The Rants of Issachar

So the teachers are on strike. I am not on strike. I teach in a private school and I'm not a member of the BCTF. Still, the strike does affect me and I have some thoughts I'd like to share. This is a long another long one...

Some basic background.

• I have never been a member of a union.
• I am not pro or anti union per se.
• I have a relative who is a member of the BCTF and supports the strike.
• I do not support the strike.

I should also mention that this strike has affected me directly and unfairly. I'm the teacher sponsor for the Junior Boys volleyball team at my school. That means I would coach, but I couldn't do it if my life depended on it, so I act as the teacher authority figure while a former student has kindly volunteered to coach.

We were in a league that involved public schools and those games were obviously cancelled. Fair enough. Our athletics director managed to get our team in a league that involved only Christian schools. We were scheduled to take part in a tournament on Friday at Fraser Valley Christian School. At this point, no one involved in this tournament is part of the BCTF. We get told on Thursday evening that BC School Sports , (the umbrella organization for all school sports in BC), has decided that all games would be cancelled to ensure a level playing field for public schools when the strike ends. They also requested that we refrain from practicing or from holding exhibition games. This is unfair. Public school teachers have a dispute about their contract and this means that schools that are not part of the union have to cancel all volleyball for fifteen year old boys?

Enough background, what about the dispute?

As I said, I do not support the strike. Why not?

The BCTF is a public sector union. Their ultimate employer is the government. This is very different from a private sector union. Since the party in power changes this means that labour disputes become political. It's no secret that the BCTF would get a better deal for their members if the NDP was in power. This means that it is in the interest of public sector unions in BC to try to get the Liberals tossed out and the NDP brought in. (That might be why the NDP reserves 25% of its votes for unions). I think that politicizing labour disputes is inherently bad news, but let's leave that aside for the moment.

Market competition applies a check to union power in private sector unions. If the management of a private company agrees to unreasonable union wage demands, (let's say six figure salaries for every employee at a restaurant), the company will suffer in the market place and the employees in turn will suffer. This gives the union an incentive to make reasonable demands. There's no point in asking for something that the management cannot give. This check doesn't exist with a public sector union. Since costs are paid by the government, the only check on union demands is what is politically feasible. Since "feasible" depends on which party is in power, the union has an incentive to fight an continuous election battle rather than bargaining properly.

The other issue with public sector unions is that the government is both the author of labour laws and the "management". The conflict of interest should be obvious. Again, "management" in this case has an incentive to operate by what is political feasible rather than reasonable. Union-Management bargaining just doesn't work properly with public sector unions.

Public school teachers have an government protected near monopoly. We don't have a voucher system in BC, so parents do not have free choice with respect to their children's education. This means that a public teachers strike affects the public in a way that other strikes do not. Consider a parallel to a strike in a restaurant. If all the employees of Earl's restaurant go on strike, the public will go to other restaurants. Earl's restaurant will suffer and the union and management can reach an agreement. The public is affected as little as possible. This sort of choice is not possible with public schools. The public is being used as weapon in the dispute. This is unavoidable since parents don't have free choice in education. Yes, there are private schools, but they charge tuition because public schools are favoured with full public funding. This means that parent "choice" is dependent on income. It is not fair to use children's education as a weapon in a labour dispute.

So that's why I don't support the BCTF in their strike.


I should also add that I strongly disagree with the coercive element of union membership in British Columbia. Union membership is a condition of employment in BC public schools. If you don't want to join the union, the school cannot hire you. If the union votes to strike, you will lose your job if you refuse to participate in the strike. My Aunt Helen was a teacher in a one room school house in Glenrosa. Today, Helen Gorman Elementary school is named after her. She loved teaching, but she would have been fired in the first labour dispute. She believed that striking was morally wrong. I disagree, but that's what she told me. She would have been fired for acting on her beliefs. This seems fundamentally unfair to me.

It also seems unfair that unions use union dues to support political causes, (that are not shared by all of their members), when union membership is not optional. Is it fair that an organization that you must join as a condition of employment can use part of your paycheque to support causes and third parties that you do not agree with?

