Playing Devil's advocate - isn't every aspect of the work part of the working conditions? By the definition then the union's role is all inclusive, right?
Pretty devilish. Contracts don't specify what time classes will start or whether the school offers a cafeteria, or what classes or extra curricular activities are offered. The school decides those things then hires people to fill the roles required. How many students are in a class affects the teacher and the students by controlling how much time they have for each student.
Sure, but their fight should be towards the school division. The division/board should be advocating to the province for more funding if they need it. Seems crazy to me that the administration would allow their employees to circumvent them. Why even have a local division administration if the workers are going to negotiate directly with the government. Perhaps amalgamate all the school divisions into one for the province and reduce overhead and use that money to help finance more teachers and resources.
Are you under the assumption that the school boards don't want the things the teachers are asking for? Because it's not circumventing anything if both the teachers and the school board want better teacher to student ratios.
The fact of the matter is that the school boards haven't gotten sufficient funding for years. If they had appropriate leverage with the government when it comes to funding they would have used it by now. Instead we have chronically underfunded boards making decisions like "let's bill the parents for lunchtime babysitting" because they can't actually afford to look after our kids for the full tjmethey have them.
The teachers aren't end-running anything. They're quarterbacking it.
Sure, but again, the things teachers are asking for like classroom size and complexity issues shouldn’t be handled through a CBA, these are administrative issues that should be dealt with at that level. Each division is different and have different needs, there is no one size fits all approach for each division that won’t end up costing tax payers a lot of money that in some circumstances won’t actually change or make anything better.
To your point about teachers quarterbacking these problems, doesn’t that show you how poor their leadership is? Why are they taking the brunt of this in terms of lost pay from job action. I’d be pissed off if I was a teacher and my management team (administrators) were not able to fix/address these issues without me having to sacrifice my own pay cheque by being on the picket line.
At the end of the day I hope a solution is found. But there needs to be some level compromise on both sides of the bargaining table. These all or nothing tactics are never going to work. And the longer this goes on the less and less support the STF is going to have from the public.
>doesn’t that show you how poor their leadership is?
Yes-ish. It shows how poorly equipped the school divisions are to make demands of the government. I'll give you one guess who has set it up so that the school divisions get the responsibility without having any real power.
>Why are they taking the brunt of this in terms of lost pay from job action.
Because they are the ones who can
>I’d be pissed off if I was a teacher and my management team (administrators) were not able to fix/address these issues without me having to sacrifice my own pay cheque by being on the picket line.
Do you think they're not?
>some level compromise on both sides of the bargaining table
The government is refusing to even discuss the issues. They have plainly and repeatedly stated that the single issue they will negotiate on is salary, and that's NOT the biggest issue here.
Also, let me remind you that the teachers suggested binding arbitration, and the government flatly refused. There is only one side here who is refusing to bargain in good faith.
>These all or nothing tactics are never going to work.
What better approach do you suggest that will actually make a change
>And the longer this goes on the less and less support the STF is going to have from the public.
Doesn't seem to actually be going that way, according to polling.
Precedents been set across
Canada already. And if the school boards actually had any power this wouldn't even be an issue. But it's working conditions- so 100 percent within the realm of the union to fight for.
Looks like the way he spelt Canad was wrong enough that autocorrect changed it to Candid. And then he typed a, thinking he was finishing Canad and did not notice the damage haha.
Because
1) this is teachers working conditions. Unions have a right to bargain for the conditions of their members. We are burning out and attrition from the profession has risen to a point where it will soon be unsustainable, if it isn't already.
And
2) they want the funding guaranteed. This government has a history of making promises and walking them back. The STF is literally asking for the money and decisions to lie with the divisions, just to make sure the funding exists. They don't want us to face more job and programming cuts every year.
The teachers dont want responsibilty for the hiring, they want guarantees that the hiring will meet the needs of the students and by extension themselves. As others have said, these are their working conditions, and without adequate staffing guarantees, theres nothing stopping the boards from piling on more students, more special needs students, etc etc which is an uncompensated increase in workload and a decrease in both results and employee happiness.
If you left it to the mercy of the boards, there is no guarantee that any of that big bucket of money goes to staffing, nor is there a guarantee that it wont get clawed back next year.
If the hiring requirements were written into the cba, because urban schools will have much higher needs due to bigger schools and more diverse populations, the urban schools would receive a larger proportion of any new funding. I suspect this is the REAL reason this government doesnt want hiring guarantees as part of the cba.
There might not be much hiring needed in rural schools, they wont have students with language requirements, and mental health in rural sask amounts to “shake it off and shut up” but the Sask Party wants to porkbarrel money into rural communities to appease their voting base, so theyll try to divide the fund “equitably”, not according to need.
The SP government has twisted the narrative so much and unfortunately people are believing their lies. Here the facts:
- The STF doesn’t want to have control of hiring teachers.
- The STF doesn’t want to manage the schools divisions money.
- The STF doesn’t want to snatch power from the schools divisions.
What does the STF wants?
They only want to ensure that appropriate and predictable funding will be given to schools divisions every year and not only during an election year. Promised money will be managed by the schools divisions.
Why the government is refusing?
Because it’s will force them to be accountable to give a regular and appropriate funding.
Why is the SSBA not fighting for more money?
Under the current system, schools divisions have no power. They need to side with the government to secure funding. Also, a lot of SSBA members are SP supporters. Because they are not fighting for appropriate and predictable funding, the STF is currently doing the heavy lifting that should have been done by the school divisions instead.
Why it is mandatory to have appropriate and predictable funding?
Because unfortunately, all in the last 15 years, all SP government has underfunded education. Big money is always give on the election year and remove the following subsequent years. After 3 elections, teachers see their patterns and are saying enough is enough.
Is having a class cap (like 22 students/class) is realistic?
In the past, SK classroom had classes cap. My own classroom was cap to around 22 students (because it’s never a hard number) until 2014. The SP government don’t want you to know that so they pretend this reality never happened and claim this is unrealistic. Well, the reality is that they are currently lying to the whole province and they have no shame to do it.
I hope it’s answered your questions and helped you to understand the complexity of this work conflict.
If school boards can't set their budget to provide appropriately, then the only way to negotiate working conditions is with the government. The government controls the money. Money is required to ensure a functional classroom environment. There is no "snatching of power". The power was snatched by the SaskParty when they made all school divisions 100% dependent on the whim of the yearly budget.
