Happy New Year! Thanks for tuning in!
I've been thinking about this subject for a while now. As a somewhat disinterested bystander I wasn't following the story too terribly closely at first, assuming that the interested parties would figure themselves out sooner or later. Well, it's later; much later and they still haven't figured themselves out. Before I get too far into this please understand, I'm not taking sides. The point of this post is just to raise a few points and perhaps clarify a few things for some people who may not know the whole story.
For those of you who do not live in Ontario, Bill 115, Putting Students First Act - 2012 was implemented by the current Liberal government as an amendment to the provincial Education Act seemingly because the current (at the time) teacher and support staff agreements were about to expire (on August 31, 2012) and only two unions had reached agreements and signed memoranda of understanding with the government. Theoretically, this bill was implemented so as to allow for two years free of labour disputes. While I'll go through the nuts and bolts of the bill in detail below, this is the meat of what the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) had agreed to (and the one upon which the government has based Bill 115):
Those of us who aren't government employees read this and think to ourselves "So? What's the big deal? Lots of companies have or have had wage freezes. At least they have jobs." The vast majority of people who work outside of government have no such thing as banked sick days or even job security anymore, so they have a hard time feeling any empathy towards people who, in their opinion, only work 10 months of the year (with 2 weeks off at Christmas plus March Break) and 7 hours of each day.
- Zero per cent salary increases in 2012-13 and 2013-14.
- All teachers will take a 1.5 per cent pay cut in the form of three unpaid professional development days so that younger teachers will continue to move through the grid according to their experience and additional qualifications.
- Agreement to restructure the grid with a view to long-term, sustainable savings.
- Elimination of the current retirement gratuity for payment of unused sick days that was responsible for a $1.7 billion liability for school boards.
- A restructured short-term sick leave plan that would include up to 10 sick days. This sick leave plan would benefit younger teachers by providing income protection for serious illness and improved maternity leave provisions.
I know teachers. I'm related to teachers. I like teachers. And that myth isn't exactly true; but it isn't entirely false either. They do get most of the summer off. And they get two weeks off every Christmas plus they get March break off. But they also work all day, every day. Even when they're not actually teaching your kids. They're there before your kids are and they're there after they leave. They take their work home with them. They organize the concerts and the sports teams and the school plays. Sure, that's part of what teachers are expected to do, but they don't do it during class time. My point here is that I think the public has maybe forgotten that we expect an awful lot from teachers. I would not trade places with a teacher for the world. I'm not sure I could manage a whole class of children and I wouldn't want the responsibility these days when parents seem to expect everything and a bag of chips from teachers.
Moving on to Bill 115, lots of the news, tweets, messages etc. seem to focus on this 'work to rule' (my words) protest being about labour rights rather than the actual changes in the agreements. So, I looked it up. and since most people probably don't want to read the whole bill (or any of it) I'll give you the highlights (there is mention that these powers are granted on an exceptional and temporary basis):
- Section 4(1) refers to the types of agreements which the collective bargaining must resemble: i.e. the one agreed to by the OECTA and the terms must not be inconsistent with that agreement.
- Section 9 is actually called Minister’s advice to Lieutenant Governor in Council.
- Subsection (1) specifies how the Education Minister can, and should, give orders to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) regarding signing agreements. Essentially, the Minister must approve of whatever agreement the boards and teachers come up with, and those agreements must resemble the agreement reached with the OECTA.
- Subsection (2) is a little more complex, but it specifies that if the Minister advises the Lieutenant Governor that an agreement does not meet the above-mentioned criteria, then the LG may order just about anything, "(vi) do anything else that the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines is necessary in the circumstances". It then goes on to detail what things may need to be done if the Minister advises the LG that a board and a bargaining agent are not going to be able to come to an agreement before the December 31, 2012 deadline: impose a collective agreement as per above, prohibit strikes, prohibit lockouts and everything associated with those things.
- The rest of the subsections are mostly legal stuff, nothing earth-shattering.
- Section (10) makes it okay for the LG to impose a collective agreement. Period.
Yikes!!! They can't even complain if their human rights are violated!!! That would be breaking the law. Seriously.14. (1) The Ontario Labour Relations Board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code.(2) An arbitrator or arbitration board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code.
The bill goes on to say that there will be no review by court. Period. No orders made or advice given under this Act will be reviewed or arbitrated. There will be no causes of action resulting from this Act. There will be no remedy. There's more after that, but it's legal stuff; this is the meat and potatoes.
So, if someone was taking my rights away, I might be a little miffed too. Wouldn't you?
Having said all of that, I'd like to go in a different direction now. When I was first researching this bill, the idea that kept popping into my mind was that while this bill is a Draconian measure, would it have been necessary if the threat of labour disruption wasn't real? Yes, this bill goes too far in my opinion, but I think the threat was real. And why was the threat there in the first place? Because the government was trying to control spending by implementing the measures listed at the top of this post; and, as I mentioned above, I don't know very many people (outside of the government) who would have a hard time accepting those provisions as long as they still had jobs. So as much as the teachers want to take the high road and claim that this isn't about money or banking sick days, that's what started it.
That and the fact that they are unionized professionals. Think about that for a minute. Roll it around in your mouth. Professionals. Because teachers are professionals. They have to get a second university degree to teach at any level, they have specialties, they have to maintain and continue their education and keep current. Teachers are professionals. But they're also in unions. What's up with that? Are there any other professionals you can think of who are unionized? I can't think of any. The other professionals that come to mind have organizations which are responsible for maintaining their membership, accreditation, discipline when necessary, education etc., but they aren't unions. The Law Societies, The Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, the Associations of Chartered Accountants, to name but a few.
At the risk of offending teachers (which is not at all my intent), the rest of the western world is in, at the very least, a recession. Much of southern Ontario over the past five years has had to deal with the fallout of the collapse of the auto industry and everything that rippled from that and the American banking collapse. Teachers have been laid off and still there is a threat of strikes or lockouts. No one wants to lose something that they already have. That's understandable. But banking sick days? Forever? There are teachers who can't get jobs and the ones who have jobs want to strike because they can't save up their sick days. Many people don't even get paid when they're sick. Other professionals get paid for the work they actually do (doctors get paid per client visit, lawyers bill by the hour that they are actually working on your stuff etc.). They don't get paid a salary and they certainly don't get paid when they don't do anything.
As I mentioned above, I have the highest regard for teachers, and I am always suspicious of the government. This legislation is outrageous and while the teachers themselves can't do anything about it, perhaps the taxpayers should: because if the government can do this to one group of people, then they can of course do it to another group (and you're fooling yourself if you think not). I have no idea how to go about that at this particular time, so I'll just leave that in your laps for now.
I think that I have rambled enough for today and I will remove myself from my soapbox after saying one more thing: I think that both sides are wrong and neither is putting students first. The Minister and the teachers (or at least the organizers of the work stoppages) are antagonizing each other and holding the students hostage.
Drive safe peeps,