Okay... That's about it for now... Any thoughts?

Posted by:  Katinka

Well said,Issachar!!!!

My friend Amy is a volunteer coach for a Christian school in Abbotsford and she encountered the same issue on Friday. It seems terribly unjust that private schools, which in most cases are comparatively under-funded, should be further disadvantaged by a political stunt they have absolutely no part in.

I've also heard rumblings that BCTF members who refuse to picket may have their teaching licenses revoked (...surely an example of blackmail, in it's purest form?)

It's becoming increasingly difficult to muster respect for either the BCTF or the government while both parties resort to such blatantly un-democratic measures!

Posted by:  westcoastloon

There was an interesting photo in the Langley Advance the other day of a group of 15 year olds protesting the strike. One of them wore a sign that said simply "Teach me". It doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

Everyone in my Pilates class (except me) is either a teacher or married to a teacher and they had a lot to say about contracts getting ripped up and wage freezes. I don't if that happened or not. I do think that teachers are, as a group, chronically underpaid. But it does seem tragiically unfair that it's students who suffer from grown-ups having an argument they cannot solve.

My Grade 11 year there was a teacher's strike that started the second day of school and lasted until after Thanksgiving. There were seniors who lost scholarships as a direct result of that strike and students who didn't get into university because they were trying to learn Calculus on their own. Surely there's a better way to solve things.

Posted by:  salty cracker

Be very careful here.

Something may have changed since your aunt was a teacher, but it is currently a fact that NO teacher will face any penalties for not participating in this current strike. This information was communicated to BCTF members.

Actually, there will be no action taken against those who even cross picket lines. (And there are some who have.)

Socially they may experience some difficulties (since the strike votes were so decisive), but their employment is not at risk.

In terms of future stigma and employment opportunities, these decisions are made by administrators andd human resources personnel who are NOT members of the BCTF (I checked out the active membership requirements on their site --- only teachers are part of the union).

Posted by:  Katinka

Excellent point, Westcoastloon! It also seems that this strike is further accentuating the haves and the have-nots. Unless students are able to fianance private tutoring, most are at risk of loosing out on signifcant opportunities.

I just spoke with a friend who is a BCTF member and who claims he was reassured by his union representatives that crossing the picket-line would not have any direct impact on employment. Of course, how much interpersaonl pressure a member experiences from collegues may be incentive enough to refrain from making that choice.

Posted by:  salty cracker

Lots of points here....

I also understand the conflicts with both sides --- the monopoly on the union side, and the conflict of interest on the government side.

However, if one is taken away, the other side will run rampant. With no BCTF, education will suffer even more school closures and funding restrictions because it is the government who controls the money, and education is a very expensive public service. And let's suppose that some teachers without union representation decided to speak up against government policies.... how would their employment be affected then? :)

One may argue that this may be corrected by electing a new government, but what about the children who have to deal with this for four years?

I'll admit that public sector unions are not perfect, and some have policies that the entire membership will not agree with, but unless we can count on the government to always act in our best interests, they do have a significant role to play.

And as for mandatory membership and dues, in regular society we have no choice whether or not we pay taxes, and we may not agree with where all the money goes.....

(I do agree that the kids go through a lot of hardship as a result of strike action, though.....)

Posted by:  issachar

Katinka, I'm fairly certain those rumblings are simply rumblings. I don't think the BCTF has the power to revoke a teaching license without cause. Non-participation in an illegal strike would never qualify as cause if it came down to a lawsuit.

Posted by:  issachar

Thanks for joining Salty Cracker... Do I know you from somewhere else or is this your first time here?

I would assume that no teacher would face any penalties for the current strike, although this isn't because the labour laws have changed. The current strike has been ruled illegal by the labour relations board and that means that the BCTF has no legal means to retaliate against non-compliant teachers. This doesn't apply to a legal strike. Any teacher crossing the picket lines in a legal strike can and will face penalties from the union. Since union membership is not optional this seems unfair.

I'm not sure what you mean by "future stigma and employment opportunities".

