Ontario’s bill to stop CUPE strike

[Contrarian]

Originally on The Globe and Mail however under a paywall. 

This is from the website CP24 which can be copied and pasted.

In The Globe and Mail article some legal experts were arguing that this bill is unprecedented.

MPPs in Ontario are at Queen’s Park extra early this morning in an effort to push through anti-strike legislation that could stop Ontario’s 55,000 education workers from walking off the job on Friday.

The legislature met at 5 a.m. today for the second reading of the “Keeping Students in Schools Act,” which aims to impose a four-year contract on education workers and bar them from striking.

The provincial government is aiming to get this legislation passed before Friday’s planned strike.

Lecce introduced the legislation Monday afternoon after an emergency mediated session the day before between CUPE, the province, a mediator and school board representatives failed to yield a deal.

Despite the possible legislation, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents custodians, librarians, early childhood educators, education assistants, and administrative staff at Ontario’s English and French public and Catholic boards, says its members will still walk off the job on Friday for a one-day protest.

Both the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board said they will be closed to in-person learning on Friday if the walkout goes ahead as planned. The English public and Catholic boards in Durham also plan to do the same.

Ontario’s education workers have been without a collective agreement since Aug. 31 and despite several rounds of talks, a new one has yet to be negotiated.

Among other things, CUPE wants a yearly wage increase of $3.25/hour (11.7 per cent), early childhood educators in every kindergarten class, five additional paid days before the start of the school year, 30 minutes of paid daily prep time, an increase in overtime pay, and a $100 million investment in new job creation.

The Ford government’s latest offer, proposed at an emergency mediated session Sunday afternoon, is a four-year deal that includes a 2.5 per cent annual raise for workers who make under $43,000, and a 1.5 per cent yearly wage increase for those who make more. This is up from their initial offer of annual increases of a two per cent raise for workers who make less than $40,000 and a 1.25 per cent raise otherwise.

In early October, CUPE announced its members had voted 96.5 per cent in favour of walking off the job if a contract agreement could not be reached with the provincial government.

The union then asked the Ontario Ministry of Labour to grant what is known as a no-board report, which means that a board of conciliation will not be appointed. That go-ahead, which allowed the workers to legally walk off the job in 17 days (Nov. 3), was given on Oct. 17. Five days notice must be given before the union can go on strike.

Last week, mediated negotiations began between the two sides, but broke down after just two days.

All five of Ontario’s key education unions are currently in the midst of bargaining with the province after their contracts expired on Aug. 31.

https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/ontario-legislature-meeting-for-early-morning-anti-strike-legislation-debate-1.6133465

Edited November 1, 2022 by Contrarian

[Michael Hardner]

It's unprecedented because the Ontario Government is doing something that was ruled unconstitutional - removing the right to strike... this for workers who make less than $40K... and using the NOTWITHSTANDING clause to pass it

If you care about constitutionality then you should be against this, because the Liberals will be happy to do unconstituional things if Ontarians let this pass, once they get back in.  Like a 100%+ income tax... 

[I am Groot]

On 11/1/2022 at 10:00 AM, Michael Hardner said:

It's unprecedented because the Ontario Government is doing something that was ruled unconstitutional - removing the right to strike... this for workers who make less than $40K... and using the NOTWITHSTANDING clause to pass it

If you care about constitutionality then you should be against this, because the Liberals will be happy to do unconstituional things if Ontarians let this pass, once they get back in.  Like a 100%+ income tax... 

The decision you mention wherein the supreme court asserts the right to strike is constitutionally protected flatly contradicted the ruling of an earlier supreme court in 1987.  There is no mention of such a right in the document but of course the nine political appointees can 'interpret' the thing any which way they so desire.

So what exactly is 'constitutional' or not? I guess it's whatever the current nine political appointees say it is. I mean, I accept this as a legally valid concept. But I don't support what I see as an inference in your post that there is something horrible about using the notwithstanding clause, which is an integral part of the charter, to disagree with the nine current political appointees. I do not venerate this document. It is not a holy document we should bow before and regard breaking as somehow sacrilegious. 

As far as the Liberals go they're welcome to try and force through a 100% tax that is a somewhat facile suggestion as it would doom them. I doubt preventing a school strike will cause the Ontario tories much electoral difficulty.

Edited November 2, 2022 by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, I am Groot said:

1. The decision you mention wherein the supreme court asserts the right to strike is constitutionally protected flatly contradicted the ruling of an earlier supreme court in 1987.  There is no mention of such a right in the document but of course the nine political appointees can 'interpret' the thing any which way they so desire.

2. So what exactly is 'constitutional' or not? I guess it's whatever the current nine political appointees say it is.

3. I mean, I accept this as a legally valid concept. But I don't support what I see as an inference in your post that there is something horrible about using the notwithstanding clause, which is an integral part of the charter, to disagree with the nine current political appointees.

4. I do not venerate this document. It is not a holy document we should bow before and regard breaking as somehow sacrilegious. 