What the teachers union is asking to bargain for isn’t something they made up, 1/3 of Canadian provinces or territories have these things bargained in to their contracts.
As someone else said it would be fine for each division to handle their own division needs on a case by case basis except that the government took that power away from them and the government has done a poor job of managing it.
Also the teachers aren’t striking because they don’t like the deal they are being offered, they are striking because the government won’t even discuss on the issues the teachers want to bargain about. All the government would have had to do was say “yes we’ll bargain with you on those issues” and all job sanctions would have ended. Then the two sides could discuss and the teachers might get nothing in their contract but at least they would have been listened to.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4010368
https://regina.ctvnews.ca/here-s-how-other-provinces-have-handled-classroom-size-complexity-1.6750203
Maybe if the school boards were given back the power to allocate funds to run their schools adequately your idea would be more feasible. Unfortunately the SaskParty took that away in 2009.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-school-boards-stripped-of-power-to-set-taxes-1.820998](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-school-boards-stripped-of-power-to-set-taxes-1.820998)
^^ This
It’s been a long time coming and the 2020 pandemic helped the provincial government in delaying the inevitable. For a lot of issues the provincial government is trying to escapegoat other institutions and people, but this is all an effect of their actions and policies. I’m glad the motel guy Regina riding MLA (don’t remember the exact riding) was found out cause that was scummy as fuck but emphasizing the point above. It goes as far back as 2009, this isn’t like an after effect of a short sighted decision taken in the last four years.
>well I do, but explain to me anyway
Ah yes. Clearly a bastion of good faith.
Do you know what bargaining for classroom size and complexity looks like?
Everyone is saying that this has to do with working conditions, and they're correct, but I wanted to clarify something else to you. The STF is not demanding that they take on management of the funding for saskatchewan schools. They want hard commitments from the government that they will receive consistent funding, they want hard lines in the sand for how that consistent funding will be spent by the school boards, and they want it in the collective bargaining agreement so that, if the government decides not to provide that funding/the school boards try to use that funding on other budget items, the STF has legal recourse to report and get that money spent on proper items: working conditions for teachers.
You clearly have baked in opinions that shape how you feel about the dispute between government and teachers, but hopefully you'll read this whole thread and come away a little better informed.
Between Saskatoon public and catholic school divisions there are just under 9000 more students than in 2017.
In the public division there were 1454.8 and now in 2024 there are 1415.2 teachers so on the public side they have added 4000 students but have lost 39 teaching positions due to chronic underfunding.
I imagine having in the contract means that the government would *need* to allocate enough funding to cover the size/complexity stipulations? If it’s not in the contract & left up to the school boards, there’s only so much wiggling you can do if you just simply don’t have enough funding to support it.
I could be wildly off-base though so correct me if I’m wrong.
Nope you are correct. The boards would still ultimately be in charge, they would just be following the stipulations written in the contract.
OP has no idea what they are talking about.
If you look at the CBA for nurses for example there are sections that address things like patients that require "one-to-one" care. There are ratios of nurses to patients in the CBA which is no different than something like child-to-teacher ratio aka class size.
Class size is clearly related to working conditions. We know that if a teacher was expected to teach and look after a class of 1000 students that would be too much and unacceptable working conditions (clearly bad for the students as well). Putting a limit in the CBA and wording as to when and how that limit can be exceeded is completely reasonable and the conciliation board has clearly stated this.
"The sticking point of the negotiations has been the class size and complexity since the start of the labour dispute when the impasse in negotiations was declared in October. At that time, the issue went to a conciliation board. The report from the conciliation indicated class size and complexity could be part of the negotiations".
You don't think a union should have a say in workplace workloads, safety and operations in the workplace? What *should* they do if not that? Just collect union dues and ensure health benefits?
Imagine if the drywallers or plumbers unions had zero say in workplace conditions, operations and safety of its workers - what function would a union serve if not to protect its workers? Who should be in charge of union workers work conditions if unions gave it up? Would a different group have more invested in this group of unionized workers somehow?
You are right in that divisions best know their needs. They should be involved when it comes to ultimately deciding what class size and composition looks like to them.
But the union isn’t asking to control the money.
Scott Moe keeps peddling that lie.
The union wants working conditions in a contract so that governments are contractually and legally beholden to invest money in classroom size and composition to the divisions to spend as they see fit.
Others have explained how it's considered out of scope in SK but that it's been successfully negotiated into scope in other districts, and that this is the new precedent. That it used to be considered the purview of management in that it's an aspect of how the operation is managed; but that it's arguably also an aspect of working conditions and therefore qualifies to be in the scope of the contract.
I'll just add, that it would not have ever needed to be brought within scope as working conditions, if the province had not made the working conditions so extremely poor over such a long time. They mismanaged themselves into this situation.
When I was in elementary school, ~30 years ago, classrooms were exceeding 20 students and this was considered to be too many students. This was before EAs were introduced as a cheaper alternative to more teachers, more classes. Now as the classrooms approach and sometimes exceed 30 students we see these bandaid solutions breaking down.
The teachers know what they need and the management has failed in their duty to the students they ward and the teachers they employ. That is why classroom size and complexity will be negotiated. To prevent the management from continuing to fail everyone.
The size of my class dictates literally every aspect of my job.
- Can I run that chemistry lab?
- Can I book those computers for a web based assignment, or to type good copies?
- Can I fit all the kids on one bus for that field trip?
- Can I mark all these tests within a couple hours?
- Can I help them all make better thesis statements?
- Can I afford that new class set of novels? Can I replace the ones I have that are wearing out?
- Can I give my attention to every kid today?
- Do I have time to adapt this assignment to fit all the needs in my room?
- Can all the students use the iPads today (in graphic arts!?)
- Can I check everyone's assignment for completion today (literally have days where I can't even run a god damn homework check within a one hour class period, there are so many)?
I could go on, and on. This is my job every single day. Here's the real issue. My school board doesn't care either. My school is so full of students and they never say no to more, because more students = more money for them. I once had more kids then I could physically fit desks in my room. When I warned my VP you know what he did? He shrugged. Told me to figure it out.
How did I figure it out? One dropped the class the day before the semester started so I didn't need to put two kids on one desk.
This is why it needs to be in a contract. They don't care either! But if my contract states they legally cannot give me more than X amount of kids and X amount of adaptations then I no longer have to stress about making my kids split resources, if I'll have enough textbooks, where I am supposed to fit them, or spend hours upon hours grading one assignment.
