A message for Kathleen, Liz, Ken, and Sam.

A message for Kathleen, Liz, Ken, and Sam.

by Andy Wilson, a secondary teacher in Ottawa.

Woohoo! A new Premier! A new education minister! It's time for union leaders to make nice with the new government leaders and for teachers to go back to volunteering for free!

Yeah, right.

Anyone who thinks that changing the premier and the education minister will dampen education workers' outrage is delusional. I'm not stinkin' mad at Laurel or Dalton - I'm furious that I have had my collective bargaining rights suspended. I can't believe that I, a union member, am going to work every day, working under an imposed contract that I haven't even had a chance to read, let alone bargain over or vote on!

My union leaders -  I'm looking at you, Ken - might make a calculated decision that what's done is done, and it's best for workers to go back to volunteering at their workplace for free in order to provide extra-curricular activities for Ontario's students. That would count as a "gesture of goodwill," signalling to the new government ministers that the union would like to negotiate a fair contract in 2014, if that's ok with Kathleen and Liz, pretty please!

What a joke.

If education workers stop protesting the loss of their collective bargaining rights, they won't ever get them back. What will a future government do when it decides it is politically expedient to go after public servant salaries and benefits in difficult economic times? If the government thinks that they can pass a law that strips workers of their rights and their negotiated benefits, and that workers will eventually accept it, the government will do it again.

Maybe education workers DO want to stop fighting. Maybe they're ok with only having collective bargaining rights during good financial times - maybe they're ok with working under an imposed contract that stripped negotiated benefits that have been in place for decades. If Ken Coran and Sam Hammond seriously think that's the case, they need to poll their membership. We already voted over 90% in favour of taking strike action, and we also voted over 80% to stage a political protest (on a work day) to protest Bill 115 and imposed contracts. Let's have one more vote that allows members to steer the course of their union.

If education workers make it clear that they will not accept the loss of their collective bargaining rights, their union leaders have a responsibility to listen to their members. They will need to repeat to the government the demand of their rank and file members: we demand the right to vote on a freely negotiated contract. Until we are working under a negotiated contract, we will not go back to volunteering at our workplaces. Ken might want to keep this in mind when meeting with Liz on Valentine's Day.

A new premier and a new education minister means nothing. What counts is what they do. If they want to make nice, if they want teachers to go back to voluntary activities, they need to immediately move to restore collective bargaining rights for education workers.

The view from the board

FEB 8/13
by Jeff Kanter

It has been less than a week since the previous segment was completed, during
which things have been suspiciously quiet. Naturally, the premier designate is busy
putting together her new cabinet, as many of the previous rats continue to abandon
a ship, which if not sinking outright, is certainly taking on prodigious amounts of
water.

Not that nothing has been going on: the director of education at OCDSB sent out
a very interesting letter to teachers, basically saying “hey guys, the legislation is
in place, not everyone may like it but that’s just the way it goes, let’s all just forget
about all that previous nastiness and get back to our extra curriculars, that’s what a
nice group of dedicated professionals should do, yes? Ok? Please?”.

The Real Issue comes out later in the letter. As we move towards that time of year
when students and their parents make decisions for the upcoming school year, the
director’s missive takes on a decidedly desperate and threatening tone: there is
going to be a massive migration from the public system to the separate system if
teachers don’t go back to providing voluntary services.

First of all, as the response from OSSTF leadership indicated, most of the declines
in student population were already predicted and predicated upon other criteria.
Secondly, even if that were not the case, to now try to shift blame/focus/attention
regarding That Issue onto the teachers is unconscionable.

Boards of education have been reduced to near irrelevance by Bill 115 (even
though it be officially repealed). To see their leaders immerse themselves in the
prolongation of the problem rather than the seeking of solution is a shame.

