The system is the problem
Stalemate is the norm in the collective bargaining system that has been in place for B. C.’ s teachers since 1994
Once again, the parties are facing an impasse in bargaining for a new collective agreement. After more than 70 bargaining sessions, they have made no real progress toward a settlement. Stalemate has been the norm for these parties since 1994. Only one round of bargaining has been settled without government intervention. What is wrong with this picture? Depending on their political views, pundits blame the teachers for being intransigent, or the government for failing to bargain in good faith. Each position has merit, but why is confrontation the norm for education when other parties are able to settle their differences?
The biggest factor is that the government constructed a bargaining unit that cannot strike and does not have access to any form of alternative dispute resolution.
Teacher bargaining started in British Columbia in 1911. Local teacher associations negotiated with school boards without much legal regulation. In 1937, the provincial government amended the Education Act to establish a system of tri- partite interest arbitration for teacher “salaries and benefits.” The system was highly structured. Parties bargained in the fall. If an impasse occurred, either party could invoke interest arbitration covering topics in the Act.
During the 1970s and 1980s, the parties engaged in these processes with varying degrees of success. Some years, virtually every district settled with its teachers, while in other years, the reverse was true. I served on a number of arbitration boards during this period. In my experience, the teacher advocates were much better prepared than the trustees. The B. C. Teachers Federation ran a training session over the summer to prepare its spokespersons. Outside of the larger metropolitan areas, and one or two consultants, few trustee representatives matched the teacher advocates’ background and skill.
Arbitration boards looked first to settlements in nearby districts for guidance in writing our awards. Secondly, we looked at settlements in the big private- sector companies, Alcan, Cominco, Macmillan Bloedel, etc. Normally, we all wanted the award to reflect the “going rate.”
Many people, who were not there, now claim that the teachers picked on weak school boards to set patterns.
No one claims that the teachers did not arrange bargaining to maximize their advantages. But the trustee nominees on the arbitration boards were alert for awards that exceeded patterns for the region or year.
Indeed, they often wanted to set salaries below the pattern. I remember several arbitration boards that examined all settlements in the province, from the highest to the lowest, before agreeing on a new salary grid. None of us wanted to be at either extreme unless a compelling argument existed for special treatment.
In the 15 of 18 boards on which I sat, no such argument was ever adopted.
The teachers liked the arbitration process.
It assured their members a fairly predictable salary increase without much expense or the emotional impact of a stoppage.
But they resented the exclusion of working conditions from the scope of bargaining.
I recall a very radical president of the BCTF saying at UBC that teachers would never strike over salaries, but they would strike over class size and composition, which he described as “student issues.”
Change started in 1986- 1987. The province concluded that the exclusion of teachers from normal bargaining would not survive a Charter challenge. It amended the legislation to give teachers much the same bargaining rights as other public sector workers. The teachers took full advantage of their new powers. They orchestrated negotiations to maximize the application of any concession they won in local bargaining.
The number did not seem excessive to me given the inexperience of the parties, but parents certainly objected to the interruptions in their children’s education. After a lengthy strike in Vancouver, the newly elected NDP government enacted back- to- work legislation.
In 1993, the NDP government commissioned a labour expert to report on bargaining structures in the broader public sector.
She came down strongly in favour of centralized bargaining for all elements in the public sector under provincial control.
The underlying theme in the report and among the staff who prepared it was that the BCTF had manipulated the system along the lines I outlined above. No data were ever advanced to support this position. There was no consideration of bargaining structures in other provinces.
When the government proposed the new bargaining structure in 1994, the BCTF accepted it quickly. I never understood their position. They had given up the right to strike. The trustees were a little more reluctant, but probably felt they had little choice.
The government of the day, with the support of both parties, created a structure doomed to failure.
No government is going to tolerate a provincewide teachers strike. No minister of finance will accept arbitration to distribute such large amounts of money without budgetary controls.
No one has been able to devise a settlement mechanism for resolving impasses, which have been the norm since 1994.
So again we await the passage of legislation. With a “net zero” mandate imposed by the government, it will be difficult to craft an agreement that gives any satisfaction to either party.
Perhaps readers can suggest alternatives.