Unions Using Teachers Using Students

[Mighty AC]

You must make teachers essential if you want to impose a contract on them, then when you need a contract you go to an arbitrator who is fair and takes into account of both sides. The Government can't just go around forcing contracts on everyone because the "government needs it".

I have no problem with labour unions in general, but I do have issues with the public sector variety. If Ford cannot negotiate a deal it can work with, Ford can ultimately close a plant. Government, doesn't have that option and I think they can be held hostage by some very powerful unions. Maybe an arbitration panel that has one representative for the government, the employees and the taxpayers could work.

- Set a firm time limit on negotiations. 3 months, 6 months, whatever.

- Make meeting attendance mandatory. (The ETFO clause)

- In that time the sides setup the framework of issues and state their positions on each one.

- If they can come to agreement on each issue, great, otherwise they present their position, on an issue by issue basis, to the arbitration panel.

- The panel should only have the freedom to choose one side or the other on each issue, not a position in between. This is just to prevent each side from taking an unreasonable stance.

[punked]

I have no problem with labour unions in general, but I do have issues with the public sector variety. If Ford cannot negotiate a deal it can work with, Ford can ultimately close a plant. Government, doesn't have that option and I think they can be held hostage by some very powerful unions. Maybe an arbitration panel that has one representative for the government, the employees and the taxpayers could work.

- Set a firm time limit on negotiations. 3 months, 6 months, whatever.

- Make meeting attendance mandatory. (The ETFO clause)

- In that time the sides setup the framework of issues and state their positions on each one.

- If they can come to agreement on each issue, great, otherwise they present their position, on an issue by issue basis, to the arbitration panel.

- The panel should only have the freedom to choose one side or the other on each issue, not a position in between. This is just to prevent each side from taking an unreasonable stance.

Anything is better then what the Liberals did.

[Mighty AC]

I disagree. Demanding a negotiated solution while refusing to show up at the table is worse. Especially, when the union collects many millions in dues from its members.

We have a situation where concessions are absolutely necessary, 10 months of negotiation time elapsed and the largest union refused to participate. I agree with imposing a contract in a situation like that. Especially the very reasonable, arguably too generous, contract that was the result.

However, it would be nice to have a system in place to deal with situations like this in the future. Maybe an arbitration panel could solve the problem.

[punked]

I disagree. Demanding a negotiated solution while refusing to show up at the table is worse. Especially, when the union collects many millions in dues from its members.

Yah lets not pretend that the secondary teachers union who should up to the table again and again and again didn't get the same contract or anything. I wouldn't show up to the table either if I already knew what was going to happen.

We have a situation where concessions are absolutely necessary, 10 months of negotiation time elapsed and the largest union refused to participate. I agree with imposing a contract in a situation like that. Especially the very reasonable, arguably too generous, contract that was the result.

Nope you are misinformed and have no clue what you are talking so no CITATIONS PLEASE! I'll read any article you post but right now you are acting like rumors you heard are fact and they just aren't.

However, it would be nice to have a system in place to deal with situations like this in the future. Maybe an arbitration panel could solve the problem.

There is already a system. You have to declare them essential first though.

[Mighty AC]

Yah lets not pretend that the secondary teachers union who should up to the table again and again and again didn't get the same contract or anything. I wouldn't show up to the table either if I already knew what was going to happen.[/Quote]The government moved on several issues during negotiations. OECTA and others can whine about the contract if they like, nobody likes to make concessions. However, ETFO cannot complain. It's like a non-voter whining about government.

Nope you are misinformed and have no clue what you are talking so no CITATIONS PLEASE! I'll read any article you post but right now you are acting like rumors you heard are fact and they just aren't.[/Quote]What point are you referring to? 10 months, ETFO not participating or the contract being arguably too generous?

There is already a system. You have to declare them essential first though.

Nonessential services are forced back to work all the time. I'd rather see fixed negotiation periods ending in an arbitration process, if necessary. In addition, I'd like to see this process take place prior to the expiry date of existing contracts. That way we can minimize disruptions to business and the public.

[Wayward Son]

What am I missing?

Well apparently, based on your previous comment that you couldn't understand why the power to repeal the bill was not held by the legislature, but by the cabinet and Minister, you are missing the part where the bill give sweeping power to the cabinet and Minister. So you are ok with giving far reaching powers to a minister and cabinet, over the legislature, as long as you agree with the actions taken. If the actions taken are ones you find questionable all the sudden you care about power being held in the hands of a few people. I prefer to hold an ethical and political philosophy that is consistent myself. When you give a government the power to take away the rights of those you do not like, you give a government the power to take away your own rights.