The entire issue was created and sustained by the provincial government under the
previous premier (again, the name escapes me at the moment). The emergence of a
new premier signifies the possibility and potential for repair. Directors of education
can certainly help to move this process along by lending their voices in support
of their most valuable resource: teachers (students are not the resource; they are
the raw materials). Declining enrolment? Nah. Declining influence perhaps, by an
individual whose salary and perks and severance package would appear off the
scale to a mere teacher. Even the city councilors just got a nice raise – maybe not as
much as the most recent OCTranspo contract gave to its drivers, but still.

Wonder what tomorrow will bring.

Jeff Kanter is a secondary teacher in Ottawa.

Wynne win or Wynne lose?

"Wynne win or Wynne lose?" by Jeff Kanter

Interesting how, in some of her opening remarks about the mess in education she
inherited from her predecessor (and helped to create by supporting Bill 115),
Kathleen Wynne immediately made reference to the need to get extra curriculars
happening again – as if THAT is the whole problem.

Because the problem is not extra curricular activities. There are those in the media
and in the government who are content to encourage the implication that, all of a
sudden, those mean evil wicked rotten nasty lousy greedy union leaders told their
likewise members to, without provocation, withdraw voluntary activities.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is about what the government did to create a scenario in which the only
available option for teachers was to “take a pause” from the thousands of hours of
such endeavors.

Therefore, when Ms Wynne speaks about dealing with the extra curricular issue,
she also ought to be making reference to the Bill which created it (a bill which she
supported). She cannot speak of extra curricular activities in a vacuum.

It is difficult to imagine a return to the provision of all those activities and programs
merely because the new premier wants them to resume. We have to remember, and
actually believe, that the teachers want them to resume as well.

She cannot simply request that teachers resume these without some kind of
indication that there will be a change. We are not talking about the kind of “caving
in to union/teacher demands” about which some consistently alarmist journalists
constantly carp.

The new premier is in a position to begin the process of repairing relations with a
profession which, regardless of one’s personal beliefs about its members, is such
an important one. To continue with the previous McGuinty approach would be
unthinkable. To suggest that huge raises are now in the works for teachers is just
plain stupidity. There has to be some kind of compromise available between those
two extremes. Compromises are reached by discussion and negotiation – not by
governmental imposition.

The idea that teachers can be rewarded for providing extra curricular activities
is merely an extension of the theory that any problem can be solved by throwing
money at it (and yes, even non financial rewards have been suggested). It will not
work. The ones who provide the best out of class experiences do this because
they want to – not for financial or any other sort of reward. To replace that time
honoured system by a potentially mercenary one, in which teachers who are

attracted by extra payments or fewer duties take over will surely reduce the quality
of those activities.

To even hint at making these programs a part of the job description shows an
alarming but not surprising lack of comprehension for the dynamics which go on in
schools each and every day. Attempting to solve the problem in this way will kill the
very program itself. It might have the potential of political expedience, but it also
has the inevitable futility of failure.

Politicians, with the echo of support from among the many experts from the media,
want this issue to go away. They want not only to get teachers back into their after
school work, but also to ensure that this ugly confrontation will never occur again.
Why not just legislate that the Leafs must win the Stanley Cup?

The only real solution lies with negotiation and discussion and compromise: that
is, collective bargaining. That is what the teachers have been calling for since this
whole mess began several months ago. Real collective bargaining does not mean
not recognizing the reality of the financial crisis in this province. The teachers are
aware of that. On the other hand, real collective bargaining does not mean being
treated the way they were by a government that seemed to want to make them into
a scapegoat for all financial woes – many of which were created by governmental
mismanagement in the first place.

That means taking some courageous steps. The government will have to figure
out what to do with Bill 115, the legislation that will not go away simply because
the McGuinty / Broten combo repealed it. This means accepting the potential step
of actually rescinding it. That, of course, will necessitate determining what kind
of status will exist while real collective bargaining resumes (ie what conditions
of work exist?). Teachers must be prepared to resume extra curricular activities
– recognizing that it would be pretty difficult to explain taking them away once
again…all of which puts a lot of pressure on both sides to get a deal done.