1. As with the case of the Alberta parson who was acquitted in his case against the province, I - as other conservatives - defer to the authority of the court. "Read in" rights are required for an open and general document written in 1982.  As with the US Constitution, the framers weren't thinking about things like LGBTQ rights when the document was written.
2. It is what it is.
3. It's good that you accept it, but you don't have to SUPPORT it.  I don't support the clause being used for something it wasn't designed for.
4. Nor do I, but I don't support bad faith arguments.  Nothing to do with sacrilegious - it's just old fashioned dirty pool.

[I am Groot]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. As with the case of the Alberta parson who was acquitted in his case against the province, I - as other conservatives - defer to the authority of the court. "Read in" rights are required for an open and general document written in 1982.  As with the US Constitution, the framers weren't thinking about things like LGBTQ rights when the document was written.

Yes they actually were. Including gay rights was discussed and rejected.

And the problem of read-in rights is the same here as down south. All you have to do is stack the court with like-minded ideologues and it will read in whatever the hell it feels like.

As for the clause, there were never any limits put into place on why a government might choose to use it, only on what it might choose to use it against. And ultimately, if the people don't like what the government is doing they can vote them out in a few years. The people have no such recourse if they don't like what judges are doing.

 

[Nationalist]

On 11/1/2022 at 10:00 AM, Michael Hardner said:

It's unprecedented because the Ontario Government is doing something that was ruled unconstitutional - removing the right to strike... this for workers who make less than $40K... and using the NOTWITHSTANDING clause to pass it

If you care about constitutionality then you should be against this, because the Liberals will be happy to do unconstituional things if Ontarians let this pass, once they get back in.  Like a 100%+ income tax... 

I happen to agree with this. If these janitors figure they need to strike...let them.

In the end, they'll cause so much havoc, that the public will start demanding they all be fired.

[Boges]

51 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I happen to agree with this. If these janitors figure they need to strike...let them.

In the end, they'll cause so much havoc, that the public will start demanding they all be fired.

I would tend to agree. But in this day and age. You probably can't just hire anyone off the street to be a janitor. There's a massive labour shortage right now. 

If you fire all the janitors and lunch ladies because of an "illegal" strike. The schools still end up closed. Which is what we're trying to avoid. 

[Nationalist]

56 minutes ago, Boges said:

I would tend to agree. But in this day and age. You probably can't just hire anyone off the street to be a janitor. There's a massive labour shortage right now. 

If you fire all the janitors and lunch ladies because of an "illegal" strike. The schools still end up closed. Which is what we're trying to avoid. 

Yes. And just how long can the schools be closed before the public demands action?

I'm no fan of this "Not withstanding" clause. I think its a shield for authoritarian minds to act out. Let them strike and let the chips fall where they may. Once the public realizes that to give these people what they want would mean higher taxation...the other shoe will drop.

[Boges]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes. And just how long can the schools be closed before the public demands action?

I'm no fan of this "Not withstanding" clause. I think its a shield for authoritarian minds to act out. Let them strike and let the chips fall where they may. Once the public realizes that to give these people what they want would mean higher taxation...the other shoe will drop.

Demanding action by firing all the support staff doesn't re-open schools. 

[Nationalist]

18 minutes ago, Boges said:

Demanding action by firing all the support staff doesn't re-open schools. 

No. But it'll force the members of that union to negotiate Gawd-Damn fast.

[TreeBeard]

14 hours ago, Boges said:

There's a massive labour shortage right now. 

Isn’t that a reason for workers to be able to command more money?

[Contrarian]

Union workers who still choose to strike can each be fined up to $4,000 individually, while unions that organize the strike can get hit with $500,000.

according to: 

https://www.cp24.com/news/this-is-where-education-workers-will-strike-in-ontario-on-friday-1.6138594

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Contrarian

[Boges]

8 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Isn’t that a reason for workers to be able to command more money?

Well it's all relative. 

These are mostly low skilled jobs and we're talking about people making $40k. So it's better than McDonalds but they're working alongside teacher who can often make 6-figures. 

[Aristides]

On 11/3/2022 at 7:53 AM, Nationalist said:

No. But it'll force the members of that union to negotiate Gawd-Damn fast.

Will it? Businesses are crying for labour. Who does the government think will replace them?

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Will it? Businesses are crying for labour. Who does the government think will replace them?

Probably all the "refugees" we've taken in. Who knows.

[Aristides]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Probably all the "refugees" we've taken in. Who knows.

Exactly, who knows? Not a great thing to base a strategy on. 

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Exactly, who knows? Not a great thing to base a strategy on. 

So what? Are you trying to say we can't find janitors who want a job with benefits?

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

So what? Are you trying to say we can't find janitors who want a job with benefits?

I'm saying Ford has no plan B in case bullying doesn't work and neither do you.  How long do you think it would take to train thousands of new employees, especially if they are new immigrants who don't even speak English or French?

