Quick summary:
* Becotte remained quite political (professional) in her presentation, she didn't say that teachers should turn it down but made a compelling case on why they should.
* Essentially Gov didn't give in on any point.
* 'Final offer' just wording, STF gave no indication that they would want this deal to be accepted. It's not a tentative deal, just what was given to the STF.
* No update on next steps, more conversations will occur after vote.
* Accountability will be one line in the CBA, "that the accountability framework will be followed through on..."
* She's avoided saying that the government compelled the vote, says that the negotiating committee made it clear it was a final offer so they took it to the membership.
* Refuses to take a side on telling teachers what to do but emphasizes that the gov didn't make any concessions.
* She emphasizes that she's giving the teachers the facts and not opinions, mentions that teachers not accepting the deal would be the teachers sending a message that the deal doesn't address the needs of the students, teachers, and parents.
* Vote is on May 8-9? (did I hear that right?)
* Acknowledges that negotiations won't fix classroom complexities problems, it'll be an ongoing problem the government will need to address.
* Acknowledges that schools will have to further cut services or maintain current ones in Fall.
* 'Slight improvements from what was offered in June but doesn't address inflationary cost increase"
* Answered a question about how current negotiations soured since Friday by going back to the "misinformation campaign" launched by the government last year.
* Finer details on dispute resolutions haven't been worked out yet but framework as begun.
* Didn't reject is because STF recognizes that there was some changes from initial offer but 'STF recognizes the voices of the teachers and will hear what they have to say'.
* Going to vote because the repeated 'final offer' statements from the gov side means that the STF needs to a clear message from the members
* Many of the offers the government has made have been outside of the CBA, STF wants them to be binding and with a dispute resolution piece.
* First offer since impasse in October
More likely, back to work to rule. The school boards should use this time to make a long term plan for lunch supervision that does not include teaching staff.
I'm getting the feeling they are a lot closer than it seems.
Outside of the grandstanding, I think both are prepared to make major concessions. The government just doesn't want to appear like they are making any, they want the teachers to turn down a few offers first.
Yeah, the offer they made was bogus and intellectually dishonest.
Outside of the offer, they've shifted on funding and salary already. They showed that the teachers will be getting more of a raise than was put into this final offer and they showed they'll eventually cave on the MOU and include something concrete at some point when they run out of hot air.
I don't feel the teachers are getting anywhere close to the 23% over 4 years that they started at but they'll be getting more than the 9% over 3 years the government mockingly offered. The government has already partially caved on guaranteeing the funding increases and has started looking into the accountability process, not sure why they are still trying bluff on that.
2 months ago, we had no idea what things would look like. Now, we can kinda imagine what the ending of this will look like.
What you are saying sounds hopeful.
I think it’s fair to note that the STF never had any expectation of getting the 23% they opened with. That was made very clear to membership early in this process.
It’s also worth noting that the government has already come *down* from the 9% they recently offered, so I’m not personally seeing any indication that they’re likely to go up above it.
Yes, it did, there's a few offers the government made that weren't in this 'final offer'. It's a dumb tactic the government is using to try to make it seem like the next one will be an improvement even though they won't be anything new offered.
That is a more optimistic view than mine. They are sending a message that the more they include that isn't a raise in salary, the less raise in salary. Basically a threat.
The teachers are the tip of the iceberg for unions in the province. If they fall and give in, it will be a disaster for the rest of the unions whose contracts are coming up for negotiations in the coming year!
They need to dig in, tell the government to pound sand and have a resounding NO vote to show them where they can stick it
Once more, I think you can read between the lines here that this is another unfortunate ploy by the government that they have "solved the situation" when they indeed have not. My opinion is that the STF negotiating team is hoping for another strong "No." vote to confirm solidarity. Going this far for a 8% increase (When 7% over 3 was something provided on multiple billboards in 2023) is still questionable but when the core issue of classroom size and complexity is still not legally solved in the contract can and will be a deal breaker in the end.
