The union for more than 52,000 B.C. public school teachers ratified a new collective agreement this month.
The new deal gave teachers a general wage increase of three per cent annually for four years, the raise offered to most other B.C. public sector workers in this round of bargaining.
It also included a one-time $30,000 benefit for teachers who need gender-affirming care, increasing to $50,000 in 2028.
“It’s life changing for somebody to have their [gender-affirming] care being covered by their extended health plan,” said BC Teachers’ Federation president Carole Gordon.
“It’s not optional, and members have been paying for that for themselves. To have their health plan cover that is a significant cost recovery.”
Gender-affirming care is endorsed by the Canadian Medical Association and has been proven to significantly reduce harms and violence toward trans and gender-diverse people.
But teachers in Vancouver and Coquitlam, the majority of whom have voted against joining the provincial health plan, can’t access the coverage for gender-affirming care. Travers, a sociology professor at Simon Fraser University who uses only one name, said the gap in coverage was “alarming.”
“It’s a clear case of inequity,” Travers said. “That’s a glaring omission, and I think that it reflects a failure to appreciate the importance of gender-affirming care for the well-being of staff.”
They added the gap in coverage highlights the tension between the needs of the majority within a union and those of minority groups.
“Teachers who require gender-affirming health care are in a minority, so they’re subject to the needs of the majority,” Travers said. “That’s really unfortunate.”
The new four-year collective agreement, ratified by the employers March 6, included measures to address affordability and retain teachers, Gordon said. It puts new teachers at the third step of the members’ 10-step salary grid, instead of having them start from the bottom.
The deal included a new $8,000 stipend for qualified teachers who teach Indigenous languages, whether or not they are Indigenous themselves.
It also included the gender-affirming care benefit — coverage that’s not yet widespread across the country.
B.C.’s Medical Services Plan covers medically necessary gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy, chest construction and hysterectomy. But other costly services, like facial feminization surgery, voice surgery and anesthesia during these procedures, are not covered.
In B.C., extended coverage is available to members of unions including the Hospital Employees’ Union, the BC General Employees’ Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the International Union of Operating Engineers.
“What we’ve been able to achieve here is quite unique,” Gordon said. “We’re really proud that we can have that in our group benefit plan.”
But the teachers’ federation was able to negotiate the new gender-affirming care benefit only for the provincial plan, she said.
“Those who need gender-affirming care within those locals can’t get it through the group plan because their local hasn’t signed on,” Gordon said. “We can only negotiate the group benefit plan.”
In an attempt to standardize health benefits, a health benefit plan for the entire province’s teachers was implemented in 2012. Only the provincial teachers’ union and employers’ association can negotiate changes to the plan.
To date, most teachers across the province have elected to join the provincial plan, with the exception of teachers in Vancouver and Coquitlam, who remain on their own local health plans.
Coquitlam Teachers’ Association president Ken Christensen said the local has voted on whether to switch to the provincial health plan several times over numerous rounds of bargaining.
But each time, members of that local vote to stay on their own health plan.
“The people that negotiated that plan locally back in the day had great foresight, and were able to see quite far ahead,” he said. “But the plan is definitely an artifact of its time.”
He said the Coquitlam teachers’ health plan was last negotiated in the 1990s. It includes strong support for physiotherapy and medication.
He said the only way for the gender-affirming care benefit to extend to Coquitlam teachers would be if a majority voted to join the provincial health plan, giving up certain health supports — or for the provincial government to change rules that prevent the local from improving its health plan.
“It comes down to, in the end, the legislation that guides negotiation, and we have no way to really overturn that here,” Christensen said.
“There’s not members out there that want to deny this to anybody. These are things we all want to have for our members in the trans community.”
The Vancouver teachers’ health plan also has not been changed since the provincial health plan was implemented, according to Vancouver Secondary Teachers’ Association president Carmen Schaedeli.
“We can’t negotiate improvements to the local plan; it can only be negotiated provincially,” Schaedeli said. “There is nothing that we in this office can do about that fact.”
Schaedeli said every time the provincial union negotiates improvements to the provincial plan, Vancouver-area teachers vote on whether to join that health plan. Just like the Coquitlam teachers, Vancouver members have so far never voted to join the provincial plan.
Schaedeli declined to comment on why or elaborate on the differences between the Vancouver and provincial health plans.
“There are a lot of differences. There’s pros and cons to both,” she said. “I don’t think it’s something the public needs to get into, the details of our health plan.”
She added Vancouver teachers will vote on whether to join the provincial plan again this spring.
Meanwhile, the Vancouver Elementary and Adult Educators’ Society did not respond to requests for comment.
BC Public School Employers’ Association chief communications officer Deneka Michaud said in an email that the association is not responsible for negotiating the Vancouver and Coquitlam health plans.
But one B.C. teacher, whom The Tyee agreed not to identify to protect their employment, said the reluctance of any authority to take responsibility for the gap in health care feels “Kafkaesque.”
“The [union] blames the locals because they won’t vote the plan away,” they said through encrypted messaging. “The BCTF says the employer won’t do it, so we can’t ask. The local gets told there’s no point in asking. So we stop asking.”
The Tyee has verified the teacher’s identity and confirmed that they work as a teacher in B.C.’s public school system.
SFU’s Travers said the gap in coverage was not a sign that anyone in the union or the locals held anti-trans sentiment.
“I have to assume that for many teachers losing access to certain provisions would be disastrous,” Travers said. “Just like the lack of trans health care is for trans teachers.”
Instead, Travers said, Vancouver and Coquitlam teachers who need gender-affirming care are likely a minority within their locals, which undermines their power to collectively bargain.
“I understand that a union is going to prioritize the needs of the majority, but then a portion of the membership really suffers,” they said.
“It sends a message that their needs are not as important as everybody else’s, and I don’t think that that’s the kind of society we want to be.”