[Zeitgeist]

Most secretaries in schools work very hard and they’ve had pitiful increases over the years.  They’re negotiating a 4-year contract in a context of 8-9% inflation.  The government can’t get away with 1 or even 2.5% in this context without labour action.  The problem is the risk of a price wage spiral where higher wages are demanded to pay the higher prices, but the higher wages drive the prices of goods and services even higher.  It’s very hard to keep wage demands down now, especially in a tight labour market.  Government really needs to make a deal that accounts for inflation and fiscal conditions.  For example, they could say that the annual percentage of wage increases each year of this contract has a floor and ceiling based on changes in inflation and government revenue.  They’re basically going to have to make the unions become a branch of the management as GM did with the UAW in the financial crisis.  Basically the unions and government need to play the long game of figuring out the formula for prosperity.

Essential workers have good reasons to be upset about a lot coming out of the pandemic.  The mandates and restrictions that required government subsidizing private businesses caused inflation that’s hurting everyone.  It definitely raises questions about why government went so far in its Covid measures.  Was it all necessary?  Did it keep us that much safer?  This is also the cost of having a healthcare system without sufficient capacity.

More labour strife is coming from more employee groups.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

I'm saying Ford has no plan B in case bullying doesn't work and neither do you.  How long do you think it would take to train thousands of new employees, especially if they are new immigrants who don't even speak English or French?

Put the students to work. Many hands make light work and the little bastards will learn to never expect anything free.

[August1991]

On 11/2/2022 at 1:02 PM, I am Groot said:

The decision you mention wherein the supreme court asserts the right to strike is constitutionally protected flatly contradicted the ruling of an earlier supreme court in 1987.  There is no mention of such a right in the document but of course the nine political appointees can 'interpret' the thing any which way they so desire.

So what exactly is 'constitutional' or not?

....

It terrified me how quickly many of my neighbours wanted that others masked/vaccinated.

On sparse evidence, they merely did what others said. In their mind, they were doing good.

===

I am amazed that no one realizes how easy it is to make some people different.

Edited November 5, 2022 by August1991

[August1991]

Some of us are left-handed.

And some of us refuse to wear a mask, or refuse to get vaccinated, or even boosted.

=====

By all evidence, the masks and vaccination are personal protection. Anyone who wears a mask is selfishly at most protecting themself. If that

[BeaverFever]

The one thing that never gets much mentioned during labour action - especially  public sector labour action - is the role of the employer. Everyone focuses on whether the workers should strike or accept the employers terms.   I guess its the subconscious conditioning of living in a capitalist society that we by default favour capital over labour without even thinking about it. . 
 

But nobody questions the employer’s terms and whether they are reasonable in the first place.  They’re just assumed to be some immutable fact or force of nature. If it’s true that now is the worst time for labour disruption then why is the province driving such a hard bargain? It takes 2 to tango.  The response we hear is that it’s only natural and understandable that the province would try to exploit the public’s covid fatigue with aggressive bargaining and force the union into a strike position.  But then why isn’t it natural and understandable that the Union would resist? The government could have easily said now is not the time for labour unrest given the host of problems already at hand. 

[Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The one thing that never gets much mentioned during labour action - especially  public sector labour action - is the role of the employer. Everyone focuses on whether the workers should strike or accept the employers terms.   I guess its the subconscious conditioning of living in a capitalist society that we by default favour capital over labour without even thinking about it. . 
 

But nobody questions the employer’s terms and whether they are reasonable in the first place.  They’re just assumed to be some immutable fact or force of nature. If it’s true that now is the worst time for labour disruption then why is the province driving such a hard bargain? It takes 2 to tango.  The response we hear is that it’s only natural and understandable that the province would try to exploit the public’s covid fatigue with aggressive bargaining and force the union into a strike position.  But then why isn’t it natural and understandable that the Union would resist? The government could have easily said now is not the time for labour unrest given the host of problems already at hand. 

Yes and it goes further.  The government has added to educators’ workloads with various tutoring programs in the name of filling the gaps left by the pandemic, but educators were already exhausted and trying to restore normalcy.  Kids are adjusting.  You can’t get blood from a stone.  Push people too hard and they will either shut down, and many have, or they will push back.  Is government basically saying that there’s nothing you can do to push back?  Unions are left with few options but to work to rule.  We haven’t come to teacher bargaining yet.  If the extra-curricular activities and field trips vanish, there will be further compromise of the education system.

Basically government has to explain that wages are a corollary of economic conditions and be transparent about what is economically healthy.  If inflation flattens somewhat and government revenues are somewhat good, wages should increase accordingly so that workers share the wealth.  However, some pauses may be necessary to weather the storm.  Instead of being fair and transparent, the answer seems to be to go hard against the employees and for the unions to go hard against the employer.  

[BeaverFever]

Teachers and education workers are probably not driving a wage-price spiral because prices don’t have to increase to cover increases in their pay.  Governments don’t necessarily have to increase taxes to cover increases in expenditure and Educator salaries would only account for a small portion of overall taxes and taxes aren’t exactly the same as prices anyway.