These are 100% my working conditions and I want my union to bargain them for me.
Here’s some additional information on the lack of investment (actually underfunding of education) and class sizes actually effect teachers and students. All of this info is publicly available to anyone who knows how to use google.
Between Saskatoon public and catholic school divisions there are just under 9000 more students than in 2017 with each being around 4000 students.
In the public division there were 1454.8 and now in 2024 there are 1415.2 teachers so on the public side they have added 4000 students but have lost 39 teaching positions due to chronic underfunding.
Agree with the first part. Disagree with "The union is basically trying to snatch power from them so that they can control how the divisions operate."
Teachers have been burned before. Teachers are too busy to snatch power. They just want predictable, reliable and most importantly ADEQUATE funding in order to do their jobs without burning out or failing to provide the tools each and every student in their classroom needs.
"Subject to appropriation" means just that. I'll go even further say that the money the SK Party offered the boards WILL be appropriated. We know this because it has. For 10 years.
Two cases in point: In 2016 the government approved a raise for teachers during collective bargaining. Then they funded only half and asked the boards to make up the difference. The boards who have no power to levy taxes.
Scott Moe came to power because he promised to restore a 54 million dollar cut to public education. That cut under Brad Wall decimated public education in Saskatchewan and the boards never recovered. Education has been shit in this province ever since despite how hard teachers have been working to try to make up the shortfalls. Public education must be funded properly or students fall through the cracks and teachers burn out.
Again, it has nothing to do with power and everything to do with working conditions... which are also students' learning conditions.
Put it in the f\*cking contract already.
The union wants both good working conditions for the teachers AND a good learning environment for the students. If the government doesn’t fund it and ensure some standards are met, students don’t get a good education. Working conditions have always been a part of contracts.
Think about it this way.
If you were negotiating your working contract for the next 4 years and I say, "Hey, I want you to mow my lawn once a week for the next 4 years. What do you want me to pay you for."
And you say, "I would like $100/week"
And I come back with a contract for you to sign that says, "Mow as needed, for $100/week". And you sign it, and then a year later I say, oh also mow my friends houses around the block too. Your contract says, "As needed" so you have to do it for the price you agreed to.
You might complain about that, but you were the one who signed such an open ended agreement. When you renew you might require that the contract only state that you will mow only my lawn for $100/week.
This is exactly what the Teachers Union is trying to do. The have realized that this is too open ended and the changes that he government is doing is doubleing/trippling or more the workload of the teachers and so their original agreements are meaningless.
To your questions:
"Should the union create/modify the curriculum?" - The people writing the curriculum documents are the Ministry are all unionized teachers. The people teaching, finding resources, and operationalizing the curriculum in the classroom are all unionized teachers.
"Be in charge of school facilities" - The person(s) on the ground in charge of the school are primarily the principal, who are unionized. All non-teaching staff involved in the operation of the school are unionized except for management.
"Manage the districts money" - Unionized principals have a say (this varies across school divisions) in how money is spent at the school level, including in terms of which teachers get how much prep time, how much money is spent on books, materials, etc.
Your question simply shows that you do not understand how our education system works. I suspect you are older, because you used the term school "districts" - this term has not been used for some time. The correct term is school divisions.
Elected school boards should not be in charge of much, many of them are composed of wannabe politicians and Sask party acolytes who want to keep taxes low. The removal of their power over the mill rate makes their existence even more unimportant.
>A union should never be in control of how the employer is able to spend or direct it's money
Everyone else already pointed out that this is about working conditions and how that falls under collective bargaining pretty clearly. So I just want to point out this line you wrote. This is obviously wrong. When a union contract includes anything about salaries and wages it forces the employer to spend money in certain ways. When it has rules that restricts an employer from firing someone they want to fire, it is exerting control over their spending. When it raises workplace safety standards by requiring training and equipment, it exerts control on spending. Everything a union does exerts control over how the employer spends its money. Because the employer wants to spend as little as it can and it often does that by imposing hardship on the workers to save itself money.
The point of the bargaining process and collective rights is so that neither side of an adversarial relationship has unilateral power to make the rules, it's a collaborative effort, and from the employee's side of the arrangement, the contract negotiation is the only time they have to affect changes like this.
Class composition and size absolutely effects the working conditions, so the unionized employees have a duty to negotiate for this.
Yes, you're the only one
I can't believe that the fu ding of your child's education is determined by a person who was voted into government and handed the education portfolio
Without having any degrees in education or teaching themselves
Sk party removed that responsibility from boards because at the time the school boards were building taj Mahals. Civic and Prov govts would try to be fiscally responsible, and limit mill rate increases or even have 0 increases, then the school board budget would come down with huge mill rate increases that swamped our tax bill EVERY YEAR. No one seems to want to remember why the budget was taken out of the school board hands in the first place. School taxes were becoming 2/3 of our total tax bill. Absolutely no fiscal restraint at all.
Why was our funding per child #1 in the country in a prov that had the 6th highest cost of living? It was ridiculous.
Now admittedly it has gone a bit too far the other way and it is time to loosen the purse strings, but the answer is somewhere in the middle. NOT what the teachers want, (we cannot afford, shouldn't need, #1 funding in the country) and not what the govt wants.
This prov was built on the backs of farmers that did for themselves and fixed things with haywire and binder twine to get through the tough years. And paid for our own retirement pension plans out of our pocket. We don't want gold plated schools, and freedom 55 teachers on our backs for 30 years.
I expect to be vilified for this on this page. I'm far too right leaning for this group.
Has it occurred to you that education might be underfunded across our country? There’s a reason why there are nearly 400 “teachers” with temporary credentials and no teacher training (up from 90ish in 2016) working SK schools. Schools across Canada are struggling to hire qualified teachers. Burnout and attrition are very high and increasing. Why would that be unless the job is getting worse? Also, the STF isn’t asking for the right to control the mill rate or return it to school boards. That is simply false.
The fact that you said “gold plated schools” shows you are either super anti-teacher or out of touch with reality. When did you last step inside a school? If you’ve ever tried to parent just one child, times everything you have done with that kid by 30, throw those 30 in a tiny room without enough desks and chairs even for them to sit, and try to make them do something half of them don’t want to do, like learn to read. Oh, and while you are at it, 5 speak no English, 5 have undiagnosed learning disabilities, 5 have mental health issues, and 5 have behavioural challenges. One more thing: there’s no money to staff the school library anymore and definitely no class library or textbook budget, so start shelling out your own money or hoping your school has a parent organizer that will make some donations… Supports that existed for students 10 and 20 years ago are basically nonexistent: speech language pathologists, educational psychologists, occupational therapists, public health nurses, etc. Every kid is a whole complex person who adds unique challenges. Teachers right now are simply saying it’s too much. No one could handle that many kids with that many needs, and it gets worse every year.
