Thomas Walkom's Perspective on Teacher Unrest

On this blog I have written periodically about unions in both a favourable and a critical light. I have argued both for their necessity to mitigate the depredations that employers are sometimes given to, and I have pilloried them when cronyism or malfeasance have undermined their effectiveness.

In the latter part of my teaching career, I felt that my union, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, had become far too political in the worst sense of the word, listening only to the privileged few in executive positions while largely ignoring the rank and file, i.e., the frontline workers. As well, becoming advocates for the Ontario Liberal government, I felt, was always a very bad idea because while governments and unions may sometimes have common goals, their interests are not usually congruent, a fact that has become egregiously evident with the McGuinty government's betrayal of collective bargaining principles when it comes to teacher contracts.

In this morning's Star, columnist Thomas Walkom argues that the current unrest, soon to erupt into strikes, is easy to understand, given that teachers have nothing to lose due to the absence of anything resembling free bargaining in the current climate:

For teachers, the choice given them by the provincial Liberal government amounts to no choice at all. The government urges the unions to bargain with local school boards. But it insists that the final results must fit a template that it has already pre-ordained.

Those that don’t voluntarily agree to this template contract — which includes wage freezes for some, cutbacks that amount to wage reductions for others and the elimination of some benefits — will, under extraordinary legislation passed this fall, have it imposed on them.

The unions are being told: “Yes, we have a gun to your head. But if you wish, you can pull the trigger yourself.”

It seems the teaching unions prefer that the government’s prints alone be on the weapon.

He goes on to say that the nature of the constitutional challenge being mounted to the legislation, Bill 115, will be undermined should too many teacher locals sign contracts under duress, leaving the government with the opportunity to argue that it can't be unconstitutional if groups have agreed to its restrictions.

Left unsaid in his piece, however, is another reason I suspect the federations are refusing to be a further party to this charade. Because of the grave mistake they made in allying themselves with a political party, much of their effectiveness has been compromised over the past several years, to the point that their relevance, especially to younger teachers, is not readily apparent. I remember in the latter part of my career hearing some young teachers question the need for unions in general, and OSSTF in particular, never having witnessed them in their finest hours.

At least now, with the federations finally showing some backbone against government abuse of power, they will have an inkling of what unions are there for.

Mature Discussion About The Fiscal Cliff

Mature, that is, until CNBC's Rick Santelli opens his mouth:

From The Horse's Mouth

Actually, were I not committed to a certain level of decorum on this blog, the mouth is not the part of the horse's anatomy I would have chosen as the point of origin for young Tim Hudak's latest utterances that are simply a pathetic recycling of past demagogic platitudes that offer nothing in the way of enlightened policy.

Speaking to the Hamilton Spectator editorial board yesterday, the lad who would be Ontario's next premier had these 'visionary' insights to offer:

Hudak took aim at unions, saying a culture of entitlement on the part of union representatives has escalated McGuinty's conflict with teachers.

Hudak also hinted that his party's white paper will include some sort of privatization plan for the LCBO.

On balancing Ontario's books:

“I know the path forward. These decisions are going to be hard to do, but they're necessary if we're going to get out of the rut we're in as a province.”

“The best social program, I believe, as a conservative, is a job.”

On the Mike Harris legacy:

“Whether you agree with what we did or not, we did what we said we were going to do. We made promises we knew we could keep, and we kept them.”

So, nostalgia for a fictitious past, tired rhetoric about unions, and bromides about jobs seem to be at the core of Tory policy in Ontario. But to be fair to Mr. Never-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Politics, those vying for the leadership of the provincial Liberals have really said little to inspire hope either.

The Perilous State of Democracy in Canada

Over the past year I have written several posts on the woeful state of democratic participation in Canada, a state I am convinced is at least in significant part due to the debasement of our traditions engineered by the Harper regime. Contempt of Parliament and disdain for those whose vision of Canada disagrees with their own are but two elements of that debasement.