First they came for ___________ and I did not speak out because I was not a ___________.

I don't like defending this government but the concessions that were imposed were needed.

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin

[Boges]

Well apparently, based on your previous comment that you couldn't understand why the power to repeal the bill was not held by the legislature, but by the cabinet and Minister, you are missing the part where the bill give sweeping power to the cabinet and Minister. So you are ok with giving far reaching powers to a minister and cabinet, over the legislature, as long as you agree with the actions taken. If the actions taken are ones you find questionable all the sudden you care about power being held in the hands of a few people. I prefer to hold an ethical and political philosophy that is consistent myself. When you give a government the power to take away the rights of those you do not like, you give a government the power to take away your own rights.

First they came for ___________ and I did not speak out because I was not a ___________.

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin

I was just wondering why they didn't have to take it back to the house. Fine I didn't realize the Bill could be repealed without a vote in the house, doesn't mean I don't still support it.

It was a bill passed democratically in the house.

Where it stands up in court is yet to be seen.

[Wayward Son]

I have no problem with labour unions in general, but I do have issues with the public sector variety.

This incident has shown why public sector unions are necessary. I can only hope that the unions come through this process stronger. Private entities like Ford have to follow the law. They have to abide by human rights legislation. They have to allow matters to be reviewed before the courts and the OLRB. Those in the public sector face an employer that creates the laws, and has shown that instead either declaring a service essential, or actually negotiating with them in good faith, they will just impose a contract on them and deny them the right to the same legal process that all other employees have access to.

[Mighty AC]

I'd suggest this process has hurt public sector unions in Ontario. Work to rule campaigns, strikes, feigned protests and the ETFO no show are not good ways to build public support.

"I think if I’d been heading up the organization we would have tried to make the best of a bad situation by staying at the bargaining table,” - Buzz Hargrove.

To avoid both union and government shenanigans maybe there should be fixed negotiation periods, ending in an arbitration process, if no solution is reached.

[Wayward Son]

I'd suggest this process has hurt public sector unions in Ontario. Work to rule campaigns, strikes, feigned protests and the ETFO no show are not good ways to build public support.

When I said that I hope public sector come out this process stronger, it was not in terms of public relations, but in terms of union members recognizing that their choices are either improved solidarity or join the race to the bottom. I am not part of a union, public or private, but I really don't think that they should care what the public support is when their rights, the same rights everyone else has, are being taken away. I am sure there are plenty of people who chastised African Americans fighting for their civil rights by telling them their actions were not a good way to build public support. The opinion of the public can be (and has been countless times) completely wrong and pandering to public ignorance and stupidity only causes more harm in the long term.

As to your quote by Buzz, who cares? People will quote a solitary individual like Buzz when, and only when, that person says something that they agree with...as if that person now has some kind of authority (argument from authority logical fallacy) that said same person apparently lacks when he/she says something which you disagree with. I care about what the majority of constitutional scholars have to say about whether this bill violates the charter.

As to your solution, it seems little different then making teachers an essential service - something that Manitoba did long ago. It won't happen, and why should it when the government knows that if it leaves teachers with striking as their only option then they can use that threat of a strike, along with bad mouthing teachers in the press, to turn parents, and the rest of the public against the teachers. The government can then say that they didn't want a strike, but those evil teachers did, even though it is the government that can easily, and lawfully prevent the threat of a strike by making them essential and submitting to arbitration if a deal can't be made. Of course, the government can also go farther, by just saying that "this" is the only deal we will accept, and if you don't accept it we will just impose it on you, by removing your rights and changing laws. That is the farthest thing possible from negotiations, but some of the general public are so dumb that they consider it negotiations.

[Mighty AC]

The opinion of the public can be (and has been countless times) completely wrong and pandering to public ignorance and stupidity only causes more harm in the long term.[/Quote]Teachers will likely be facing further concessions in two years time. Public support will greatly help their cause. I think they should take Hargrove's advice and return to business as usual. I'd also suggest that the unions spend some of the millions they collect on positive ads highlighting the volunteer work teachers do every day.

As to your solution, it seems little different then making teachers an essential service - something that Manitoba did long ago.[/Quote]I would like the idea of fixed negotiation periods, ending in arbitration (if necessary) applied to the entire public sector, not just education staff. This fiasco lasted 10 months, I'm happy strike was avoided, education protected and a reasonable contract was imposed; however, I would have preferred a more orderly finish. In contentious situations like this it would be nice to have a system in place that prevents the risk of strike and ensures a reasonably fair outcome.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Teachers will likely be facing further concessions in two years time. Public support will greatly help their cause. I think they should take Hargrove's advice and return to business as usual. I'd also suggest that the unions spend some of the millions they collect on positive ads highlighting the volunteer work teachers do every day.