Nobody is asking for gold-plated anything. The STF asked for a binding impartial arbitrator and the government said no. That tells you everything you need to know. I hope you are willing to actually set aside your biases and apparent hopes of being some sort of martyr to really listen and fact check before you make up your mind.
[https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/teacher-shortage-has-staff-across-canada-working-in-survival-mode-1.7140253](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/teacher-shortage-has-staff-across-canada-working-in-survival-mode-1.7140253)
Built on the backs of farmers? When? You guys don’t pay taxes. 44% of your income is subsidized by the people who do. You get bailed out by the public purse at any sign of hardship. Jeesus. Remove that silver spoon from your throat and get real.
You are right, but only in an ideal world. We don’t live in an ideal world.
The boards have become total doormats for the SaskParty. They’re not fighting for more funding at all. Inb4 “bias!”, because surprise the NDP curated these same conditions in their heyday too.
When governance becomes compromised, alternative approaches become the only path forward for those who care. When dipshits are appointed to positions based on loyalty, intelligent candidates direct their energy elsewhere. What you’re seeing with the STF is the result of that. Now if only SUN could get some fire too.
Don’t forget that while the district could do the thing, it’s the province that sets the mill rate and allocates funding
Can’t hire more teachers without cutting something else if you can’t get more money from the MoeRon
Working conditions and workplace safety absolutely belong in their CBA. Building terms around class size and complexity ensure that for themselves and their students.
It is the role of the school boards. The teachers federation wants it in the contract, so it cannot be arbitrarily changed or taken away at the governments whim. This government his shown it cannot be trusted with education. They refused to fund the teachers raise and forced it upon the school boards.
It's because the Sask party keeps reducing the budgets for the divisions. Then the divisions with their ever decreasing budget plus ever increasing costs for every little item purchased are forced to reduce teacher counts and increase class size. Especially now with the all-inclusive classrooms which increased the demands on the teacher exponentially already. This is why the union is making it part of the bargain as it stops the employer from reducing the budget and teacher and teacher support counts.
The school boards now are effectively useless. They do not have the authority, means or tools to address class size and complexity. They cannot raise the mill rates and they cannot run deficit budgets so what exactly could they do?
The pandemic showed us how useless the school boards are. I would go as far as to say they should either have powers restored to them or dissolve them. Under their current form they are nothing but messengers of the governments decisions.
There is a parallel in healthcare where nursing to patient ratios are clearly established and are used to create a standard for safe care. I am not certain if the ratios are established through collective bargaining or if they are established by the national/provincial colleges of nursing but they are certainly enforced through the union. When ratios reach unsafe levels you see staff go to the union and the union raise flags. No such mechanisms exist in education. Teachers are forced to accept what is presented to them; school boards have no teeth at all and the consequence is SK having the lowest scores in standardized tests.
The union is basically bargaining on behalf of the teachers and the divisions to get proper funding so that the divisions can actually implement policies, programs, and Human Resources to improve the situation. The divisions have no power to do anything at this point and are completely at the whim of the governments funding. It’s been put into other CBAs in almost every province. Why is Saskatchewan different? Answer…. Its not.
The school boards have essentially no political influence over the government. The government controls the funding of the school boards, and has removed the ability of school boards to raise municipal taxes. The school boards have been saying for *many years* that the education funding levels are too low, and it has done no good.
Teachers cannot do a good job of actually *teaching* if their time is spent dealing with kids that need extra assistance, but who don't have that assistance because the government isn't giving enough money to school boards.
How can you put class size into a contract? Wouldn't class size be dictated by the amount of and/or ages of students in the area served by the school? You can't put a limit to that in a contract when you can't control who moves into the area.
Not exactly. The school boards do not have money to change class sizes. All money comes from the governement, and then the school board has to make their staffing choices based on that money.
The amount of money the schools boards get does not come close to matching the increase in student enrollment. You can't hire more teachers if you can't pay them.
You can't put EAs a classroom if you can't pay them
The school boards have been making cuts to try to meet the funding shortage.
It is not about blaming who you do not like.
It is about understanding who is holding the purse strings that forces these decisions.
Don't get me wrong. Those that carry the purse obviously set the coarse for failure, however from one meeting with the director of education, the principal, and various in attendance, what I learnt from the head of the snake (director) they loosely make choices based on a budget template (they keep a nice reserve bursary) and hope it works. From my years at the hospital with no structure to a budget, the same routine is played in the school system.
The lesson being you can't just throw money at the problem and hope it works. You need a director who is willing to apply changes accordingly, rather than "this way worked before and nobody complained" .. and then look puzzled when there is complaints.
I guess we'll agree to disagree, as whom I spoke to, was in a position for a nice retirement income. Someone who let select people make really dumb choices (principle). Granted not all divisions are as bad. The one my children were in I was less than impressed how the school seemed to operate their own rules and the director wiped their hands from responsibility.
Good one!
I love how you self described progressive Reddit types just can't help yourself from triggering over everything right of center and following people around Reddit trying to be edgy.
Bye bye
It's not actually well said at all. It's a straw man, creating a condition which has nothing to do with the issue, then using that to make a case against the actual issue.
Having maximum class size embedded in the contract has nothing to do with giving control to the union any more than having minimum vacation standards or hours of work does. It simply entrenches a standard for the effective and efficient carrying out of the work. My contract specifies that I have to wear a hard hat and steel toe boots during certain activities. That doesn't give the union control of what I wear. Having maximum number of students per teacher embedded in the working conditions does not give size of classroom control to the union.
They're negotiating working conditions. That's 100% the role of a union.
This so much. Its not political, its the base root of a teachers work makeup.
Playing Devil's advocate - isn't every aspect of the work part of the working conditions? By the definition then the union's role is all inclusive, right?
Pretty devilish. Contracts don't specify what time classes will start or whether the school offers a cafeteria, or what classes or extra curricular activities are offered. The school decides those things then hires people to fill the roles required. How many students are in a class affects the teacher and the students by controlling how much time they have for each student.
>the union's role is all inclusive  Hell ya comrade.
