One of the remarkable things about the recent B.C. teachers’ strike was that it happened it all.
The announcement of a deal to end the strike last week was no doubt a relief to B.C. families that had to muddle their way through months of labour turmoil. It was certainly a major inconvenience and hardship for all sides but it was a rare instance of a government showing a sustained willingness to stand up to cost pressures.
Besides wages, there were many other issues at stake, including a long-standing dispute over class size and composition. On that score, the province made some concessions to union demands. On wages, the deal provided for a very affordable wage hike of 7.25 per cent over six years.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is presumably taking note. Facing her own bid to freeze compensation across the public sector, she’s sure to have difficult months ahead. No one wants a teachers’ strike, but the B.C. situation at least shows some resilience on the public’s part to hold firm despite the intense pressure to get kids back into class.
There’s no doubt both the B.C. government and the teachers faced criticism for their stances during the labour negotiations. But the temptation to give in to avoid the disruption simply results in the difficult financial situation we now find ourselves in. And going to arbitration, as the B.C. teachers had proposed, tends to favour the status quo.
The situation follows a recent Fraser Institute report that criticized various provinces, including Ontario, for their supposedly union-friendly labour laws. Among other things, it said Ontario’s laws are favourable to unions when it comes to regulation of unionized firms by, for example, mandating arbitration for things like grievances. In this case, we’re not talking about looking at laws to weaken union rights. Rather, the B.C. situation was positive because it reflects a bargaining process that worked as it should: Both sides took a position and when they couldn’t reach a deal, they allowed for the inevitable result — a strike — until the circumstances and pressures dictated that they find a way, through concessions on both sides, out of it. Ontario should consider the B.C. example and throw on top of that a willingness to finally act on long-standing demands to reform the arbitration system in order to get costs under control.
— Glenn Kauth
The announcement of a deal to end the strike last week was no doubt a relief to B.C. families that had to muddle their way through months of labour turmoil. It was certainly a major inconvenience and hardship for all sides but it was a rare instance of a government showing a sustained willingness to stand up to cost pressures.Besides wages, there were many other issues at stake, including a long-standing dispute over class size and composition. On that score, the province made some concessions to union demands. On wages, the deal provided for a very affordable wage hike of 7.25 per cent over six years.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is presumably taking note. Facing her own bid to freeze compensation across the public sector, she’s sure to have difficult months ahead. No one wants a teachers’ strike, but the B.C. situation at least shows some resilience on the public’s part to hold firm despite the intense pressure to get kids back into class.
There’s no doubt both the B.C. government and the teachers faced criticism for their stances during the labour negotiations. But the temptation to give in to avoid the disruption simply results in the difficult financial situation we now find ourselves in. And going to arbitration, as the B.C. teachers had proposed, tends to favour the status quo.
The situation follows a recent Fraser Institute report that criticized various provinces, including Ontario, for their supposedly union-friendly labour laws. Among other things, it said Ontario’s laws are favourable to unions when it comes to regulation of unionized firms by, for example, mandating arbitration for things like grievances. In this case, we’re not talking about looking at laws to weaken union rights. Rather, the B.C. situation was positive because it reflects a bargaining process that worked as it should: Both sides took a position and when they couldn’t reach a deal, they allowed for the inevitable result — a strike — until the circumstances and pressures dictated that they find a way, through concessions on both sides, out of it. Ontario should consider the B.C. example and throw on top of that a willingness to finally act on long-standing demands to reform the arbitration system in order to get costs under control.
— Glenn Kauth