Posted by:  salty cracker

Yes, this strike is different because it has been deemed illegal.

And as you mentioned, in a legal strike, there may be penalties for crossing a picket line, however, crossing a picket line and not participating in a picket line are two different things. I just took issue with your statement "If the union votes to strike, you will lose your job if you refuse to participate in the strike." This is simply not true. You may face penalties, but the union does not do the hiring and firing.

What I meant by "future stigma and employment opportunities" was that if a teacher does something contrary to the union, they may face social pressures from other union members, but if they apply for other positions in the future, those hiring decisions are made by people outside the union.

Ironically enough, you may find the BCTF to be a bit more tolerant of opposing views than you may think. I'm referring to the Chris Kempling issue here. He is a teacher who was suspended by the BCCT for writing letters to a local newspaper raising concern about homosexual education initiatives promoted by the union. He is appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada. Even though his views are not popular, the BCTF is still providing his legal fees, as they recognize that he is entitled to express his opinion.

Posted by:  issachar

Salty Cracker... You seem to be suggesting that the BCTF is the only possible guardian of quality of education against a gorvernment intent on destroying the education system.

I would think that parents (who vote) would be a very effective deterent to a government wanting to demolish the education system. For starters, parents have a lot more votes than teachers. Secondly, it seems that parents would care more about their own children than a teacher would. Teachers are at least partly motivated by their paycheque for the obvious reason that they can't work for free. Parents don't have a financial interest in education and would not be affected by the conflict of interests that will occur when someone has two motivations.

It should also be mentioned that the BCTF does not work to improve the quality of all schools, merely the public ones. In fact, the BCTF argues against providing any funding at all for independent schools. For the parents who choose to have their children educated in an independent school, the BCTF is a negative influence on their children's education.


About the mandatory union membership... Comparisons to the government and taxes are not good ones I think. The government occupies a very unique place. Unions are completely different from government in a myriad of ways. Unions are simply the counterpart to management in a corporation, while governments are the means by which we govern ourselves. The state has a monopoly on the legal use of force. Its power is balanced by a judicial branch. Comparisons between unions and government may be tempting but I suspect they are specious ones at best.

The fact remains is that we've made membership in unions an employment requirement for certain sectors and these unions are highly political. Unions make donations to political parties, *couch* NDP *couch*, and support certain candidates over others, but if you want to be a public school teacher, you are required to give them part of your paycheque.

This seems fundamentally wrong to me. Doesn't it seem wrong to you?

Consider the following scenario: To live and vote in BC, you need to belong to the Q organization. This costs you part of your paycheque every two weeks. Organization Q gives a lot of money to a favoured federal party that you vote against. Organization Q also requires you to participate in protests against the federal government when the majority of Q members want to protest. If you refuse to protest or withold your payments to Q you cannot vote or live in BC. I know it's not a perfect comparion but the basics are there. Does it still seem fair?

Posted by:  issachar

Salty Cracker...


I wasn't getting into the "not picketing" vs. "crossing the picket line" issue at all. I would say that not participating in a strike means going to work, (i.e. crossing the picket line). My Aunt would have done this as a matter of conscience.

Among the penalties the union can impose is expulsion from the union. Since union membership is required for employment in public schools, expulsion from the union will result in losing your job. It is true that the union isn't the one that fires you, but the school has to fire a teacher who is not part of the union.

Thanks for the clarification about "future social stigma". That hadn't occured to me as a possibility. I assumed that hiring decisions weren't made by members of the union.

I'd rather not discuss the merits of the Chris Kempling case in this thread as it may really cloud the issue of public sector unions. You are correct though that it was the BC College of Teachers that suspended Dr. Kempling for writing letters to a local newspaper, not the BCCT. While the the BCTF did at one point decide to deny Dr. Kempling legal aid benefits to which he was apparently entitled as a union member, they subsequently made the decision after a meeting with Dr. Kempling and his lawyer William Clark on September 19th 2002 to provide legal aid support up to $145/hour. (Wow). Unfortunately for Dr. Kempling, Mr. Clark apparently charges $300/hour. (Double wow). Sorry about that little bit there, I just wanted to show off the power of google. (I didn't have that sitting in the back of my brain although I do know a bit about the Kempling case).

