Ontario Teachers Tighten the Screws

Michael Hardner · November 3, 2012

I made no claims about legalities. I simply suggested some possible scenarios and fully expected some or all to be shot down by those more knowledgeable. I appreciate the history lesson about Reagan and the controllers.

What is a "possible scenario" though ? How likely is it ? How likely should it be for us to discuss it on here ? Some left-of-centre folks also pine for a great enlightenment where taxes will shoot up immensely and we'll all be happy with that.

My point was that when public opinion turns strongly enough against teachers such issues become possible political tools for more votes. What's more, it doesn't always matter what is legal or not. A politician could fire teachers or at least do something very negative towards them which would not stand up in court, knowing that even when the government lost the teachers would have been severely hurt. Meanwhile, if it brought in enough votes the politician and his party would not care about the expense of a settlement!

...

Do you really think they would care about illegal moves against the teachers in order to reap more votes? Didn't they already do some things if not illegal at least unethical in their negotiations with the teachers?

Well, they passed a law that will likely not hold up in court anyway - but the question is the degree of severity along with possible political gain. I could post that McGuinty could have arrested the teachers and imposed martial law and cancelled elections, and you would rightly scoff at the scenario. I could also say, as you have, that it's a "possible scenario".

Harris went as far as anyone in recent memory, and it wasn't anything like the scenario you came up with.

This means that politicians can win votes by screwing the teachers. How badly they can screw them is up for debate.
...

McGuinty did this but he did a bad job of walking the line.

I'm not arguing a legal blueprint for the government here. Please don't attack my model instead of my point.

Ok, well it seems to me that you could have made your point better by talking generally about public support for teachers. I agree with your point, by the way. And it is a nitpick, but we're all throwing pebbles at each others' argument here and our discussion gets better through that process.

Michael Hardner · November 3, 2012

I agree. It is pure fantasy. I often hear (twice on this thread by both Wild Bill and Mr Canada) about Reagan firing the air traffic controllers and how the same thing could be done with the teachers. Either these people are living in a fantasy world, or they have little understanding of what actually happened with PATCO.

I side with Reagan on the PATCO firing. The air traffic controllers initiated an illegal strike. They did so despite having signed an oath to never strike. And they remained on strike past the 48 hour deadline which Reagan gave them to return to their jobs. He had warned them in no uncertain terms that they would be fired if they did not return to their jobs by that deadline. In the US Reagan could also use the 1947 Taft–Hartley Act. I know of nothing similar here.

I sympathize with the workers who were fired. They had been receiving a raw deal for years working a job where they were overworked, understaffed, and underpaid (this was recognized by Reagan himself during the 1980 campaign). At the same time the workers had over the years fought to make aviation safer, and a lot of improvements had been made in the past because of them. They had been negotiating for about 8 months at the time. They had won large wage and benefit increases. They were at the same time continuing to push for better working conditions (which I feel were legitimate in many of their demands, but not all) and even better wages and benefits. Reagan’s administration supported their position enough that he had overstepped the FAA and offered further wage increases (which I believe were about $10,000 a year in increases – in 1981, probably the equivalent of $30,000 today). Reagan supported the rights of the workers to both be unionized and to bargain. While he did not support strikes by unions and union members who are public sector and deemed to be essential for public safety reasons, he did support the right of other unions to strike. Those who have since used Reagan’s action to attack union rights to unionize and bargain such as Governor Walker are misrepresenting Reagan and the event completely.

It should also be said that Reagan’s decision cost a lot of money. I am ok with that, as I think that sometimes it is costly to uphold the law. For starters, since that time air traffic controllers have been paid at the level (in comparison to a certain level of airline pilots) that PATCO had been fighting for. Their benefits are very good, possibly better than PATCO ever asked for. When management is forced to work on the front-line (as they were after PATCO for months, or even years in some cases) they often discover fairly quickly that the improvements in working conditions that they had been so virulently opposed to, now all the sudden make a whole lot of sense. The government lost thousands of employees who they had spent 3 years training, and now had to train thousands more. And for those who hate unions, the air traffic controllers unionized again within a couple years. The costs to the government were several fold more than giving into ALL of the union’s demands (and things probably could have been settled by giving into 20 or 30% of their demands, but all in all the firing of the ATCs is estimated to have cost a couple billion dollars, whereas giving into all of PATCOs demands would have cost about 700 million, and the reality is that a deal would have likely been agreed to costing the government 100 – 200 million).

