Blame the Gov't for Chaos in Schools

[Jeff Kanter is a secondary teacher in Ottawa. His letter to colleagues, dated January 15th, is reprinted here with permission]

Dalton McGuinty was recently quoted as saying: “…my sense is that most teachers

want to be in the classroom and they want to be participating in extra curricular

activities”. What a challenge it is not to respond with a resounding “YA THINK?” and

what a classic illustration of politically motivated, disingenuous bafflespeak.

The DUH factor is almost too glaring to even rate comment. Of course teachers

want to be in the classroom (where they have been, almost without exception, since

this whole mess was foisted upon them) and of course they want to be doing the

extras (the withdrawl of which is pretty much the only viable option for them at

this point). Stating what is so obvious, then, becomes a tactic – an attempt to drive

a wedge into the teachers’ ranks. What teachers WANT, Mr McGuinty, is a return

to fair and unimpeded negotiations with their actual employers – the Boards of

Education.

The premier really should review his own math sense as well - if he thinks that

the confidential balloting results of approximately 10% who do not necessarily

support strike action is a huge majority. Headlines dutifully proclaiming the so

called ‘education premier’ attempting to teach the teachers a lesson perhaps should

be rewritten with the suggestion that Mr McGuinty might want to re enroll in the

very system he is presently attacking in order to get a more accurate sense of the

real numbers.

And of course, every time the premier speaks, we are faced with the incessant

droning of up – piper Lisa MacLeod, certainly one not to miss a chance of being

quoted somewhere. Her automatic opposition to whatever the premier would

say, while a reflection of the job description of the Opposition, is both a painfully

transparent ploy to pave a path for her own potential political future and, more

importantly, a counterproductive contribution to the situation. Would that she

could contribute something towards a solution (other than trotting out Conservative

policy).

Fast-forward to more recent events.

The dust from the most recent dust-up between the province and its teachers (the

day of protest, aborted because of a 4 am OLRB decision) has sort of settled. All

of the various interested parties – students, parents, board trustees, government

representatives, journalists, columnists, editors, talk show hosts, and teachers are

preparing for whatever comes next.

Last minute tactics on the part of the unions and the government resulted in board

officials having to make very last minute adjustments to schools’ operations for

that day and the general consensus was that it was pretty chaotic. Naturally,

that resulted in angry parents who were significantly inconvenienced (including

financially).

Teachers do sympathize with those parents (indeed, many teachers were

themselves among those thus inconvenienced). At the same time, it is hoped that

parents of school age kids can take a minute or two to look beyond the problems

associated with school closures and make an effort to see why teachers are so

incensed with bill 115 – despite the minister’s “offer” to repeal it in the near future.

That is not easy to do. Parents who have to scramble to make all sorts of last minute

adjustments while facing unanticipated financial burdens have much right to be

much upset. What teachers could claim, though, is that sounds very much like what

they themselves have been doing lo these many months and certainly what they face

as the effects of bill 115 are more fully realized in the months ahead.

It is also not easy to do because it is just not easy to do. Actually listening to the

other side is a rare talent. And it does not necessarily mean giving up one’s own

beliefs or ideas – just listen to what the other guy’s story is all about. People tend to

cling to a view once they have formed it – often in spite of overwhelming evidence

that that particular view may be flawed or erroneous.

The accepted premise has to be to recognize that the present scenario in education

in Ontario is pretty grim, with no immediate easy solution. To those who snarl that

teachers are overpaid crybaby whiners who have it so much better than everyone

else in the work force need only look as far as the recently resolved NHL lockout:

call the players whatever you wish (or the owners, for that matter); the two sides

still had to hammer out a framework for an agreement, and they did just that,

through continuous though often on and off talks/discussions. To simply label the

players as this or that did not alter the fact that the owners had to keep talking with

them. Of course, it could be suggested that the entire NHL crisis could have easily

been avoided by simply having all the teams moved to Ontario and then just have

their working conditions imposed!

And that points out one of the major sticking points in the present education crisis

– the government never intended to talk or negotiate with the teachers. At the

initial meetings, terms were presented in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion. And when

teachers’ unions balked, the government made the ridiculous claim that it was the

teachers holding up the talks. The only thing the teachers were guilty of was not

being willing to meekly accept harsh and unrealistic terms.

Bill 115, therefore, is a major sticking point, for which the offer to repeal (once all its

terms become entrenched) is not a realistic basis for solution.

Union leaders have pretty much been demonized by the province’s spokespeople, as

well as by the media. They are trying to represent hundreds of thousands of people

– not an easy assignment. Given the sheer size and numbers of OSSTF and ETFO,

it has to be recognized that the overall level of support from membership has been

nothing less than exceptional. There will always be vocal opposition (assent is often

much more silent). Who has never occasionally thought a decision made by a parent

or a boss or a group leader has been plain wrong? and then grumbled about it?

Employees try to get the best deal from their employer. The employee generally

operates from the naturally logical assumption that the employer has the means/

resources to pay the agreed upon wage. And when offered a salary, what employee

would respond by suggesting that, gee, maybe the company might not be in good

financial shape in three years so why don’t I ask for a reduction in the salary being

offered? Why would union leaders, who represent the teachers / employees in this,

do any differently?

And now, the employee is being told that everything has changed and that

compensation is being slashed. Employees do occasionally have to face challenging

times. Remember that the opportunity for them to enter into a dialogue with the

employer to figure out the most efficient way to achieve solutions is one of the many

positive accomplishments of unions over the years. Otherwise, the employee has

the first, last, and only say in all aspects connected with the workplace.

But wait. This particular employer has just reduced and removed and eliminated

all manner of compensation and benefits from our erstwhile employee, but

over in another store which the same employer controls, some of the workers

are getting, wait for it, bonuses. Our employee, with justification, is angry. Mr

McGuinty’s recent support for over $20 million for these bonuses is unacceptable

and unsupportable. Out of the other other side of his mouth, he is demanding that

teachers absorb huge contractual losses. What happened to the province’s dire

financial straits when THAT raise was given the premier’s okey-dokey?

What teachers want is the continuation of the right to collectively bargain –

something which Bill 115 eliminates. What teachers want is a return to the

standard practice of negotiation with the province to address all the concerns.

The supreme irony here is that teachers were ready for business as usual for the

Sept 2012 start of the school year. The government brought its hard line approach

to the “bargaining” table and threatened legislation as a means, it claimed, of

avoiding disruptions. Instead of ensuring a smooth school opening (which clearly

would have taken place without the threats and without 115), the only thing this

government achieved was creating the most uncertain unsettled school school year

in a long long time.