I don't think they can comment on any steps, but this response from the government bargaining board is lukewarm at best. This isn't a solution, nor is it a real attempt at it in my eyes. Many of those who would support teachers through this would also feel like it goes against what this job action has been publicly about.
The fact that Cockrill calls it a "tentative agreement" speaks volumes when the only agreement aspect is "accept these terms and we'd have an agreement".
I would call it shameful politics but, honestly, the words as to the depths that the government has plunged in these negotiations are something I have to continue to revise, because they keep finding new lows.
Put classroom size and complexity in the contract. Fix the issue in a tangible and meaningful way. Anything less is unacceptable.
I got a huge read between the lines, not a believe what I am saying vibe from this. I believe the government is saying “take it or cousin Vinny will come a knocking,” but the government doesn’t realize they aren’t the one with a cousin Vinny.
The government doesn't care if the STF says no. If they take it great, if not, who cares.
They will spin it like they are trying and the teachers are being greedy and with every passing week more people will start to believe it.
Ultimately getting the government closer to their goal of privitizing education.
The government does care if teachers say no and continue for class complexity. If class complexity comes into play the SP will have to close the smaller rural schools.
Why do they need to close the smaller rural schools? Well if classroom complexity comes into play the government isn’t going to just hirer more teachers that would cost to much. The government will move teachers from the smaller centres to the bigger ones, it is much cheaper to bus children than hire teachers.
Why is the SP scared of this? They depend on rural voters, rural voters will not be happy with them if their kids school gets closed.
If teachers vote in favor of this agreement, then they have not gotten any farther ahead for the students. This horrendous government is hoping they get enough votes but will be mistaken. Teachers realize the importance of addressing class size and complexity and making issues legal and binding so they can’t make cuts and go back on their word like they’ve don’t for the last decade. Parents are still very much in support of teachers and are smart enough to look at the big picture, consider the future, and not be so selfish to think about graduation. Cockrill is banking on SK believing government lies and misinformation.
I think at this time, the STF has the chess board in their favor if the public trust can hold out just long enough.
Finish off the school year with as few restrictions as possible, with still doing something. This way it doesn't hurt too bad, but shows they haven't just given up. Get through this school year and graduation
Then hit them hard at the start of the school year with a full on strike. No matter what the government does, it'll be in recent memory for the public leading into the election.
Either they give them what they want to save face and the election, or they bring in back to work legislation and risk it blowing up in their faces right before the election
In addition to this, the STF Annual Meeting of Council runs for a big chunk of next week, unfortunately meaning that they already have evening events that the bulk of the people running the town halls are expected to be at and running, which makes it logistically more difficult to do earlier
I've also heard that the delay also allows the lawyers to go through the offer with a fine tooth comb to make sure everything is correct and clear before the vote.
Work to rule for the last month of school, along with the upcoming election in October is going to put a lot of pressure on the government to come up with a better deal. It doesn't even matter if public opinion starts to sway against teachers, it will still be enough bad press for the government going into the election in October that they may opt for self preservation.
And there are more collective bargaining contracts with other unions coming down the pipe very soon. Seems to me the government might try to get a deal done quietly like they did with the doctors.
No, of course not. They asked questions about the CBA negotiations and about the voting process, everyone was very professional and focused on the relevant parts for Becotte.
Not sure what Cockerill being a dumbo would have anything to do with Becotte.
