Gov’t., teacher relations better
To understand how far relations between teachers and the Saskatchewan Party government have come, consider where we were a mere three years ago.
For the first time in 78 years, Saskatchewan teachers withdrew their services on May 5, 2011 to hold what would be the largest rally seen outside the legislature in decades.
Teachers were downright insulted by the 5.5-per-cent, three-year wage increase proposed by the government in 2011, but even more enraged by the dismissive claims from the Sask. Party and its most vocal supporters that teachers were little more than proxies for the NDP.
A dysfunctional relationship between teachers and the Sask. Party government was born.
In fairness, the dysfunction was hardly one-sided. Opening up negotiations by calling for a 12-per-cent increase in the first year alone (and unspecified increases after that), the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation clearly made a tactical blunder that quickly caused it to lose public support. Threatening strike action that put both exams and end-of-the-year activities in jeopardy also depleted public sympathy for the teachers.
But as so often happens in unions, public and/or government disdain sometimes strengthens resolve. And while Saskatchewan teachers might not have got what they initially hoped for in 2011, they did seem to come together as a union ... maybe even as a strong stakeholder-advocate for our kids by way of their fight for smaller classroom sizes, more support from education assistants, etc.
Well, fast forward three years and we see that Saskatchewan teachers are again in a round of bargaining that has seen them twice reject a government offer in a ratification vote.
But here’s the interesting thing: As obviously disappointed as rank-and-file teachers are — and a 63-percent rejection of the second contract offer surely suggests that teachers are truly disappointed — there may not be as much rancour between the teachers and the government as there was three years ago.
For starters, the offer of a 7.3-per-cent, four-year raise (plus a $700 prorated, first-year bonus) is better than the offer to teachers three years ago (and much improved from the 5.5-percent, four-year deal teachers rejected last October). There obviously is still distance between the two sides, but the fact Regina Public School Teachers’ Association President Patrick Maze says that an acceptable raise would be “at least eight per cent” so teachers can keep up with inflation suggests the two sides might not be all that far apart.
Second, the fact the negotiating committee went back to its membership with an offer potentially within one percentage point for a second ratification vote suggests that maybe some of the frustration of rank-and-file teachers is also directed at their own bargaining unit for twice failing to provide them with an acceptable offer.
Finally, compared with what’s now going on in B.C. — three weeks of rotating strikes that put at risk the school year if its 40,000 teachers don’t get something close to their request for a 9.75-per-cent increase over four years — relations between the STF and the Sask. Party government seem downright cordial.
With a conciliator about to be appointed to oversee the differences in Saskatchewan and with the summer to sort out areas of difficulty like the lingering issue of the new minimum 950-hour school year, which does not contain a maximum number of work days, it does seem likely we will see an end to this dispute come the start of the 2014-15 school year. In fact, after the second rejection, teachers’ union leaders were stressing that the last thing anyone wants is a labour disruption. So what has changed? In a nutshell, the approach of government. Notwithstanding the party and some of its supporters baying for teachers’ blood, there seems to be significant maturity on the part of the Sask. Party government in this round of teachers’ negotiations.
Consider the wise remarks of Education Minister Don Morgan on Tuesday as he acknowledged teachers’ frustrations over classroom size, implementation of new technologies, the need for teachers’ assistants, curriculum changes, etc.
And especially consider Morgan’s very conciliatory language: “You can’t put respect and trust in a contract,” Morgan said. “The only things you can put in a contract are hours of work and terms and conditions.”
Rather than vilify teachers as being greedy, difficult or operatives for the NDP — as some of the government’s apologists seem to still be trying to do — the Sask. Party government does seem to be at least listening in this negotiating round.
Relations have clearly improved.