Of all the many controversies that have dogged the B.C. Liberals during their near-13 years in power, few match their inept, wrongheaded and, in the end, illegal actions against two public sector unions.
Their decisions to tear up freely negotiated contracts with both the Hospital Employees Union and the B.C. Teachers Federation are black marks etched deep in their record, and will stand as an unimpressive legacy for some time.
Their dispute with the HEU has faded from view, after the courts ruled against the government and forced it to negotiate a hefty financial penalty with the union.
But their dispute with the BCTF lingers on, even after a B.C. Supreme Court judge last week delivered a scathing rebuke of their actions. Unfortunately, this means stability and certainty may not be returning to the public education system anytime soon.
The court ruled, for the second time, that stripping working conditions from the collective agreement was unconstitutional and illegal. That is fairly straight forward.
What is not straight forward, however, is what happens next.
The judge, in her decision, ordered that the language governing class size and class composition (which determines how many teachers and special needs assistants are required to be on the job) that was in the contract in 2002 (when the government arbitrarily removed them) be put back in the collective agreement.
But she also wrote that "this does not guarantee the language is clad in stone" and notes it will be the subject of ongoing collective bargaining.
Not surprisingly, the BCTF argues that given the court decision, staffing levels should revert to 2002 levels, which would likely require the hiring or re-hiring of several thousand teachers, librarians and special needs assistants (who are members of CUPE).
The provincial government appears to be balking at that interpretation, which is also not surprising, given the enormous financial cost that would be incurred with having to hire so many teachers so quickly (the court heard evidence that it would cost $500 million, plus $275 million a year, estimates the judge found speculative).
Adding to the confusion and the costs is the possibility that thousands of grievances will be filed (or have been filed) by teachers who spent a decade working under working conditions now deemed to have been illegal.
But whatever the number, the amount of money that could potentially involved here is staggering.
And that is one reason why the government is likely to appeal the decision. At the very least, filing an appeal will buy it some time to find a way out of this mess.
In the meantime, school trustees everywhere are wondering when and if they have to hire a bunch of teachers at a time when their boards' budgets don't have the money to do that.
And it's also unclear how this situation will affect the ongoing talks between the BCTF and the government regarding a new contract. If anything, it's hard to see how the court ruling will have a positive impact on the contract talks, at least in the short term.
The number one priority for the B.C. Liberal government is a balanced budget. Next year's budget is forecast, for now, to have a surplus of less than a half billion dollars (or, potentially, the amount of money equal to funding the 2002 class size and composition regulations).
So it is not clear (especially given its stubborn and abrasive attitude in this fight) that the government will simply roll over and automatically fund all those new teaching positions, since that funding could tip the budget into deficit.
But the B.C. Liberals do not have the high, moral ground here, let alone a strong legal position.
Some kind of mediation may be an option. Even binding arbitration - a route rarely used by governments because it means they lose control over the outcome - may have to be explored.
Of course, the BCTF is perfectly entitled to reject all those options, and insist the 2002 rules be followed pronto.
If that's where everything is headed, we may see a new tax coming from the government to pay for them, and there is a precedent for it.
For example, in 2002 the B.C. Liberals raised the provincial sales tax by a half cent to pay for a very expensive binding arbitration with the doctors.
Perhaps we're headed down the same kind of path again, and if we are, you can place the blame squarely on a fight the B.C. Liberals started more than 10 years ago.
Keith Baldrey is chief political reporter for Global BC Keith.Baldrey@globalnews.ca