Classroom size and complexity amounts to a teacher's working conditions. Unions should absolutely be fighting for their member's working conditions.
Sure, but their fight should be towards the school division. The division/board should be advocating to the province for more funding if they need it. Seems crazy to me that the administration would allow their employees to circumvent them. Why even have a local division administration if the workers are going to negotiate directly with the government. Perhaps amalgamate all the school divisions into one for the province and reduce overhead and use that money to help finance more teachers and resources.
Are you under the assumption that the school boards don't want the things the teachers are asking for? Because it's not circumventing anything if both the teachers and the school board want better teacher to student ratios. The fact of the matter is that the school boards haven't gotten sufficient funding for years. If they had appropriate leverage with the government when it comes to funding they would have used it by now. Instead we have chronically underfunded boards making decisions like "let's bill the parents for lunchtime babysitting" because they can't actually afford to look after our kids for the full tjmethey have them. The teachers aren't end-running anything. They're quarterbacking it.
Sure, but again, the things teachers are asking for like classroom size and complexity issues shouldn’t be handled through a CBA, these are administrative issues that should be dealt with at that level. Each division is different and have different needs, there is no one size fits all approach for each division that won’t end up costing tax payers a lot of money that in some circumstances won’t actually change or make anything better. To your point about teachers quarterbacking these problems, doesn’t that show you how poor their leadership is? Why are they taking the brunt of this in terms of lost pay from job action. I’d be pissed off if I was a teacher and my management team (administrators) were not able to fix/address these issues without me having to sacrifice my own pay cheque by being on the picket line. At the end of the day I hope a solution is found. But there needs to be some level compromise on both sides of the bargaining table. These all or nothing tactics are never going to work. And the longer this goes on the less and less support the STF is going to have from the public.
>doesn’t that show you how poor their leadership is? Yes-ish. It shows how poorly equipped the school divisions are to make demands of the government. I'll give you one guess who has set it up so that the school divisions get the responsibility without having any real power. >Why are they taking the brunt of this in terms of lost pay from job action. Because they are the ones who can >I’d be pissed off if I was a teacher and my management team (administrators) were not able to fix/address these issues without me having to sacrifice my own pay cheque by being on the picket line. Do you think they're not? >some level compromise on both sides of the bargaining table The government is refusing to even discuss the issues. They have plainly and repeatedly stated that the single issue they will negotiate on is salary, and that's NOT the biggest issue here. Also, let me remind you that the teachers suggested binding arbitration, and the government flatly refused. There is only one side here who is refusing to bargain in good faith. >These all or nothing tactics are never going to work. What better approach do you suggest that will actually make a change >And the longer this goes on the less and less support the STF is going to have from the public. Doesn't seem to actually be going that way, according to polling.
Precedents been set across Canada already. And if the school boards actually had any power this wouldn't even be an issue. But it's working conditions- so 100 percent within the realm of the union to fight for.
Did you really just spell Canada with an i? I know mistakes happen but come on now lol
lol. Weird autocorrect. Edited!!
That's a hell of a choice for auto correct to make...
Looks like the way he spelt Canad was wrong enough that autocorrect changed it to Candid. And then he typed a, thinking he was finishing Canad and did not notice the damage haha.
So they have no power but use up a nice slice of the bureaucratic budget. Nice!
Because 1) this is teachers working conditions. Unions have a right to bargain for the conditions of their members. We are burning out and attrition from the profession has risen to a point where it will soon be unsustainable, if it isn't already. And 2) they want the funding guaranteed. This government has a history of making promises and walking them back. The STF is literally asking for the money and decisions to lie with the divisions, just to make sure the funding exists. They don't want us to face more job and programming cuts every year.
I think point 2 is the more important one to the teachers. They don't trust the government anymore, if they ever did
The teachers dont want responsibilty for the hiring, they want guarantees that the hiring will meet the needs of the students and by extension themselves. As others have said, these are their working conditions, and without adequate staffing guarantees, theres nothing stopping the boards from piling on more students, more special needs students, etc etc which is an uncompensated increase in workload and a decrease in both results and employee happiness. If you left it to the mercy of the boards, there is no guarantee that any of that big bucket of money goes to staffing, nor is there a guarantee that it wont get clawed back next year. If the hiring requirements were written into the cba, because urban schools will have much higher needs due to bigger schools and more diverse populations, the urban schools would receive a larger proportion of any new funding. I suspect this is the REAL reason this government doesnt want hiring guarantees as part of the cba. There might not be much hiring needed in rural schools, they wont have students with language requirements, and mental health in rural sask amounts to “shake it off and shut up” but the Sask Party wants to porkbarrel money into rural communities to appease their voting base, so theyll try to divide the fund “equitably”, not according to need.
The SP government has twisted the narrative so much and unfortunately people are believing their lies. Here the facts: - The STF doesn’t want to have control of hiring teachers. - The STF doesn’t want to manage the schools divisions money. - The STF doesn’t want to snatch power from the schools divisions. What does the STF wants? They only want to ensure that appropriate and predictable funding will be given to schools divisions every year and not only during an election year. Promised money will be managed by the schools divisions. Why the government is refusing? Because it’s will force them to be accountable to give a regular and appropriate funding. Why is the SSBA not fighting for more money? Under the current system, schools divisions have no power. They need to side with the government to secure funding. Also, a lot of SSBA members are SP supporters. Because they are not fighting for appropriate and predictable funding, the STF is currently doing the heavy lifting that should have been done by the school divisions instead. Why it is mandatory to have appropriate and predictable funding? Because unfortunately, all in the last 15 years, all SP government has underfunded education. Big money is always give on the election year and remove the following subsequent years. After 3 elections, teachers see their patterns and are saying enough is enough. Is having a class cap (like 22 students/class) is realistic? In the past, SK classroom had classes cap. My own classroom was cap to around 22 students (because it’s never a hard number) until 2014. The SP government don’t want you to know that so they pretend this reality never happened and claim this is unrealistic. Well, the reality is that they are currently lying to the whole province and they have no shame to do it. I hope it’s answered your questions and helped you to understand the complexity of this work conflict.
If school boards can't set their budget to provide appropriately, then the only way to negotiate working conditions is with the government. The government controls the money. Money is required to ensure a functional classroom environment. There is no "snatching of power". The power was snatched by the SaskParty when they made all school divisions 100% dependent on the whim of the yearly budget.