A wage freeze is one thing; a pay cut is something else. While one is acceptable, the
other poses problems: something for the negotiators to discuss. Harsh reductions
in benefits (particularly in a culture in which others not within the provincial
purview are getting raises) are a sticky issue: again, something for the discussers to
negotiate.

Empowering the government to disempower the unions from disciplinary measures
(which must be logical and reasonable) is at odds with the entire management/
labour continuum. The same union which provides so much support to a member in
need must also be able to deal with a member who does not adhere (a system which
political parties seem to embrace and practice).

Above all, all concerned must be more concerned with the passage of time. The
existing situation must be put clearly on the path to resolution now. It cannot be
allowed to carry over to the next school year.

Jeff Kanter is a secondary teacher in Ottawa.

So now they want peace

So now they want peace
by Andy Wilson, a secondary teacher in Ottawa.

Leaders from the four education workers' unions met with Ontario's next premier, Kathleen Wynne, just yesterday. Right now the focus is not on restoring education workers' collective bargaining rights, but on finding a way to bring back "extra-curricular" activities to Ontario's public schools.

Extra-curriculars are pretty nice. Students get clubs and sports and enriching activities for free (or nearly free) and these activities can contribute to enhancing a student's experience. Everyone understands the value in these activities, so when they disappear, it's natural for all of us to feel a little distressed at children across the province losing something that's important to them.

So, let's get those activities back, right? Ok. Here's what you need to do: respect the collective bargaining process. It'd be really easy. Take the OECTA MOU and all the changes that have happened to it until now, include all the other unaffected provisions from the last collective agreement, and put it to a vote to the workers. This is what is supposed to be the legal process. Poof - the teacher's best argument ("We want our democratic rights!") would become moot.

Ok, so education workers vote on the working conditions that were already imposed on them. If they vote "yes," then we're done! Teachers, even those who voted against the contract, would respect the democratic vote and would feel comfortable demonstrating their good will by returning to extra-curricular activities. If they vote "no," - well, I'll admit, things get a bit more complicated, but hear me out.

So they vote no. That means they strike. Oh my gosh! A strike at the schools! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?? Well, sure. But a strike isn't gonna cause anyone extreme or irreparable harm. I went through a two week withdrawal of services when I was in grade 11 and I turned out ok. And we have to remember that a full walkout is a very blunt weapon not to be used willy-nilly - OSSTF engaged in minor forms of strike action for most of December. My students didn't even notice.

But maybe it does come to a strike (or a lockout), and a full withdrawal of services. Let's say schools are closed for, say, three days. What would happen? Well, either people from all walks of like will start screaming at the gov't to end the crisis by giving into some demands, or people will scream at the unions to suck it up, take the contract strips, and get back to work. What's more likely, of course, is you'll get a mixture of both.

So the labour disruption drags on. Schools haven't been open for two weeks. Workers have been the focus of vicious attacks in the media, and they're out a paycheque (strike pay doesn't cover too much). If the strikers don't have the resolve to continue job action (if they don't think they're fight is worth it, or it becomes clear they don't have public support) then the union will be forced to go back to negotiations and agree to concessions. If the union doesn't, scabs will start going to work. The union would crumble - and the union won't ever let that happen.

Ok, so what if the workers DO keep up the job action? (because they think it's worth it, and the public is on their side). Well, then maybe the government is wrong, and they need to come back to negotiations and agree to settle their differences with the workers. I won't get into what that deal might look like (I've gone into that in previous posts anyways), but the point is, the government can find ways to make enough concessions to get the workers back to work if they have to.

The whole point is that, if education workers' collective bargaining rights were respected, we'd have a resolution to this conflict within a month. People won't stand for a strike or lockout to continue for more than a couple weeks. This isn't the NHL. Citizens won't stand for their children to be out of school for too long - and workers and employers will listen.

