To the Editor,
Re: Teachers’ federation, provincial government at odds, Sept. 2.
Isn’t it interesting that the mediator that was so desired by the teachers’ union had to pull out of talks, citing wages, benefits and composition being too far apart to continue with any meaningful negotiations? It wasn’t too long before this that Jim Iker stated to the media that they were very close in wages and benefits but that class composition was still the stumbling block. It seems that two out of three items point to the union members being the ones that really need to look at themselves in the mirror. Why is there still mention of a $5,000 signing bonus? Is it really about the children?
Garry DietrichNanaimo
To the Editor,
One big notation of the rhetoric of the union spokesman is the continual bleating about illegally removing control of class size and composition. This unbelievably stupid situation was established by another political entity – to win the votes of the teachers’ union – that gave control of the entire operation to the workers.
Can one imagine a factory owner giving complete control to the floor workers, who know which widget to tighten, but have no management knowledge?
If that situation existed, teachers could limit the number of student in each class, then demand that their employers (the beleaguered taxpayer) hire more teachers, with high pay, benefits and other perks, at an unsustainable cost.
D.F. Connorsvia e-mail