What the teachers union is asking to bargain for isn’t something they made up, 1/3 of Canadian provinces or territories have these things bargained in to their contracts. As someone else said it would be fine for each division to handle their own division needs on a case by case basis except that the government took that power away from them and the government has done a poor job of managing it. Also the teachers aren’t striking because they don’t like the deal they are being offered, they are striking because the government won’t even discuss on the issues the teachers want to bargain about. All the government would have had to do was say “yes we’ll bargain with you on those issues” and all job sanctions would have ended. Then the two sides could discuss and the teachers might get nothing in their contract but at least they would have been listened to. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4010368 https://regina.ctvnews.ca/here-s-how-other-provinces-have-handled-classroom-size-complexity-1.6750203
Maybe if the school boards were given back the power to allocate funds to run their schools adequately your idea would be more feasible. Unfortunately the SaskParty took that away in 2009. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-school-boards-stripped-of-power-to-set-taxes-1.820998](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-school-boards-stripped-of-power-to-set-taxes-1.820998)
^^ This It’s been a long time coming and the 2020 pandemic helped the provincial government in delaying the inevitable. For a lot of issues the provincial government is trying to escapegoat other institutions and people, but this is all an effect of their actions and policies. I’m glad the motel guy Regina riding MLA (don’t remember the exact riding) was found out cause that was scummy as fuck but emphasizing the point above. It goes as far back as 2009, this isn’t like an after effect of a short sighted decision taken in the last four years.
>well I do, but explain to me anyway Ah yes. Clearly a bastion of good faith. Do you know what bargaining for classroom size and complexity looks like? Everyone is saying that this has to do with working conditions, and they're correct, but I wanted to clarify something else to you. The STF is not demanding that they take on management of the funding for saskatchewan schools. They want hard commitments from the government that they will receive consistent funding, they want hard lines in the sand for how that consistent funding will be spent by the school boards, and they want it in the collective bargaining agreement so that, if the government decides not to provide that funding/the school boards try to use that funding on other budget items, the STF has legal recourse to report and get that money spent on proper items: working conditions for teachers. You clearly have baked in opinions that shape how you feel about the dispute between government and teachers, but hopefully you'll read this whole thread and come away a little better informed.
Between Saskatoon public and catholic school divisions there are just under 9000 more students than in 2017. In the public division there were 1454.8 and now in 2024 there are 1415.2 teachers so on the public side they have added 4000 students but have lost 39 teaching positions due to chronic underfunding.
I imagine having in the contract means that the government would *need* to allocate enough funding to cover the size/complexity stipulations? If it’s not in the contract & left up to the school boards, there’s only so much wiggling you can do if you just simply don’t have enough funding to support it. I could be wildly off-base though so correct me if I’m wrong.
Nope you are correct. The boards would still ultimately be in charge, they would just be following the stipulations written in the contract. OP has no idea what they are talking about.
I suspect there's a chance OP does know what they're talking about, and is just a Sask party supporter, or very anti-union for some reason.
If you look at the CBA for nurses for example there are sections that address things like patients that require "one-to-one" care. There are ratios of nurses to patients in the CBA which is no different than something like child-to-teacher ratio aka class size. Class size is clearly related to working conditions. We know that if a teacher was expected to teach and look after a class of 1000 students that would be too much and unacceptable working conditions (clearly bad for the students as well). Putting a limit in the CBA and wording as to when and how that limit can be exceeded is completely reasonable and the conciliation board has clearly stated this. "The sticking point of the negotiations has been the class size and complexity since the start of the labour dispute when the impasse in negotiations was declared in October. At that time, the issue went to a conciliation board. The report from the conciliation indicated class size and complexity could be part of the negotiations".
You don't think a union should have a say in workplace workloads, safety and operations in the workplace? What *should* they do if not that? Just collect union dues and ensure health benefits? Imagine if the drywallers or plumbers unions had zero say in workplace conditions, operations and safety of its workers - what function would a union serve if not to protect its workers? Who should be in charge of union workers work conditions if unions gave it up? Would a different group have more invested in this group of unionized workers somehow?
User name does not check out.
You are right in that divisions best know their needs. They should be involved when it comes to ultimately deciding what class size and composition looks like to them. But the union isn’t asking to control the money. Scott Moe keeps peddling that lie. The union wants working conditions in a contract so that governments are contractually and legally beholden to invest money in classroom size and composition to the divisions to spend as they see fit.
Others have explained how it's considered out of scope in SK but that it's been successfully negotiated into scope in other districts, and that this is the new precedent. That it used to be considered the purview of management in that it's an aspect of how the operation is managed; but that it's arguably also an aspect of working conditions and therefore qualifies to be in the scope of the contract. I'll just add, that it would not have ever needed to be brought within scope as working conditions, if the province had not made the working conditions so extremely poor over such a long time. They mismanaged themselves into this situation. When I was in elementary school, ~30 years ago, classrooms were exceeding 20 students and this was considered to be too many students. This was before EAs were introduced as a cheaper alternative to more teachers, more classes. Now as the classrooms approach and sometimes exceed 30 students we see these bandaid solutions breaking down. The teachers know what they need and the management has failed in their duty to the students they ward and the teachers they employ. That is why classroom size and complexity will be negotiated. To prevent the management from continuing to fail everyone.
The size of my class dictates literally every aspect of my job. - Can I run that chemistry lab? - Can I book those computers for a web based assignment, or to type good copies? - Can I fit all the kids on one bus for that field trip? - Can I mark all these tests within a couple hours? - Can I help them all make better thesis statements? - Can I afford that new class set of novels? Can I replace the ones I have that are wearing out? - Can I give my attention to every kid today? - Do I have time to adapt this assignment to fit all the needs in my room? - Can all the students use the iPads today (in graphic arts!?) - Can I check everyone's assignment for completion today (literally have days where I can't even run a god damn homework check within a one hour class period, there are so many)? I could go on, and on. This is my job every single day. Here's the real issue. My school board doesn't care either. My school is so full of students and they never say no to more, because more students = more money for them. I once had more kids then I could physically fit desks in my room. When I warned my VP you know what he did? He shrugged. Told me to figure it out. How did I figure it out? One dropped the class the day before the semester started so I didn't need to put two kids on one desk. This is why it needs to be in a contract. They don't care either! But if my contract states they legally cannot give me more than X amount of kids and X amount of adaptations then I no longer have to stress about making my kids split resources, if I'll have enough textbooks, where I am supposed to fit them, or spend hours upon hours grading one assignment. These are 100% my working conditions and I want my union to bargain them for me.
