Bill 115 is a collective bargaining contract imposed on the teaching unions containing a two-year wage freeze, an end to banking sick time and a ban on striking for at least two years. The “Putting Students First” act was passed this week; the Liberals and Progrressive Conservatives (P.C’s) voting together on it. I don’t have a problem with the result, just the methods of reaching it.
Premier McGuinty treated the whole process as a foregone conclusion the unions would strike if they didn’t get what they want. Presumably that means some kind of raise, with few concessions. That’s what usually happens in a negotiation; you have your starting point, I have mine, we both stick to it for a while and see what happens. That may not have been the case if McGuinty had acted reasonably placing all his cards on the table. If he said to them okay here’s the deal; we both know provincial finances are in pretty tough shape. I’ve got a large deficit to pay off, and everyone breathing down my neck for increased funding. What do you say to a wage freeze for two years, and cutting back on this whole idea of banked sick time? If he did that the unions may have said yes. I say may because asking for the wage freeze might not have worked considering the government’s already given raises to others, if they didn’t do it with the teachers well that wouldn’t be fair would it?
I think the problem isn’t so much asking teachers to do with less, it’s taking away the right to strike. It’s also the whole issue that a strike would be their first line of defense. I would imagine they would first go to work-to-rule; refusing to do extra-cirricular activities. Then to rotating strikes before a full-blown strike that could within days would be ordered back to work by the legislature, their contract onto binding arbitration. It’s the way such disputes have gone in the past.
Despite the methodology behind it and the question of motivation (cough by-election cough), it has truly put the students first. I look at it, and see labour peace for at least two years. Two years of not worrying what would happen if high-school students miss their terms, two years of not having to worry about what would happen if kids are left at home because of a strike. Politically speaking it was the right thing to do, if the wrong way of doing it. McGuinty with this legislation has effectively killed any chances of being re-elected to a fourth term.
The teaching unions are crying that their rights to collective bargaining are violated, and talking about launching a court challenge under the Charter. It is a weak argument; when did the right to collective bargaining become a right under the charter? The freedom to associate is there, freedom to assemble is there, and so is the freedom of expression; nobody’s going to fight them on those. Where the argument could come in, is the freedom to protest, and perhaps the right to fairness under, and before the law. The freedom to protest is taken care of with the limit of two years placed on the ban on strike.
Public Sector unions have a tough PR battle. It’s popular because of the economic climate for the ruling government to go harder on them than they would otherwise; it is the politically easy thing to do. The unions should give for two years because of the economic argument is stronger than any principled one they might pose. If the government comes back, and asks for an extension of the strike ban then fight it for all its worth. It would score more points that way, because not only has McGuinty violated your rights he’s proven yet again he can’t keep a promise.
Milton Views 