BC teachers begin with a wage in the mid $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 near the bottom in Canada compared to teachers in other provinces. A teacher at the top of the salary scale 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.
Myth #4: The numbers
Reality #4: The numbers explained (warning - math reading ahead!)
Teachers' last wage proposal (April 30) is for an across the board increase in each of the four years as follows: 3, 2.75, 2.5, 2.5. This adds up to 10.75% In addition, the proposal includes a "cost of living" adjustment based on a portion of the Cost Price Index rate for the previous twelve months. In the first year, it is .5 times the CPI, in the remaining four years .75 times the CPI. So if the CPI were 1% in year one, the cost of living adjustment would be .5%. If the CPI remained at 1% for all four years, the total COLA increases would be 3.25%. Add these together to get the BCTF number widely quoted in the media of 13.5%
The rationale for the teachers' wage proposal is to "catch up and keep up". The basic wage increases are the catch up portion. They are aimed at bringing teachers back to the middle of the pack in terms of teacher wages across Canada, phased in over four years. The cost of living adjustments are to ensure that the wage does not decline in "real dollars" due to inflation. Given that the proposal is for below the CPI, it is still possible the "catch up" would be reduced if there were strong inflationary pressures. In other words, if inflation is high, we would still be significantly behind our Canadian colleagues.
BCPSEA is using the figure 15.9% to describe the teachers' proposal (or in their loaded wording "demand"). I believe they are using 1.5% for their CPI estimates. But that still only brings us to a total of 14.875%. So perhaps they are applying some compounding to the numbers? I don't know. If they are, it is disingenuous, as no other figures (such as the notorious "pattern") are compounded. But regardless, which CPI estimate is reasonable?
The CPI average for the year in April 2014 was indeed 1.5%. This is probably the source of BCPSEA's number.
But the actual proposal indicates that the CPI number to be used is for the January - December period. Since the agreement would come into force as of the expiration of the previous agreement, the first application would be for the CPI for 2013. Since this is negative, there would be no COLA increase for the first year. In some respects, the CPI rates are hard to estimate...they vary quite a lot. But the average for the last five years was .94%. For the last ten the number is 1.43%. See the CPI rates here.
A reasonable thing to say is that if inflation averages that of the last five years, 13.5% is the better estimate. If inflation averages that of the last ten years, 14.875% is the better estimate. In neither case is 15.9% the right number.
A reasonable thing to say is that if inflation averages that of the last five years, 13.5% is the better estimate. If inflation averages that of the last ten years, 14.875% is the better estimate. In neither case is 15.9% the right number.
Moreover, if the 10.75% "catch up" brings us back somewhere to the "middle of the pack" of teacher salaries across Canada, the roughly 3 - 5% cost of living adjustment will still be behind what those other salaries will be increasing, looking at recent agreements like Saskatchewan, where they will go up 7.3% in the same time period.
Finally, if we take BCPSEA's CPI estimate together with their offer of 6.5% over six years, we see that they are offering a wage cut. At that estimate, just inflation would be 9%.
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 have taken seven years of zero increases since 1998 (in 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2011, 2012, 2013). This leaves us far behind, and is why we are ranked near the bottom across Canada for teacher salaries. 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. Teachers have seen their net pay go down in both real and inflationary terms. Like other workers, we are paying more for MSP premiums, more for CPP and EI, more for gas and food, and taking home less. In addition, teachers in the lower mainland, in particular, face some of the highest costs of anywhere in Canada.
Myth #6: Class size and composition will cost $1 billion
Reality #6: The best estimate for the cost of class size provisions to be returned to the collective agreement comes from government itself in it's submission to the courts. That estimate is $275 million (see para 335 for Treasury Board costing of savings introduced by eliminating class sizes), in 2002 dollars. So perhaps in the order of $350 million today. Certainly not $1 billion. I haven't seen any justification of this number by the government.
Reality #5: Teachers want to keep up with inflation. Teachers want to catch up with their colleagues in other provinces. Teachers have taken seven years of zero increases since 1998 (in 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2011, 2012, 2013). This leaves us far behind, and is why we are ranked near the bottom across Canada for teacher salaries. 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. Teachers have seen their net pay go down in both real and inflationary terms. Like other workers, we are paying more for MSP premiums, more for CPP and EI, more for gas and food, and taking home less. In addition, teachers in the lower mainland, in particular, face some of the highest costs of anywhere in Canada.
Myth #6: Class size and composition will cost $1 billion
Reality #6: The best estimate for the cost of class size provisions to be returned to the collective agreement comes from government itself in it's submission to the courts. That estimate is $275 million (see para 335 for Treasury Board costing of savings introduced by eliminating class sizes), in 2002 dollars. So perhaps in the order of $350 million today. Certainly not $1 billion. I haven't seen any justification of this number by the government.