Thanks, WS, for a detailed and nuanced description of the PATCO situation in our current context. It seems to me that McGuinty's strategy to play the middle let him to try to come down on the teachers, following public sentiment - and that his strategy to do so wasn't well thought out. Too many flip-flops and people start to remember what the Liberals really are.

Wild Bill · November 3, 2012

What is a "possible scenario" though ? How likely is it ? How likely should it be for us to discuss it on here ? Some left-of-centre folks also pine for a great enlightenment where taxes will shoot up immensely and we'll all be happy with that.

Ok, well it seems to me that you could have made your point better by talking generally about public support for teachers. I agree with your point, by the way. And it is a nitpick, but we're all throwing pebbles at each others' argument here and our discussion gets better through that process.

Well, I thought it likely enough to be worth discussion or I wouldn't have brought it up, Michael! You may think differently but other people have posted in this thread, some for and some against.

I don't think that McGuinty is the one to take on the teachers but trends do tend to escalate. Apparently, proroguing Queens Park tosses the issue to arbitration. Some posters have said that this is McGuinty's way of giving teachers what they wanted without appearing to do so.

That suggests to me that he knows the teachers' cause is not all that popular with the voters so he doesn' t want to look like he gave in to them, doing it instead by a backdoor method. He wants it both ways!

No, I think we are at the start of a trend in public sentiment towards teachers, not a crest. No doubt teachers will be encouraged as they win much if not all of their demands every confrontation. Still, that also will likely piss off parents even more over the years. I am reminded of when the posties were true government employees. It took a couple of decades but eventually they were almost dispised by many citizens! We had a case here in Hamilton back in the 70's during a postal strike where some guys hid in bushes and jumped a letter carrier to beat him up. I remember feeling how that was rather unfair at the time because it was the inside workers striking, not the letter carriers. Obviously these guys didn't make any distinction.

We won't affect anything today with discussion Michael. Still, I think we should keep it in the back of our minds. This issue is not going to go away. Over the next decade perhaps it will keep festering.

CPCFTW · November 3, 2012

Firing striking teachers is far more likely than adopting many of the climate change mitigation strategies espoused here, yet you never seem to have a problem discussing those Michael.

Michael Hardner · November 3, 2012

Firing striking teachers is far more likely than adopting many of the climate change mitigation strategies espoused here, yet you never seem to have a problem discussing those Michael.

Can you find an example of me discussing climate change mitigation strategies, other than in a general way ? I don't remember having done that here in a long long time, if at all, so I feel like you're perhaps making an assumption.

CPCFTW · November 3, 2012

Can you find an example of me discussing climate change mitigation strategies, other than in a general way ? I don't remember having done that here in a long long time, if at all, so I feel like you're perhaps making an assumption.

Not you in particular. However, as the discussion "facilitator", I expect that if you are going to discourage discussion of an unlikely event, then you should do it in an unbiased manner.

What I'm saying is that I've seen discussions about stopping oilsands development altogether, the world ending in the near future due to climate change, eliminating canada's military and relying on US defense, eliminating the fractional reserve banking system, occupy movement leading to revolution and a new world order, etc., but I don't recall you wanting to end those discussions. Yet firing striking teachers is the scenario you think is too unlikely to warrant discussion?

Michael Hardner · November 3, 2012

I do want to encourage discussion, but saying "they should fire them" doesn't give us much to discuss because it's not realistic - do you see?