The only thing that will ensure disruption in Ontario's schools for years to come is the continual suspension of education workers' collective bargaining rights. Force them to work under an imposed contract, and you'll have disruptions like the loss of voluntary activities until a new contract is negotiated and voted upon. Respect workers' collective bargaining rights, and you'd have a solution inside of a month. It won't be easy as we deal with strikes and/or lockouts, but democracy isn't very easy either. And we don't suspend democracy every time we have a deficit.

Response to Jerry Agar's “Teachers’ tantrum punishes kids”

RESPONSE TO JERRY AGAR COLUMN OTTAWA SUN JAN 22

“Teachers’ tantrum punishes kids”

Dear Mr Agar,

Your column cries out for response, reaction, and revision. Let’s start with your catchy title. It should not merely trot out tired old accusations, but should also include reference to at least one other side in this complex issue – how about “Government’s Rigid Intransigence Punishes Everyone”?

Your opening paragraph (which comes perilously close to being a run on sentence) presents the premise of a promise which was broken – by the teachers, of course, since no one else connected with this ongoing tragedy of errors ever ever does that sort of thing. We often attach another label to those who break promises: liars.

Then, having led your readers to make a connection between liar and teacher, you get to your real meaning (because, after all, when you look at this ongoing situation honestly, teachers have not lied at all – something which cannot be also said about some of the other parties involved): the sense of promise which usually accompanies the start of a school year.

Teachers made it very clear right from the beginning of the “negotiations”, when the government sent bankruptcy lawyers to present a set of absolute conditions, that despite this despotic and despicable governmental approach, their desire as well as their intention was to be in the classroom for the start of the school year. For that reason, strike related actions were cancelled well before school opening. Teachers made it clear that the threatened legislation was therefore not necessary, but that they could not and would not simply accept the elimination of collective bargaining.

The government chose to ignore this and to move ahead with its threatening agenda. By prematurely committing funding only at the levels consistent with a bill that had not even been passed yet (arrogance, under the banner of sound financial planning - something which the McGuinty government does not have any moral basis to claim), the provincial Liberals laid the groundwork for a major confrontation with OSSTF and ETFO.

This government was determined to bully instead of bargain. Perhaps there was a slight miscalculation concerning the resolve of the teachers, especially in light of the ease with which OECTA not only caved in to provincial pressure but also denied its own members the opportunity to ratify or reject.

The weight of this column’s righteous indignation is staggering. For some reason, teachers are deemed to be “teaching character” only if and when they submit. The argument to support the concept of lawfully standing up for beliefs as a means to oppose a bill so likely to be struck down that its very authors intend to repeal it as also a lesson in character is just as compelling.

And that is what the teachers are doing: opposing legally. The OLRB deemed the planned day of political protest to be strike action (in a ridiculously swift determination) – therefore, it was cancelled. Teachers are being admonished to pursue the legal option only. Many don’t have the 4 or so years such a legal process could take.

The actions of the teachers are in keeping with their legal job descriptions. If certain columnists don’t like that, their next column could be dedicated to suggesting that these laws be changed. Oh, wait a minute, no need: Mr Hudak is already talking up that angle.

Legislating job descriptions to include extra curricular activities will do serious damage to what has been such a wonderful part of the high school experience for so many years. The suggestion to pay teachers extra for extras will open up a can of worms which will make Pandora’s box look like an X-box.

Without a doubt, the withdrawing of extra curricular activities was a decision that was not taken easily, quickly, or lightly. There really were not a lot of other choices. Response options were very limited in the face of governmental intransigence.

Students’ responses have been wide and varied. Of course many of them are angry. And given the restrictions upon teachers regarding discussing the issue in the classroom, it is not surprising that some students feel teachers are taking it out on them. It is at this point that responsible journalists could contribute to the solution rather than fan the flames of the problem by producing fairer and more balanced articles.

Because to suggest that teachers are “mad at the world” is just plain silly. Teachers came to what was supposed to be a bargaining table with ideas and suggestions and options and a willingness to take up to a four year wage freeze. They were frozen alright – right out of the collective bargaining process. Facing a wage cut and slashed benefits, along with the loss of the right to collectively bargain, just does not qualify as being miffed at not getting “100% of what they wanted”.