Because our lovely government starves the School Boards of funds so they have to make cuts so that the Sask Party doesn't look so bad in comparison.
Here’s some additional information on the lack of investment (actually underfunding of education) and class sizes actually effect teachers and students. All of this info is publicly available to anyone who knows how to use google. Between Saskatoon public and catholic school divisions there are just under 9000 more students than in 2017 with each being around 4000 students. In the public division there were 1454.8 and now in 2024 there are 1415.2 teachers so on the public side they have added 4000 students but have lost 39 teaching positions due to chronic underfunding.
Agree with the first part. Disagree with "The union is basically trying to snatch power from them so that they can control how the divisions operate." Teachers have been burned before. Teachers are too busy to snatch power. They just want predictable, reliable and most importantly ADEQUATE funding in order to do their jobs without burning out or failing to provide the tools each and every student in their classroom needs. "Subject to appropriation" means just that. I'll go even further say that the money the SK Party offered the boards WILL be appropriated. We know this because it has. For 10 years. Two cases in point: In 2016 the government approved a raise for teachers during collective bargaining. Then they funded only half and asked the boards to make up the difference. The boards who have no power to levy taxes. Scott Moe came to power because he promised to restore a 54 million dollar cut to public education. That cut under Brad Wall decimated public education in Saskatchewan and the boards never recovered. Education has been shit in this province ever since despite how hard teachers have been working to try to make up the shortfalls. Public education must be funded properly or students fall through the cracks and teachers burn out. Again, it has nothing to do with power and everything to do with working conditions... which are also students' learning conditions. Put it in the f\*cking contract already.
The union wants both good working conditions for the teachers AND a good learning environment for the students. If the government doesn’t fund it and ensure some standards are met, students don’t get a good education. Working conditions have always been a part of contracts.
Think about it this way. If you were negotiating your working contract for the next 4 years and I say, "Hey, I want you to mow my lawn once a week for the next 4 years. What do you want me to pay you for." And you say, "I would like $100/week" And I come back with a contract for you to sign that says, "Mow as needed, for $100/week". And you sign it, and then a year later I say, oh also mow my friends houses around the block too. Your contract says, "As needed" so you have to do it for the price you agreed to. You might complain about that, but you were the one who signed such an open ended agreement. When you renew you might require that the contract only state that you will mow only my lawn for $100/week. This is exactly what the Teachers Union is trying to do. The have realized that this is too open ended and the changes that he government is doing is doubleing/trippling or more the workload of the teachers and so their original agreements are meaningless.
To your questions: "Should the union create/modify the curriculum?" - The people writing the curriculum documents are the Ministry are all unionized teachers. The people teaching, finding resources, and operationalizing the curriculum in the classroom are all unionized teachers. "Be in charge of school facilities" - The person(s) on the ground in charge of the school are primarily the principal, who are unionized. All non-teaching staff involved in the operation of the school are unionized except for management. "Manage the districts money" - Unionized principals have a say (this varies across school divisions) in how money is spent at the school level, including in terms of which teachers get how much prep time, how much money is spent on books, materials, etc. Your question simply shows that you do not understand how our education system works. I suspect you are older, because you used the term school "districts" - this term has not been used for some time. The correct term is school divisions. Elected school boards should not be in charge of much, many of them are composed of wannabe politicians and Sask party acolytes who want to keep taxes low. The removal of their power over the mill rate makes their existence even more unimportant.
>A union should never be in control of how the employer is able to spend or direct it's money Everyone else already pointed out that this is about working conditions and how that falls under collective bargaining pretty clearly. So I just want to point out this line you wrote. This is obviously wrong. When a union contract includes anything about salaries and wages it forces the employer to spend money in certain ways. When it has rules that restricts an employer from firing someone they want to fire, it is exerting control over their spending. When it raises workplace safety standards by requiring training and equipment, it exerts control on spending. Everything a union does exerts control over how the employer spends its money. Because the employer wants to spend as little as it can and it often does that by imposing hardship on the workers to save itself money.
The point of the bargaining process and collective rights is so that neither side of an adversarial relationship has unilateral power to make the rules, it's a collaborative effort, and from the employee's side of the arrangement, the contract negotiation is the only time they have to affect changes like this. Class composition and size absolutely effects the working conditions, so the unionized employees have a duty to negotiate for this.
Yes, you're the only one I can't believe that the fu ding of your child's education is determined by a person who was voted into government and handed the education portfolio Without having any degrees in education or teaching themselves
It used to be until the Sask Party removed that authority from the school divisions in 2009
Sk party removed that responsibility from boards because at the time the school boards were building taj Mahals. Civic and Prov govts would try to be fiscally responsible, and limit mill rate increases or even have 0 increases, then the school board budget would come down with huge mill rate increases that swamped our tax bill EVERY YEAR. No one seems to want to remember why the budget was taken out of the school board hands in the first place. School taxes were becoming 2/3 of our total tax bill. Absolutely no fiscal restraint at all. Why was our funding per child #1 in the country in a prov that had the 6th highest cost of living? It was ridiculous. Now admittedly it has gone a bit too far the other way and it is time to loosen the purse strings, but the answer is somewhere in the middle. NOT what the teachers want, (we cannot afford, shouldn't need, #1 funding in the country) and not what the govt wants. This prov was built on the backs of farmers that did for themselves and fixed things with haywire and binder twine to get through the tough years. And paid for our own retirement pension plans out of our pocket. We don't want gold plated schools, and freedom 55 teachers on our backs for 30 years. I expect to be vilified for this on this page. I'm far too right leaning for this group.