Wild Bill · November 3, 2012

I do want to encourage discussion, but saying "they should fire them" doesn't give us much to discuss because it's not realistic - do you see?

Michael, YOU believe it's not realistic! Others might disagree.

I thought that was how discussion is supposed to work. Is it your position that you will now judge what is or is not realistic and summarily end discussion?

That really isn't the role of a facilitator, IMHO. I think you may be making the same mistake Stockwell Day made when he became leader of the Reform Party. He was an evangelical Christian and truly believed that they represented a silent majority not just within the party but amongst Canadians at large. He simply had never questioned his beilefs and thought they were mainstream.

Hindsight shows how wrong he was, after all the damage he caused. He was never trying to manipulate the situation, he simply had a blind spot in thinking that his beliefs were "gospel", if you'll pardon the pun.

We all have blind spots but I think you may be showing one here, again in just my humble opinion. Even if you are convinced that the premise is unrealistic is not a good reason to discourage discussion among other members of MLW.

Michael Hardner · November 3, 2012

Michael, YOU believe it's not realistic! Others might disagree.

I thought that was how discussion is supposed to work. Is it your position that you will now judge what is or is not realistic and summarily end discussion?

Hmmm... No, I am just giving my opinion on this topic.

Look, I asked you on the details of how this mass firing would come about and you had nothing - are you doubling down on that now?

It may be only my opinion that you have next to nothing here but you aren't even trying to convince me otherwise are you ?

We all have blind spots but I think you may be showing one here, again in just my humble opinion. Even if you are convinced that the premise is unrealistic is not a good reason to discourage discussion among other members of MLW.

I don't think there is a rule against making unrealistic suggestions, so I can!t rightly prevent you from doing so.

Fill your boots, as they say, but don't complain if I call you on it as a poster.

Wild Bill · November 3, 2012

Hmmm... No, I am just giving my opinion on this topic.

Look, I asked you on the details of how this mass firing would come about and you had nothing - are you doubling down on that now?

It may be only my opinion that you have next to nothing here but you aren't even trying to convince me otherwise are you ?

I don't think there is a rule against making unrealistic suggestions, so I can!t rightly prevent you from doing so.

Fill your boots, as they say, but don't complain if I call you on it as a poster.

I think you are missing the point, Michael. You are attacking the models of how a government might fire or punish teachers. That is not important. We are not trying to work out a manual here!

I thought we were discussing the possibility of some party or politician using popular resentment against teachers as a tool to get votes. HOW they do it doesn't matter!

Or are you saying that the discussion is unrealistic because a government CAN'T do negative things to teachers? That such actions would NOT be popular? That it would NOT result in more votes for the antagonists?

That is what I thought we were debating, not trying to come up with a specific master plan as to how things could be legally done.

Michael Hardner · November 4, 2012

WB

I think that they are already moving against teachers, but not just 'firing' them. It may just me my opinion but unless you have some details, I would say mr criticisms haven't been addressed.

CPCFTW · November 4, 2012

WB

I think that they are already moving against teachers, but not just 'firing' them. It may just me my opinion but unless you have some details, I would say mr criticisms haven't been addressed.

Neither have mine. My criticism being that your criticism of unlikely scenarios is unbalanced.

Michael Hardner · November 4, 2012

So maybe you can explain how a mass firing would come about?

CPCFTW · November 4, 2012

I did. Post 34.

cybercoma · November 4, 2012

Here's post #34

Yes Michael.. I can see it happening.

Step 1: claim that teacher's work to rule actions necessitate legislation of even lower wages and benefits and some layoffs to hire employees who will take over the duties teachers refuse to do.

Step 2: wait for teachers to stomp their feet and illegally strike

Step 3: fire all the strikers and bring on the scabs!