Regarding the “reports that the teachers who are going back…are being shunned… by other teachers”, the truth is that “there are reports” about a lot of things. Negative press is sexier than the boring old positive stuff. There could just as easily be reference made to “reports” about the large number of teachers who are upset about the unfortunate need at this time to maintain the withdrawl of extra curricular activities. Obviously the reference to “too many teachers” is a tacit recognition of the fact that it is indeed the majority who are standing up to the government and behind the unions’ positions.

And calling teachers a “gaggle of greedy grasping wage earners” is somewhat like referring to certain SUN columnists as a den of dreary duplicitous word mongers.

Jeff Kanter
Secondary teacher
Ottawa

Open letter to fellow teachers

Sometimes I find it hard to tell people what I think, especially if the discussion isn't a comfortable one. Using an open letter maybe isn’t as good as multiple face-to-face conversations, but writing does have its merits. There are two things I want to talk about: voluntary participation in the grade eight parent night, and the rally outside of the Liberal leadership convention in Toronto yesterday.

So first is the grade eight parent night. For those teachers, and especially department heads, who chose not to volunteer their time for what is obviously not a required part of the job: THANK YOU. It really means a lot to me that you chose to stand in solidarity with your fellow teachers and send a signal to everyone that you will not back down when our collective bargaining rights are suspended. I know you care about your programs and would rather participate in the information evening and connect with parents, and I know it wasn’t easy to resist pressure from administration to be there. Thank you for not breaking solidarity. For those teachers who did attend the grade 8 night: I don’t understand what you were thinking. I don’t think that participation is a necessary part of the job, and I think that breaking solidarity with your colleagues is short-sighted, selfish, and counter-productive. Sure, it feels good to sell our programs to parents and help administration put on a good show, and it’s easier to cave in to pressure from your boss than to resist, but what’s more important is taking a stand in solidarity with your colleagues. On the other hand, please don’t take my criticism too harshly. I will continue to support all members even if they break solidarity, and I’m more interested in building future solidarity than dwelling on past disagreements. I want to work together, rather than start to let disagreements divide our membership - but I can’t help but speak up when something is bothering me.

Next is the rally at the Liberal leadership convention in Toronto on January 26th. To those who gave up an entire Saturday to go to Toronto and back to participate in a massive protest in support of collective bargaining rights: THANK YOU! I can’t describe the feeling I had when I was surrounded by over 30,000 people demonstrating for workers’ rights. To those who didn’t come: why didn’t you? We had a great time! It was fun! Sure, we sat on a bus twice as long as we spent in Toronto demonstrating, but we had a good time! I got to meet a lot of people, have a lot of laughs, and I spent a few hours on a wonderful winter day in a park in downtown Toronto surrounded by union supporters (and, I even managed to mark a bunch of exams on the bus!). It was awesome. I know it’s hard to give up a weekend day during exams, and I know we all have reasons not to go, but I really missed many of my colleagues. I wish you were there on the bus with me. Like the last paragraph, I don’t want people to feel that I’m upset with them for not coming - sure I’m a bit disappointed, but I really just want to let you know that you were missed. It would have been better if you could have found the time to demonstrate with us.

That’s all I have to say for today! For those of you who went to the grade eight night, and/or decided to stay home instead of come out to protest with your fellow workers, I really hope you think about what effect your decisions have on the rest of us. It’s hard to keep up the fight for our rights when so many of us seem to want to do little more than sit on the sidelines. I need your support to continue to fight for our right to a negotiated contract, and I ask that you think hard about your decisions in the future.

In solidarity,
Andy Wilson.

Sun's Future Less Than Sunny - For Teachers

This letter by Jeff Kanter, a secondary teacher in Ottawa, is a response to an Ottawa Sun editorial, dated January 22nd.

