Colleges, teachers should not rely on arbitration

Ontario’s colleges were putting on a cheery face last week as students wrapped up their semester a week behind other students in the province, a remnant of the five-week fall strike.

Colleges and faculty say they were happy with an arbitration award handed down on Dec. 20. With a new year begun, it is tempting to bury the memories and move on. But instead, now is a good time for the colleges and faculty to reflect on the state of their relationship, where students lose five weeks of class (plus vacation) to a strike rather than see a deal reached through civil negotiations.

This is not the first time students have been caught in the middle of a tough labour dispute. Labour relations between faculty and colleges have always been strained.

In any sector, the preferred way to end a labour dispute is to find middle ground between the employer and employees and negotiate a settlement. This ensures both sides are happy with the new contract, because they helped make it.

Arbitration, on the other hand, is rarely favoured. By handing over issues to a disinterested third party, both sides effectively remove themselves from control over what contract they wind up with. And arbitration can’t be appealed.

Sometimes it’s a good way to get closure on a tough issue; relying on it consistently is unhealthy.

Yet over the history of collective bargaining for academic employees in the college sector, arbitration has often made appearances. While the sector’s rate of strike is unremarkable, all four strikes have ended with arbitration.

The first one in 1984 ended much the same way as the one last fall — the government passed back-to-work legislation and used arbitration. The next two in 1989 and 2006 did not involve legislation, but otherwise followed a similar model.

A key issue in 2006 — workload — also had to be sent to a special task force because the two parties couldn’t work it out between themselves. The 2017 issue of staffing ratios is also going to a task force.

Teachers working well with the college is good for both students and taxpayers. But, looking at history, it’s obvious they don’t — and students are the ones who get burned.

College support staff have historically enjoyed a better relationship in and out of bargaining. Faculty’s woes were summarized well in 1988 by Jeffrey Gandz in a report to the government: “Academic negotiations have been characterized by extreme conflict of positions and personalities, excruciatingly protected negotiations (and) excessive reliance on third parties to resolve problems and issues.”

That was 1988, but is still true, and many of the same themes of conflicting personalities and reliance on third parties could be observed in this latest round of talks.

There are some valid reasons for why colleges have this problem. Don Sinclair, the CEO of the College Employer Council, suggests it was because of a lack of leverage.

“Here’s the difference,” Sinclair says. “In private sector bargaining, not only are you bargaining with the union, but you’re also bargaining with the context of other competition.” The logic, he says, is colleges are essentially a monopoly and so there’s less pressure on the colleges and employees to resolve it quickly.

Here’s the pressure: the students both sides say they care about. If neither teachers or colleges can put aside their differences in the interest of students, then no amount of competition in the world would pressure them otherwise.

While 2018 is still new, everyone should take a step back and reflect on their lives. For the colleges and faculty, take this time to rethink your relationship with each other and with students.