I would like the idea of fixed negotiation periods, ending in arbitration (if necessary) applied to the entire public sector, not just education staff. This fiasco lasted 10 months, I'm happy strike was avoided, education protected and a reasonable contract was imposed; however, I would have preferred a more orderly finish. In contentious situations like this it would be nice to have a system in place that prevents the risk of strike and ensures a reasonably fair outcome.

The whole point of the legislation was to treat teachers like an essential service, without labelling them essential service. Because essential service means that they would be guaranteed access to arbitration (read, a fair chance).

Edited January 23, 2013 by MiddleClassCentrist

[punked]

The whole point of the legislation was to treat teachers like an essential service, without labelling them essential service. Because essential service means that they would be guaranteed access to arbitration (read, a fair chance).

Which is crazy. You want to legislate someone back to work you make them an essential service. That is how it is done.

[Wayward Son]

Teachers will likely be facing further concessions in two years time. Public support will greatly help their cause. I think they should take Hargrove's advice and return to business as usual. I'd also suggest that the unions spend some of the millions they collect on positive ads highlighting the volunteer work teachers do every day.

Will teacher's likely face concessions in two years time? Probably. Will that be the case regardless of their actions? I think so. Those I know who oppose the teachers will never support them under circumstance. At least for me, it was amusing to watch them on my facebook where people who would never support the teachers even if they were working for free would post that "x" has cause them to stop supporting teachers, as if they supported them in the first place. What was also amusing was when several of those people posted back in forth to each other saying that teachers had a 25% wage increase since 2003 and they hadn't had a wage increase in a decade. I pointed out that in two seconds of searching online I could find the wage increases of 2 of the 4 of them. In one case the wage increase was 33% between 2002 and 2010, For another it was 22% between 2003 and 2010. One person I didn't need to look up because I used to work with him and knew that his wages had increased by almost 80% since 2004 despite doing the exact same job. Regardless of pointing out those facts, they still denied that they had received any wage increase. So that is the problem that teachers face. The government will once again trash them in the media, and people in general always believe that they, themselves, have things much worse then they do. So the teachers can't win. They have to decided what is best for them. Personally, I would say "up yours" to the public, refuse to volunteer, and deal with the consequences.

I would like the idea of fixed negotiation periods, ending in arbitration (if necessary) applied to the entire public sector, not just education staff. This fiasco lasted 10 months, I'm happy strike was avoided, education protected and a reasonable contract was imposed; however, I would have preferred a more orderly finish. In contentious situations like this it would be nice to have a system in place that prevents the risk of strike and ensures a reasonably fair outcome.

I disagree with everything you say. I say make them essential and then strikes no longer are an issue. You seem to want to avoid that because you want to have your cake and eat it too. I think that nothing good has come out of this. I hope that the court system not only declares the bill unconstitutional, but then an arbitrator awards the teachers massive compensation - not because I feel that they deserve it contract-wise, but because I feel that there should be consequences for this stunt the government pulled. Taking away the rights of a group people simply because you wish to win an extra seat in September is about the worst reason there is.

The Drummond report came out a year ago. What is interesting is not only that the government has followed none of the recommendations to cut costs (at least as far as I can tell), but also that the only thing this government has actually attempted to do is the very thing that the Drummond report warned against:

This week, as they announced a cap on the salaries of public-sector executives and a lengthy freeze of their pay-for-performance – aimed mostly at making it easier to freeze the salaries of unionized workers – it was obvious that the Liberals have rejected one of Mr. Drummond’s central premises.

Central to his prescription was avoiding “short-term fixes” and “across-the-board cuts,” which allow structural problems to fester. “We must be students of history and history shows that simple cost-cutting by governments too often generates fiscal improvements that peter out after a few years as pressures build,” Mr. Drummond wrote in his introductory letter. “In the end, spending surges again and the result is more of the same, but at a higher cost.”

No section of the report was more explicit on this front than the one on labour costs, which account for the bulk of government’s expenditures. “Wage freezes are often followed by wage catch-up periods,” the report says. “Such action, if undertaken in the current fiscal climate, would undermine our longer-term fiscal mandate and damage labour relations.”

The government, Mr. Drummond argued, should instead pursue more thoughtful ways of improving public-sector productivity and efficiency.

This government undermined the rights of a large group of people. Harmed labour relations for years to come. And there is nothing good that will come out of it in the long run. It is stupid policy, and it is an example of Government not providing actual solutions, but instead creating more problems a couple years down the road. There opportunity was there to make things better - to implement policy based on the best evidence for a better long-term outlook - instead we did the exact opposite. Hurray.....