I am old enough to remember when there was a measure of civility in politics which, probably not coincidentally, began to seriously erode with the introduction of cameras in the House of Commons in the 70's. At that point, it became the fashion for parliamentarians to begin to grandstand before their viewers, to the point today where poisoned partisanship takes precedence over enlightened and progressive policy-making.

In today's Star Bob Hepburn returns to this theme. His analysis, and his discussion of what seems to be taking the place of political engagement, makes for important reading for anyone concerned about this very worrisome pattern.

Pension Envy

That's what Martin Regg Cohn, in his column this morning, calls the resentment stoked by the right-wing towards those who enjoy defined-benefit pensions.

In what passes for debate in the debased arena we call contemporary politics, politicians of the right, most notably Tim Hudak, have declared public defined-benefit plans unaffordable and unfair:

“Our pension system should be fair, not gold-plated for some and non-existent for others,” he began (my italics). “Generous plans are the norm for many government employees while a majority of workers . . . have no access to a workplace pension at all.”

As Cohn points out, the alternative he is advocating, Pooled Registered Pension Plans, are

...merely glorified RRSPs — they make no pretense to paying a reliable pension. The only certainty is that they will make future retirees poorer and investment advisers richer (thanks to fat management fees), while leaving all of us more exposed to the inevitable social costs of dealing with a wave of financially exposed seniors.

Yet despite that, the public clamours to bring everyone down to the lowest level rather than putting pressure on politicians to implement an enhanced Canada Pension Plan, one that would allow participation by everyone. Such reform has been demanded by several provinces, but it would seem that pressure exerted by the powerful financial lobbies have scotched that possibility for the time being.

But of course, the fate of any reform, be it political, economic, or social, ultimately rests in the hands of the electorate, the same electorate that is currently engaged in sniping at fellow citizens thanks, in part, to being such easy and eager targets for manipulation by their political 'masters.'

Updated: Another Reason To Despise Harper And His Minions

Or maybe I just don't understand the nuances of business and a right-wing mentality that will consign millions to early and unnecessary deaths.

H/t Andre Picard

Even that bastion of Harper support, the Globe and Mail, has written about how reprehensible this action is.

Rand Formula Under Attack

The other day I wrote a post about Bill C-377, ostensibly a private member's bill put forward by Conservative MP Russ Hiebert that would subject unions to unprecedented scrutiny. It is, in fact, a bill being guided by the Prime Minister's Office.

In his column today, The Star's Thomas Walkom says that the real target of the bill is the Rand Formula, which requires all employees in a bargaining unit that has democratically chosen a union to pay union dues.

Initiated in 1946, it was designed as a counterbalance to the power of the employer and as a means of ensuring that those receiving the advantage of union working conditions and pay could not simply opt out in order to avoid paying union dues. All in all, most would say it is balanced and desirable.

Everyone, that is, except the extreme right-wing, i.e., the Harperites, who are using this bill as a thinly disguised union-busting tactic. Writes Walkom:

On the face of it, Bill C-377 makes no sense. It argues that because workers can treat union dues as tax deductions, the general public has the right to know — in exacting detail — how unions spend their money.

Indeed, as drafted, the bill is remarkably intrusive. It would require the names and addresses of anyone who gives or receives more than $5,000 from a union. Unions would also have to categorize how and why they spent their funds.

As he goes on to point out, there are many tax breaks offered to professional organizations such as doctors and lawyers, as well as the executives paid in stock options, all of which cost the treasury countless sums. Yet none of them are being subjected to the kind of scrutiny Bill C-377 would impose on unions.

Walkom suggests the ultimate purpose behind the bill:

The unstated aim of this bill is to provide ammunition to politicians, like Ontario Tory Leader Tim Hudak, who would scrap the Rand formula and introduce U.S.-style right-to-work laws designed to sap unions.

The Conservatives’ working assumption is that once Canadians see how unions spend their money, they will be scandalized. It is another round in a sophisticated public relations war designed to portray union leaders as undemocratic pork-choppers.

Given the irrational contempt and envy much of the public feels toward unions, it seems likely that if passed, the bill will achieve its nefarious intent, and we will all literally be the poorer for it.