So first of all, I am not in the British Columbia Teacher’s Federation (BCTF), nor am I associated to management. I remain fairly unbiased either way - there are merits I have witnessed to both sides’ arguments. I have been following this issue closely and one thing was pointed out to me that I am having particular difficulty understanding…
Situation:
The teachers that are currently working within the public schools of our province all belong to the College of Teachers in good standing. Further, that last statement is implied if the teacher is currently working within the classroom and is occupying a “Permanent” position within a given school. An inconsistency arises regarding the eligibility dates that were picked with respect to who is entitled to get this signing bonus, and who is not. Let me explain:
I am aware of two teachers (certainly there are more that fall into this situation) who are both full time and both occupy similar positions within the school district. Both are senior teachers and have been teaching in B.C. for roughly 10 years full time. The scenario goes like this:
- Teacher 1 - Leaves on maternity leave in the late spring of 2005, returns to work in the fall of 2006. Standard maternity leave.
- Teacher 2 - Leaves on maternity leave in the late winter of 2006, returns to work the next winter (Jan 2007). Standard maternity leave as well.
Both teachers are off for the same amount of time, Teacher 1 several months before Teacher 2. Apart from the staggered times off, all else is equal. Furthermore, Teacher 1 is technically more senior within the school district than Teacher 2.
Result?
I was shocked to find that Teacher 1 (the more senior teacher) will not receive the $3700 signing bonus as she was “not working full time as of July 1, 2005″. Why? because she was on maternity leave - even though she retains all the rights and privileges of a full time teacher during that leave. As pulled from the BCTF website:
- Signing Incentive (revised on July 11, 2006)
- $3700 per FTE member (183 days is deemed full-time status).
- $300 per FTE in lieu of past payment for professional resources.
- Date of eligibility is June 30, 2006 - TOCs receive a pro-rated amount based upon the number of days worked, with 177 days deemed to be full-time (example: $4000 x 25 days worked / 177 days in session = $564.97).
- A part-time teacher who also TOCs would fold both types of service into the FTE calculation for purposes of the incentive.
- A part-time teacher who worked in more than one district in the 05/06 year shall receive her/his FTE portion of the incentive from each district.
- Members who are on the following paid leaves of absence commencing on or following July 1, 2005 shall receive the incentive: pregnancy or parental, leave for jury duty, short and long term disability, WCB, paid education leave, sick leave, paid union leave, or any other long term paid leave.
- Incentive will be paid according to the FTE status the day prior to the commencement of the leave. - The signing bonus will be paid after ratification.
- (www.bctf.ca/bargain/negotiations/SettlementSummary.html)
What gives here? Why the arbitrary date of July 1st 2005? Even if it is related to the termination of the expired contract, why do they have to make the eligibility date-based at all? That clearly isn’t fair to Teacher 1. She is still full time. She still blocks the same position while she is on maternity leave. She is still coming back to her same class in September. She was full time when she went on maternity leave. It wasn’t a special leave of absence. Why shouldn’t she be eligible for the signing bonus??
Should not the signing bonus simply be paid (for status full time workers) no matter what date they entered maternity leave? If they are considered full time by the BCTF, they should get the bonus. Accordingly, teachers working half time, etc. should be paid less. It’s simply not fair to the hard working, dedicated teacher who happened to go on maternity leave in (say) June of 2005. Either you’re in the club or you’re out. make up your mind - you can’t have both.
Post a Comment