CPCFTW · November 4, 2012

Here's post #34

Very good. You can count!

socialist · November 4, 2012

it's too bad the government wouldn't negotiate in good faith. it shouldn't have to come to this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/ontario-high-school-teachers-set-to-withdraw-services-wednesday/article4902786/

Wild Bill · November 4, 2012

it's too bad the government wouldn't negotiate in good faith. it shouldn't have to come to this.

http://www.theglobea...article4902786/

Hey, the teachers helped to put McGuinty in! They thought they had their own muppet.

Reap the whirlwind.

Wild Bill · November 4, 2012

WB

I think that they are already moving against teachers, but not just 'firing' them. It may just me my opinion but unless you have some details, I would say mr criticisms haven't been addressed.

Michael, I am NOT going to get into an argument to nitpick the details of HOW a government could screw teachers! I don't care! If a government is motivated they would know how to do it far better than you or I would. So what's the point?

As I said before, we are not trying to write the manual for such deeds here.

I am trying to debate whether or not public opinion could be used by politicians against the teachers. Who cares how?

So far, you don't seem to want to address MY questions at all! You won't talk about the level of popular resentment against teachers, if any. You won't talk about how that might influence votes in an election, positive or negative.

You just keep demanding I give you a precise and working blueprint for how a government might actually screw the teachers!

I think we should just agree to disagree and move on.

Michael Hardner · November 4, 2012

Michael, I am NOT going to get into an argument to nitpick the details of HOW a government could screw teachers!

Ok. It's strange to not argue something, then state that my opinion that your view is unrealistic is "just my opinion".

Michael Hardner · November 4, 2012

Step 1: claim that teacher's work to rule actions necessitate legislation of even lower wages and benefits and some layoffs to hire employees who will take over the duties teachers refuse to do.

Step 2: wait for teachers to stomp their feet and illegally strike

Step 3: fire all the strikers and bring on the scabs!

I have a couple of questions: When has there been an illegal teachers` strike in Ontario ? What makes you think that would happen ? Why would they be allowed to hire scabs - the union would still be in place right ?

Mr.Canada · November 4, 2012

We need to ban all trade unions. Outlaw them completely. They have far too much power. Disproportionately so.

Wild Bill · November 4, 2012

Ok. It's strange to not argue something, then state that my opinion that your view is unrealistic is "just my opinion".

Michael, when you called my opinion "unrealistic" you implied that it was because my scenarios for how teachers could be screwed over were "unrealistic".

That is the part that I found strange! As I said, you appeared to be focussing on my models and ignoring my points.

Michael Hardner · November 4, 2012

Michael, when you called my opinion "unrealistic" you implied that it was because my scenarios for how teachers could be screwed over were "unrealistic".

That is the part that I found strange! As I said, you appeared to be focussing on my models and ignoring my points.

Your quote: "If parents are mad at teachers at the same time McGuinty and Hudak were running for election, what might happen if McGuinty had have pulled a "Reagan firing the airport controllers" move? This could likely be done, since there are a LOT of new teachers needing jobs!"

I have been trying to get you to explain how this could likely be done, and your response is to say I'm "focusing on your models". Fine. I'm happy to move on from this if you are, and in fact we already did yesterday - I posted at 8.34 and moved on, and you replied at 10.35 and that was that.

But then you jumped in on my discussion with CPCFTW for some reason and opened our discussion up again saying that my opinion is my opinion only.

Then you go back to saying I`m focusing on models again ? That is fighting and running away. If I expressed an opinion and was challenged I would defend it, or retract it, or change it. I would not run away and say "says you", which is basically what you did.

If you want to say that I am focusing on the wrong thing then ok - let us just move on but don`t jump back on it and say that something is my opinion only, which implies that I have no reasons for posting what I post. Please don`t keep opening it up. That type of discussion ties my hands behinds my back and is very frustrating to respond to.

Michael Hardner · November 4, 2012

And by the way, WB, here is how I closed it out yesterday - note that I said I agreed with your point !

Ok, well it seems to me that you could have made your point better by talking generally about public support for teachers. I agree with your point, by the way. And it is a nitpick, but we're all throwing pebbles at each others' argument here and our discussion gets better through that process.