Teachers’ wage-cut proposal a tactical way to keep raises at bay
The 3.67-per-cent wage reduction proposal to provincial teachers won’t work, but it does show how this Saskatchewan Party government works.
While it might not even contribute to the 2017-18 budget goal of 3.5-per-cent remuneration reduction across the public service, it will likely mitigate a costly settlement.
In case you missed LeaderPost reporter D.C. Fraser’s story Wednesday, it outlined the government’s current proposal of a one-year, 3.67-per-cent decrease — either through direct wage cuts, cuts to the employee benefit plans or a combination.
The proposal — made last May for the contract that expired in September — has been kept surprisingly quiet, given how badly teachers are being hammered with cuts in what are now much larger classrooms. We were also told Wednesday that we have 95 fewer teachers and 188 fewer classroom staff — speech pathologists, teaching assistants, etc. for kids in Saskatchewan.
These numbers even seemed to cause Education Minister Bronwyn Eyre discomfort Wednesday.
So for the government’s opening salvo to be a 3.67-per-cent cut is truly a slap in the face to teachers, justified by nothing other than the non sequitur notion that the cyclical oilpatch and farming industry are in tough times, too.
Really, the problem is a Sask. Party government that has wildly overspent and now can’t seem to get its act together.
As NDP education critic Carla Beck put it, to go beyond the 3.5-per-cent wage reductions asked of everyone else in the public sector shows a “significant lack of respect to teachers.”
The thing is, though, nobody — including the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation — seems to be taking this 3.67-per-cent reduction proposal all that seriously.
Fraser’s story also noted the STF’s counter-proposal, for a one-year contract with a oneper-cent increase plus a cost of living increase that would hike wages past two per cent and closer to three per cent.
Perhaps it’s not exactly the outrageous STF initial demand of a 15-per-cent wage hike of a couple of contracts ago, but it’s pretty bold in the face of the government’s demand. The story also notes, unsurprisingly, that there has been virtual no movement in negotiations since these initial offers.
But why would there be? For starters, Sask. Party leadership race contenders like Alanna Koch have bluntly said the government should extend its balanced budget plan to four years instead of three, because forcing a 3.5-per-cent cut on the public sector is too onerous.
Also, what we heard from leadership race latecomer Rob Clarke on the front steps of the legislature Thursday doesn’t bode well for the notion that government can get away with hammering anyone for its own bad budget choices.
“This is not legal, it is not fair and it is not conservative,” Clarke said, specifically speaking to any notion that existing legal contracts could somehow be altered to adhere to the government’s 3.5-per-cent reduction goal.
Clarke went on to say it would cripple the economy, and while the NDP would love to see the government at war with the public sector, the government has to have strong, respectful relationships.
Specific to the current teachers’ contract negotiations, the existing Education Act (at least for the existence of the current contract, which started prior to the changing of the act) allows either side, upon negotiation impasse, to apply to the Educational Relations Board to have the matter turned over to a jointly agreed arbitrator for a final and binding decision.
It is under this threat that these negotiations have begun, with the STF having reason to be confident that no arbitrator would ever agree to such a massive rollback.
So why then put forth a 3.67-per-cent position?
Well, besides the obvious appeal to the Sask. Party base and perhaps beyond, it’s a good way to force a more modest STF opening proposal that may result in a settlement (through arbitration or otherwise) at a very minimal increase.
At best, this seems to be all the Sask. Party government has a realistic hope of accomplishing.