[Boges]

Just wondering about this one.

http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2013/01/28/teachers_refusing_to_collect_milk_money_labour_board_told.html

The cancellation of all but six school milk programs in the Trillium Lakelands District School Board is just one of the lost services that has prompted it and the Upper Canada District School Board to seek a cease-and-desist order against the teachers’ extracurricular boycott from the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The two boards claim the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) is telling its members not to do anything except teach the required 300 minutes a day which, by disrupting the “normal activities” of schools, constitutes an illegal strike.

It's not cool for schools to demand that teachers volunteer for extra-curricular. It should be equally as uncool that Unions can shame and fine teachers that DO want to volunteer for extra-curricular activities.

It's bullying either way you look at it.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Boges

[MiddleClassCentrist]

It's not cool when you do something out of goodwill, only for it to be deemed mandatory.

It's like firing the person who normally gets coffee in the morning for performing illegal strike action... because they stopped getting coffee.

Edited January 30, 2013 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Boges]

It's not cool when you do something out of goodwill, only for it to be deemed mandatory.

It's like firing the person who normally gets coffee in the morning for performing illegal strike action... because they stopped getting coffee.

Fine but what if you want to volunteer and the Union is pressuring you not to. Apparently there's a shaming system where name's people who do more than the minimum are published in newsletters and they are subject to fines.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

Apparently there's a shaming system where name's people who do more than the minimum are published in newsletters and they are subject to fines.

Can you link me that please ?

[Boges]

Hearsay from the Radio. But are you saying that teachers are free to participate in Extra-Curricular activities with no Union repercussions?

These boards aren't asking for teachers to be forced to do extra-curricular. They are asking that the Unions stop forcing teachers NOT to do extra-curricular. Is that just as bad and forcing them to do it.

Even Tim Hudak hasn't said he'd force teacher to do it, he'd just offer incentives.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

Even Tim Hudak hasn't said he'd force teacher to do it, he'd just offer incentives.

What kind of incentives don't cost money ? That's an odd statement coming from him.

[Boges]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/01/22/ontario_tories_would_make_extracurriculars_mandatory_for_teachers_tim_hudak_says.html

Public elementary and high school teachers, who are locked into a dispute with the McGuinty Liberal government over the imposition of Bill 115, are refusing to arrive early or stay after school to provide extracurricular activities, be it sports or clubs.

“We will give boards and principals the flexibility to reward teachers for before-and-after school involvement through less supervisory time and relief from other duties,” he said.

The Tories would however amend the Education Act to spell out that teachers are expected to complete detailed report cards and hold meetings with parents, among other things.

[Michael Hardner]

The Tories would however amend the Education Act to spell out that teachers are expected to complete detailed report cards and hold meetings with parents, among other things.

That's kind of a dumb approach. They're going to risk another (real) strike by trying to write labour agreements into law directly, and in any case they won't be able to write everything teachers do into the law so work-to-rule will still be a risk.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

http://www.thestar.c...hudak_says.html

Why don't they just pay teachers some piddly amount to coach. 1k per sport (100hours @ $10/hour). Then it becomes paid, and mandatory to continue.

Oh wait, everyone wants it for free... and is pissing on teachers for participating in solidarity.

Personally, I think it should be part of all Phys. Ed teachers job description. Let's be honest, they don't have marking, they don't have prep, they rarely ever call home. Show up B, A for strong effort, C for being a jerk. F is you are a complete jerk.

[Boges]

What about Band? Chess Club? Yearbook? Field Trips?

And why should the Union come down on teachers that DO want to volunteer. That sounds like bullying to me.

Would Teacher's Unions be cool with allowing parents to volunteer to do work that they used to do?

Edited January 30, 2013 by Boges

[MiddleClassCentrist]

What about Band? Chess Club? Yearbook? Field Trips?

And why should the Union come down on teachers that DO want to volunteer. That sounds like bullying to me.

Would Teacher's Unions be cool with allowing parents to volunteer to do work that they used to do?

I am 100% for allowing parents or community volunteers to take an active role. But, they already can and and seldom do wiith community programs... Libraries can host clubs, for instance.

They seldom volunteer time for anything other than teams their own children are in.

Only about 10-20% of students participate in EC's. Of those, the majority who can make teams have already been on paid teams to develop skill. They aren't being hugely disadvantaged. Of those that make the band, the majority have previous training. Those kids whose parents have enough money aren't truly suffering. Those are largely the kids in EXTRA curriculars.

But yes, let them get their police checks and open it up.