Province needs to change tactics with teachers
Last week, Premier Christy Clark left British Columbians wondering why she bothered appointing a fact- finder into her government’s fight against the women and men who teach our children. In her appearance on The Bill Good Show on CKNW radio, she pre- judged the outcome, announcing that she was “not terribly optimistic” that a settlement could be found.
Many already viewed the appointment of the fact- finder with skepticism. They had seen this movie before, and feared the Liberal government would use the fact- finder to validate its plans to impose an unfair, one- sided contract, escalating its fight against teachers.
In 2005, the Liberal government also appointed a fact- finder to “investigate” bargaining between the teachers and government. The fact- finder met with the parties and quickly concluded that no agreement could be negotiated. The government brought in legislation, announced the dispute was over and that it would be business as usual.
When the dust finally settled, the Liberal government’s heavy- handed tactics caused the closure of schools for two weeks and day- long shutdowns in Victoria and the Kootenays, as workers across British Columbia held solidarity strikes in defence of the right to free collective bargaining.
Eventually, the government conceded its error, allowing veteran mediator Vince Ready to make recommendations, and agreeing to live by them. Teachers agreed, by a 78- per- cent vote, to accept Ready’s proposals and end the dispute.
The government had a choice other than legislation then, as they do today. They don’t have to escalate the fight.
They could have appointed an independent fact- finder, free to report the facts: that government negotiators have proposed effective wage cuts for two years and demanded deep concessions from teachers, including eliminating seniority rights and fair process in hiring, transfers and layoffs.
An independent fact- finder would report that an agreement isn’t possible because the government side, far from being fair or reasonable, is not in fact bargaining at all.
Instead of a fact- finder, a government serious about treating teachers decently and respecting the right to bargain could have sent in a veteran mediator to push both sides to a settlement. Why didn’t the government choose this route? Because a good mediator would bring the parties together and the government would be forced to really bargain.
Teachers have a very good case for significant improvements, but neither side gets everything they ask for. That’s how bargaining works.
Teachers have already shown a willingness to move, despite the government’s intransigence. They have dropped items from their proposal and lowered their salary expectations in a show of good faith to spark negotiations.
They have engaged in limited job action, inconveniencing principals but ensuring our children’s education isn’t disrupted, in an effort to spur goodfaith negotiations.
But the government side won’t budge. Why would they? Unlike teachers, government- directed negotiators have a trump card up their sleeves: a legislated contract.
Imagine if teachers held that card, showed up at the table on Day 1 with an opening offer, made no effort to negotiate, and then had the government legislate their opening offer. It sounds absurd because it is. And employer groups would go crazy. Well, it’s equally absurd when the employer does it and it’s why the courts have already ruled against this government twice for legislating contracts.
Clark can choose to not create yet another confrontation. Instead, she can direct her officials to come back to the table, ready to negotiate a reasonable and fair agreement with teachers.
British Columbians don’t want to pick a fight with our teachers. Our children certainly don’t need it.
More than 250,000 other public service workers are also hoping to negotiate fair collective agreements this year. They are watching with a keen interest. And, like in 2005, labour peace — true labour peace — will be earned with mutual respect and consent.