Here we go…another OTTAWA SUN editorial that screams out for response. And that is exactly the kind of reaction one is inclined to make after reading articles, columns, and editorials which appear in this publication.

The Jan 23 HUDAK SCHOOLS HIS OPPONENTS one is a hoot. In addition to having one of those oh so cutesy titles (for another example of that kind of trite bon mot, see title above), its main argument seems to be that the Progressive Conservatives are the only ones capable of ‘taking on’ the teachers’ unions.

The Liberals, it seems, will be ‘sucking up’ to the teacher unions because they will be so desperate to make up with these mean evil wicked rotten nasty union folks once a new leader is chosen. The editorial goes on to describe the past several months as a “lovers’ quarrel” (half right, except that only one of the two sides got screwed) and summarizes thusly: “…which imposed contracts, froze salaries and reduced some benefits.” Interesting choice of words. How about ‘which arbitrarily and summarily imposed working conditions (since, to my knowledge, nothing got signed, it cannot be called a contract), forced wage CUTS onto the teachers in the form of unpaid days, and SLASHED benefits’??

Our intrepid SUN editor is essentially claiming that only Mr Hudak’s party will raise itself above the groveling Liberals and NDP, who will both be trying to attract teacher support (insert: election funding). Given recent events, I am really really really trying to imagine what the new provincial Liberal leader could possibly say that would have any positive impact whatsoever on any teacher, other than he/she is going to actually repeal Bill 115 (not the phony grandstanding ploy being presently touted by Ms Broten and Mr McGuinty - you remember him, he used to have a role in the government?) and reinstate genuine collective bargaining; that sort of thing would actually grab the attention of just about every teacher here in the public sector of the province.

He goes on to claim that the Progressive Conservatives are advocating making report card writing and parent-teacher interviews mandatory. Honestly, dude, I cannot think of too many actual teachers who would actually have an actual problem with this. Ideally, it should not have to be legislated; traditionally, it has never gotten to the point where this has been an issue. It is only because of the present government’s unyielding irresponsible approach that what was always freely offered (ie the time for both of those practices) has had to be reconsidered.

But the real issue is, of course, those pesky extra curricular activities. These are completely voluntary; these countless hours, far and away much more time-consuming than report cards or interviews are available to students because of the fundamental good will and interest and commitment of teachers. Up until now, we have managed to avoid the trap of the American system, which has a complex and inconsistent method of compensation for teachers who provide these services.

Giving principals the power to reward teachers who do more in their schools has merit; unfortunately, it also establishes a framework in which to open up a potentially nasty can of worms, in which principals are then encouraged to pressure their teachers to take on all sorts of extras, something which younger teachers might obviously find difficult to refuse.

But I also state here and now that, as a teacher who has dedicated thousands of hours to extra curricular activities, I would never anticipate or expect extra compensation in exchange for this. In fact, I am uncomfortable with the idea. My motivation has always been desire. If any governing body were to suddenly and peremptorily decide that I HAD to do these activities, then it would become a very different matter.

The editorial inevitably returns to the big bad mean old teachers’ unions and especially their nasty rotten scoundrel leaders, who are being taken to task for basically doing their jobs. Union leaders are chosen by union members and are charged with the responsibility of advocating on their behalf. When governments (and their lackeys) enact horrific legislation that attempts to cripple what would otherwise be standard union actions along with eliminating the democratic rights of those unions’ members, there is going to be consequence.

The accusation that unions were going to fine members for non compliance with toeing the line is a murky issue, especially since that practice has not been strictly (or even loosely) applied. Leaders of organizations need SOME recourse to sanction recalcitrant members of their brother/sister hood. Why, it could even be suggested that political leaders have all sorts of little tricks and pressures to aim at individuals within their ranks who do not always toe the party line. And to suggest that the name and shame tactic is going to destroy the career of a teacher who is only “refusing to use his or her students as pawns in a labour dispute” is a moronic oversimplification, but that is an argument for another day.