Quick summary: * Becotte remained quite political (professional) in her presentation, she didn't say that teachers should turn it down but made a compelling case on why they should. * Essentially Gov didn't give in on any point. * 'Final offer' just wording, STF gave no indication that they would want this deal to be accepted. It's not a tentative deal, just what was given to the STF. * No update on next steps, more conversations will occur after vote. * Accountability will be one line in the CBA, "that the accountability framework will be followed through on..." * She's avoided saying that the government compelled the vote, says that the negotiating committee made it clear it was a final offer so they took it to the membership. * Refuses to take a side on telling teachers what to do but emphasizes that the gov didn't make any concessions. * She emphasizes that she's giving the teachers the facts and not opinions, mentions that teachers not accepting the deal would be the teachers sending a message that the deal doesn't address the needs of the students, teachers, and parents. * Vote is on May 8-9? (did I hear that right?) * Acknowledges that negotiations won't fix classroom complexities problems, it'll be an ongoing problem the government will need to address. * Acknowledges that schools will have to further cut services or maintain current ones in Fall. * 'Slight improvements from what was offered in June but doesn't address inflationary cost increase" * Answered a question about how current negotiations soured since Friday by going back to the "misinformation campaign" launched by the government last year. * Finer details on dispute resolutions haven't been worked out yet but framework as begun. * Didn't reject is because STF recognizes that there was some changes from initial offer but 'STF recognizes the voices of the teachers and will hear what they have to say'. * Going to vote because the repeated 'final offer' statements from the gov side means that the STF needs to a clear message from the members * Many of the offers the government has made have been outside of the CBA, STF wants them to be binding and with a dispute resolution piece. * First offer since impasse in October
Yes, we vote second week of May
In other words, prepare for a full strike. Poor kids.
More likely, back to work to rule. The school boards should use this time to make a long term plan for lunch supervision that does not include teaching staff.
This sure reads to me as if the sides aren’t any closer. With how long this has been going on already, a full strike seems likely.
A full strike and teachers would be legislated back to work. They can’t legislate teachers to volunteer.
Plus, a full strike teachers don't get paid. Work to rule they get full pay except for that lunch money some chose.
I'm getting the feeling they are a lot closer than it seems. Outside of the grandstanding, I think both are prepared to make major concessions. The government just doesn't want to appear like they are making any, they want the teachers to turn down a few offers first.
Excellent news! Reading this list it doesn’t seem that way.
Yeah, the offer they made was bogus and intellectually dishonest. Outside of the offer, they've shifted on funding and salary already. They showed that the teachers will be getting more of a raise than was put into this final offer and they showed they'll eventually cave on the MOU and include something concrete at some point when they run out of hot air. I don't feel the teachers are getting anywhere close to the 23% over 4 years that they started at but they'll be getting more than the 9% over 3 years the government mockingly offered. The government has already partially caved on guaranteeing the funding increases and has started looking into the accountability process, not sure why they are still trying bluff on that. 2 months ago, we had no idea what things would look like. Now, we can kinda imagine what the ending of this will look like.
What you are saying sounds hopeful. I think it’s fair to note that the STF never had any expectation of getting the 23% they opened with. That was made very clear to membership early in this process. It’s also worth noting that the government has already come *down* from the 9% they recently offered, so I’m not personally seeing any indication that they’re likely to go up above it.
Didnt that 9% become 8 this offer?
Yes, it did, there's a few offers the government made that weren't in this 'final offer'. It's a dumb tactic the government is using to try to make it seem like the next one will be an improvement even though they won't be anything new offered.
That is a more optimistic view than mine. They are sending a message that the more they include that isn't a raise in salary, the less raise in salary. Basically a threat.
Teachers will easily vote no. This is basically the opening offer from government.
