Richmond Review

Your View

QUESTION OF THE WEEK

Send a reply to the question of the week.

LETTERS OF THE WEEK:

DISCRIMINATION?

I have been reading with some interest the various letters to the editor in your newspaper and others concerning cultural relations in Richmond, which is experiencing multi-racial adjustments. My personal story may be of interest. For the last four years, I have been trying to secure a teaching position with the Richmond school district, but I have been unsuccessful. It appears I have too many qualifications and years of experience for my own good. In 1990, I was chosen by B.C.'s Ministry of Education to attend Mandarin language classes in Taipei, Taiwan. There I earned a basic diploma in Mandarin language. The Ministry of Education chose me to be part of the teachers' group because of my experience teaching in China on a one-year leave from a teaching position in B.C., and my publication of learning material for B.C. students about Chinese culture. I chose to learn more about this major Asian culture because of the increasing ties between Canada and Asia-Pacific nations. I have put in extra effort in learning more so that I could bring more information to the ever-changing classroom in my resident school district of Richmond. My experience includes many years of teaching at the elementary, secondary and college levels. It also includes upgrading my skills in computer software and hardware. I have a certificate in English as a Second Language Teaching. My master's degree was earned in the study of computer application in computer-assisted and computer-managed learning. I have excellent references from all of my former employers. However, the Richmond school district focuses on hiring only newly-graduated young teachers. It is not interested in teachers like me with years of experience and high qualifications. In a sense it is discriminating against highly qualified and older teachers. With the phenomenal growth of students in Richmond from the Pacific Rim, one would think Richmond would welcome teachers with additional language qualifications and strong foundations in Pacific-Rim developments.

JUST THE FACTS

I would like to thank Mr. McCullough for his willingness to provide coverage on the issue of the RCMP and the exhibit custodian. I would also like to thank him for his recognition of CUPE B.C.'s advertising campaign regarding the upcoming provincial election. I would appreciate an opportunity to offer a different perspective regarding the RCMP's decision to fire the current exhibit custodian. The union member (local 718) who presently works as the exhibit custodian at the RCMP is being dismissed not because of "unreliability" and "short hours" but because she is an active union member. The exhibit custodian's responsibilities are not so technical nor so specialized that it is impossible for another individual to be trained to perform backup. There are several trained employees available to provide coverage. At all times, the RCMP has the right to place a trained relief in the position during periods of her absence. The union even pays the employer for her time and the RCMP has chosen to pocket these funds instead of using them to place a relief. Management at the RCMP chose not to exercise a well-established municipal practice and is now penalizing this employee for their failure to do so. The RCMP's claim that the city failed to provide service is incorrect. The city did provide service, the RCMP refused to avail themselves of that service. As to the hours issue, in the last contract settlement, the employer gained an "hours of work" concession from CUPE which allows them the right to request and implement a change to an employee's hours. Again, the RCMP chose not to exercise this option and the current exhibit custodian is being penalized for their failure to do so. The city administrator, Johnny Carline, stated at the council meeting that she was losing her job because of her "absenteeism". The current exhibit custodian is rarely absent from work except for "compressed days", vacations and union leave ("compressed days" - municipal employees work a longer day and in return have a nine-day fortnight). Recently, Carline stated that she was not being fired solely because of union leave. I find it hard to believe that someone can be fired for using their vacation time and for a contractual requirement for a nine-day fortnight. The exhibit custodian is being fired because she is an officer of local 718 and is required to request union leave. When she was elected to be an officer of local 718, she swore an oath to represent our membership. She does not have a choice in picking and choosing which people to represent. She is obligated to request union leave for bargaining and meeting with the employer. She always gave advance notice to the best of her ability. As a Richmond taxpayer, I am concerned by the RCMP's intention to replace her with an individual at a higher rate of pay and bill the city for the extra cost without consulting council. I am concerned regarding the complicity of the mayor and the city administrator in permitting this to occur with no accountability to our elected representative - city council. Considering the mood of a tax-fatigued electorate, a 25-per-cent jump in this position's salary cannot be considered "negligible" as Supt. Ernie MacAulay was recently quoted. As an additional note, it would be hard not to take this incident as further evidence of an anti-union bias within the RCMP. Labor relations at the Richmond RCMP have been contentious. There appears to be a general lack of respect for the concept of the collective agreement that brings about numerous grievances and a poisoned workplace atmosphere. By attacking an active union member's job, they may be hoping to silence opposition. I believe the RCMP was created to uphold the law. This means that they must uphold contract law, labor law and the Charter of Human Rights - not only in word but in deed as well.

No excuse for violence

In the April 17th issue of The Review, Cultures columnist Gobinder Gill wrote "It is up to local Indo-Canadian leaders to educate the community that being possessive and abusive to women is unacceptable." I don't think it should stop there. How about educating our so-called 'justice system'? More than a year ago, a close family friend took my then-3-year-old child to Save-On Foods in Richmond. On the way out of the store they both witnessed a man punching a woman (his wife, as it turned out) in the face repeatedly. My friend called the police, gave them the licence plate number and recounted the event to them. She was called upon later to give a statement and was summoned to appear in court. I should add in here that it took me a long time to calm my child down and I foolishly told my child that the people would go to court and justice would be served. I explained that calling the police was the right thing to do. My friend had to take the day off of work to appear in court. The night before she was to go to court, the prosecutor called and said the case had been dropped. That the 'perpetrator' in question was an 'elderly gentleman and a new immigrant' and the family was going to handle it. That was it. I must add here that the Richmond RCMP were very understanding and helpful. They did their job and did it well. But it is out of their hands when it is time to go to court. My friend lost a day's wages for 'doing the right thing'. I'd like someone to tell me how I explain this to my child. This event touched the lives of many people, not just the immediate family. I believe the prosecutor in this case was being extremely prejudiced. Being a new immigrant is no excuse to commit a crime. It isn't up to one sector of society to fix the problem; it takes everyone working together.

Richmond Review Home Page