This paper is written in response to two BCPSEA (British Columbia Public School Employers' Association) documents: (1) "Teacher professional development: A question of development, growth and currency." From the series of BCPSEA papers "Perspectives in Practice." http://www.bcpsea.bc.ca/documents/publications/03-HJF-Professional%20Development.pdf, accessed in July 2011; and (2) "Professional growth and engagement." BCPSEA: Tabled language, June 2011. http://www.bcpsea.bc.ca/documents/teacher%20bargaining/E28-CW-Professional%20Growth%20and%20Engagement.pdf, accessed in July 2011. This paper provides evidence that BCPSEA's position is antithetical to the research on professional learning, and to what happens in countries with high-performance education systems where teachers are respected as professionals. BCPSEA's Discussion Paper and its position in bargaining are highly confrontational, in that both directly attack teacher autonomy and shift the locus of professional development control from teachers-as-professionals to employers. Staff development, paid for by employers, is conducted during the regular work day at the employer's expense--an investment which BCPSEA clearly feels need not be made if it can seize control of teachers' professional development, including those professional development days donated by teachers and voluntarily added to their workload. Support for investment is lacking in the BCPSEA documents, in terms of Staff and Professional Development. BCPSEA has actually reversed the Finnish philosophy. The Finns plan to massively increase investment in teachers' professional learning while also maximizing teacher autonomy in schools. BCPSEA, however, proposes no investment, reduced autonomy, and maximum employer control in a managerial model which has no credibility within the current literature on professional development. BCPSEA has a dual approach: offer to open up conversations through its Discussion Papers and then close the conversation by tabling language which explicitly states (in Section 4) that if there is no agreement then their language will be imposed, likely through legislation. "Let's invite a discussion so that it looks like we are in dialogue and consultation, and then do what we tell you to do," seems to be their approach. It's a stance that fundamentally disrespects both the profession and the collective bargaining process. (Contains 6 footnotes.)