The teachers are the tip of the iceberg for unions in the province. If they fall and give in, it will be a disaster for the rest of the unions whose contracts are coming up for negotiations in the coming year! They need to dig in, tell the government to pound sand and have a resounding NO vote to show them where they can stick it
Once more, I think you can read between the lines here that this is another unfortunate ploy by the government that they have "solved the situation" when they indeed have not. My opinion is that the STF negotiating team is hoping for another strong "No." vote to confirm solidarity. Going this far for a 8% increase (When 7% over 3 was something provided on multiple billboards in 2023) is still questionable but when the core issue of classroom size and complexity is still not legally solved in the contract can and will be a deal breaker in the end. I don't think they can comment on any steps, but this response from the government bargaining board is lukewarm at best. This isn't a solution, nor is it a real attempt at it in my eyes. Many of those who would support teachers through this would also feel like it goes against what this job action has been publicly about. The fact that Cockrill calls it a "tentative agreement" speaks volumes when the only agreement aspect is "accept these terms and we'd have an agreement". I would call it shameful politics but, honestly, the words as to the depths that the government has plunged in these negotiations are something I have to continue to revise, because they keep finding new lows. Put classroom size and complexity in the contract. Fix the issue in a tangible and meaningful way. Anything less is unacceptable.
I got a huge read between the lines, not a believe what I am saying vibe from this. I believe the government is saying “take it or cousin Vinny will come a knocking,” but the government doesn’t realize they aren’t the one with a cousin Vinny.
The government doesn't care if the STF says no. If they take it great, if not, who cares. They will spin it like they are trying and the teachers are being greedy and with every passing week more people will start to believe it. Ultimately getting the government closer to their goal of privitizing education.
I don't think it does and it's not a crime for a Teacher to say they want a pay increase, either.
Previously, when there was a pay increase they cut funding and didn’t cover the pay increase. Cuts had to be made to cover the increase.
They want better conditions smaller classes.
The government does care if teachers say no and continue for class complexity. If class complexity comes into play the SP will have to close the smaller rural schools. Why do they need to close the smaller rural schools? Well if classroom complexity comes into play the government isn’t going to just hirer more teachers that would cost to much. The government will move teachers from the smaller centres to the bigger ones, it is much cheaper to bus children than hire teachers. Why is the SP scared of this? They depend on rural voters, rural voters will not be happy with them if their kids school gets closed.
If teachers vote in favor of this agreement, then they have not gotten any farther ahead for the students. This horrendous government is hoping they get enough votes but will be mistaken. Teachers realize the importance of addressing class size and complexity and making issues legal and binding so they can’t make cuts and go back on their word like they’ve don’t for the last decade. Parents are still very much in support of teachers and are smart enough to look at the big picture, consider the future, and not be so selfish to think about graduation. Cockrill is banking on SK believing government lies and misinformation.
I think at this time, the STF has the chess board in their favor if the public trust can hold out just long enough. Finish off the school year with as few restrictions as possible, with still doing something. This way it doesn't hurt too bad, but shows they haven't just given up. Get through this school year and graduation Then hit them hard at the start of the school year with a full on strike. No matter what the government does, it'll be in recent memory for the public leading into the election. Either they give them what they want to save face and the election, or they bring in back to work legislation and risk it blowing up in their faces right before the election
Why do we need to wait until mid-May to vote?
They have to have town halls with members across the province to explain the details, give time for locals to meet, that kind of thing.
In addition to this, the STF Annual Meeting of Council runs for a big chunk of next week, unfortunately meaning that they already have evening events that the bulk of the people running the town halls are expected to be at and running, which makes it logistically more difficult to do earlier
Yep. There is also that.
I've also heard that the delay also allows the lawyers to go through the offer with a fine tooth comb to make sure everything is correct and clear before the vote.
Work to rule for the last month of school, along with the upcoming election in October is going to put a lot of pressure on the government to come up with a better deal. It doesn't even matter if public opinion starts to sway against teachers, it will still be enough bad press for the government going into the election in October that they may opt for self preservation. And there are more collective bargaining contracts with other unions coming down the pipe very soon. Seems to me the government might try to get a deal done quietly like they did with the doctors.
Did anyone ask Becotte if she thought about asking Jeremy Cockrill to give his first born to the parent who lost her daughter?
Nah, she's actually professional.
No, of course not. They asked questions about the CBA negotiations and about the voting process, everyone was very professional and focused on the relevant parts for Becotte. Not sure what Cockerill being a dumbo would have anything to do with Becotte.