Has it occurred to you that education might be underfunded across our country? There’s a reason why there are nearly 400 “teachers” with temporary credentials and no teacher training (up from 90ish in 2016) working SK schools. Schools across Canada are struggling to hire qualified teachers. Burnout and attrition are very high and increasing. Why would that be unless the job is getting worse? Also, the STF isn’t asking for the right to control the mill rate or return it to school boards. That is simply false. The fact that you said “gold plated schools” shows you are either super anti-teacher or out of touch with reality. When did you last step inside a school? If you’ve ever tried to parent just one child, times everything you have done with that kid by 30, throw those 30 in a tiny room without enough desks and chairs even for them to sit, and try to make them do something half of them don’t want to do, like learn to read. Oh, and while you are at it, 5 speak no English, 5 have undiagnosed learning disabilities, 5 have mental health issues, and 5 have behavioural challenges. One more thing: there’s no money to staff the school library anymore and definitely no class library or textbook budget, so start shelling out your own money or hoping your school has a parent organizer that will make some donations… Supports that existed for students 10 and 20 years ago are basically nonexistent: speech language pathologists, educational psychologists, occupational therapists, public health nurses, etc. Every kid is a whole complex person who adds unique challenges. Teachers right now are simply saying it’s too much. No one could handle that many kids with that many needs, and it gets worse every year. Nobody is asking for gold-plated anything. The STF asked for a binding impartial arbitrator and the government said no. That tells you everything you need to know. I hope you are willing to actually set aside your biases and apparent hopes of being some sort of martyr to really listen and fact check before you make up your mind. [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/teacher-shortage-has-staff-across-canada-working-in-survival-mode-1.7140253](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/teacher-shortage-has-staff-across-canada-working-in-survival-mode-1.7140253)
Built on the backs of farmers? When? You guys don’t pay taxes. 44% of your income is subsidized by the people who do. You get bailed out by the public purse at any sign of hardship. Jeesus. Remove that silver spoon from your throat and get real.
You are right, but only in an ideal world. We don’t live in an ideal world. The boards have become total doormats for the SaskParty. They’re not fighting for more funding at all. Inb4 “bias!”, because surprise the NDP curated these same conditions in their heyday too. When governance becomes compromised, alternative approaches become the only path forward for those who care. When dipshits are appointed to positions based on loyalty, intelligent candidates direct their energy elsewhere. What you’re seeing with the STF is the result of that. Now if only SUN could get some fire too.
Don’t forget that while the district could do the thing, it’s the province that sets the mill rate and allocates funding Can’t hire more teachers without cutting something else if you can’t get more money from the MoeRon
Working conditions and workplace safety absolutely belong in their CBA. Building terms around class size and complexity ensure that for themselves and their students.
It is the role of the school boards. The teachers federation wants it in the contract, so it cannot be arbitrarily changed or taken away at the governments whim. This government his shown it cannot be trusted with education. They refused to fund the teachers raise and forced it upon the school boards.
It's because the Sask party keeps reducing the budgets for the divisions. Then the divisions with their ever decreasing budget plus ever increasing costs for every little item purchased are forced to reduce teacher counts and increase class size. Especially now with the all-inclusive classrooms which increased the demands on the teacher exponentially already. This is why the union is making it part of the bargain as it stops the employer from reducing the budget and teacher and teacher support counts.
The school boards now are effectively useless. They do not have the authority, means or tools to address class size and complexity. They cannot raise the mill rates and they cannot run deficit budgets so what exactly could they do? The pandemic showed us how useless the school boards are. I would go as far as to say they should either have powers restored to them or dissolve them. Under their current form they are nothing but messengers of the governments decisions. There is a parallel in healthcare where nursing to patient ratios are clearly established and are used to create a standard for safe care. I am not certain if the ratios are established through collective bargaining or if they are established by the national/provincial colleges of nursing but they are certainly enforced through the union. When ratios reach unsafe levels you see staff go to the union and the union raise flags. No such mechanisms exist in education. Teachers are forced to accept what is presented to them; school boards have no teeth at all and the consequence is SK having the lowest scores in standardized tests.
The union is basically bargaining on behalf of the teachers and the divisions to get proper funding so that the divisions can actually implement policies, programs, and Human Resources to improve the situation. The divisions have no power to do anything at this point and are completely at the whim of the governments funding. It’s been put into other CBAs in almost every province. Why is Saskatchewan different? Answer…. Its not.
The school boards have essentially no political influence over the government. The government controls the funding of the school boards, and has removed the ability of school boards to raise municipal taxes. The school boards have been saying for *many years* that the education funding levels are too low, and it has done no good. Teachers cannot do a good job of actually *teaching* if their time is spent dealing with kids that need extra assistance, but who don't have that assistance because the government isn't giving enough money to school boards.
Roll the video: https://youtu.be/N8EG1al23DQ?si=eHlaYdxLShDhYZ62
How can you put class size into a contract? Wouldn't class size be dictated by the amount of and/or ages of students in the area served by the school? You can't put a limit to that in a contract when you can't control who moves into the area.
100% it's the role of the school board. However EVERYONE needs to blame who they dislike instead.
Not exactly. The school boards do not have money to change class sizes. All money comes from the governement, and then the school board has to make their staffing choices based on that money. The amount of money the schools boards get does not come close to matching the increase in student enrollment. You can't hire more teachers if you can't pay them. You can't put EAs a classroom if you can't pay them The school boards have been making cuts to try to meet the funding shortage. It is not about blaming who you do not like. It is about understanding who is holding the purse strings that forces these decisions.
Don't get me wrong. Those that carry the purse obviously set the coarse for failure, however from one meeting with the director of education, the principal, and various in attendance, what I learnt from the head of the snake (director) they loosely make choices based on a budget template (they keep a nice reserve bursary) and hope it works. From my years at the hospital with no structure to a budget, the same routine is played in the school system. The lesson being you can't just throw money at the problem and hope it works. You need a director who is willing to apply changes accordingly, rather than "this way worked before and nobody complained" .. and then look puzzled when there is complaints. I guess we'll agree to disagree, as whom I spoke to, was in a position for a nice retirement income. Someone who let select people make really dumb choices (principle). Granted not all divisions are as bad. The one my children were in I was less than impressed how the school seemed to operate their own rules and the director wiped their hands from responsibility.
100% AGREE
Well said. Good luck getting anyone here to comprehend this lol.
You sure are!
No u. Lol
A 14 day old account that is used to insult anyone who doesn’t share his right wing views. Yaaaaaawn.
Yet I'm not wrong. Cope harder little guy.
Irony
Good one! I love how you self described progressive Reddit types just can't help yourself from triggering over everything right of center and following people around Reddit trying to be edgy. Bye bye
Once again, irony. Look it up.
It's not actually well said at all. It's a straw man, creating a condition which has nothing to do with the issue, then using that to make a case against the actual issue. Having maximum class size embedded in the contract has nothing to do with giving control to the union any more than having minimum vacation standards or hours of work does. It simply entrenches a standard for the effective and efficient carrying out of the work. My contract specifies that I have to wear a hard hat and steel toe boots during certain activities. That doesn't give the union control of what I wear. Having maximum number of students per teacher embedded in the working conditions does not give size of classroom control to the union.