Posted by:  salty cracker

I by no means said that unions are perfect, and of course there are conflicts of interest at times.

Regarding some of your points, yes, parents do have more votes than teachers, but a government election comes only every 4 years or so.

The BCTF does focus on the public system because one of its goals is to prevent any discrimination based on economic status, and private schools often (but not always) attract those with more economic resources. However, not all of its members view private schools negatively.

I understand the comparisons that you are making; however, being part of a union, I have not experienced the implied constraints to the degree that you describe. Yes, certain unions favour some parties over others. Yes, they may endorse ideologies that I may not agree with.

But....

Suppose union membership was not mandatory. Who would more likely be hired by the employer, the union worker, or the non-union worker? Is this fair?

If a union worker and a non-union worker applied for the same position, should the non-union worker receive the same benefits that were obtained by union involvement with management and the support of its members? Is this fair?

Suppose there was no union and a worker wanted to raise a concern about working conditions against the management that dictates both the terms of employment and the laws. What recourse would this worker have? Is this fair?

Many unions have arisen because of an abuse of management power. As with any man-made organizations they have their flaws. But does that really mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Complete fairness can only be achieved with perfection, which is unattainable. I understand what you are saying, and I would be interested in some possible alternative solutions.

Posted by:  salty cracker

(Yes, one can be expelled from the union, but that is the last resort --- there are many other stages of penalties before that.)

Posted by:  salty cracker

And the BC College of Teachers and the BCCT are the same thing.....

Posted by:  issachar

And the BC College of Teachers and the BCCT are the same thing.....

You are correct. I meant to say that it was not the BCTF that suspended Dr. Kempling.

Posted by:  Join us!! BCTF has

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Posted by:  issachar

There are certainly penalties that the union would impose before it revoked your membership and cost you your job, but that doesn't change the fact that union rules mean that there is no place in public education for people who are against strikes as a matter of conscience. I am not one of those people, but I find it troubling that good teachers, (like my Aunt), would not be able to teach today.

Of course there are two issues at work in this. One is "closed shop" forced union membership and the other is the public school monopoly. In another sector, (let's say the lumber industry for example), a person who does not want to be part of the union isn't barred from working in that sector, merely from working for certain companies. If the BCTF didn't have a monopoly on publicly funded education then this would be less of a problem.

I say publicly funded, because the BCTF's attitude towards independent schools is a bit odd. As you have said, the BCTF is against discrimination on the basis of economic status. However, their consistently oppose measures that would make private schools available to all families regardless of income when those measures are harmful to their members. I'm talking about school vouchers which are a good example of how the union favours the interests of its members. (Which is of course what a union is supposed to do).

Let's keep this discussion limited in focus though. I'm starting a new thread on vouchers here.

Back to unions in general. I do not favour throwing out any babies. As I said, I'm not against unions per se. Unions are necessary in many circumstances. Not all, but many. Unfortunately, the union management model breaks down in two situations.

1) When the employer is ultimately the government which is not subject to standard market restraints acting as check on unrealistic demands and which creates the labour laws.

2) When the employer has a monopoly on that labour sector and the public is unavoidably used as a weapon in the dispute. Labour disputes are supposed to hurt workers and management in order to encourage them to reach a solution equitable to both. Monopolies break this model.

In those situations, I think unions should have less power. I believe this is the only way to be fair to the public and to treat justly those people who want to work in a particular field but do not want to join a union justly.

Posted by:  issachar

oops... left in a trailing "justly". (And I previewed twice). :P

Posted by:  issachar

ugh, I really don't like deleting other people's comments. I'm posting about it here.

Posted by:  salty cracker

That's certainly one of the rubs, Issachar.

I wonder if it would work (or if it would cause more headaches) to have some federal intervention into such disputes? Any ideas? Just brainstorming.....

Posted by:  issachar

I'd suspect there would be more headaches.

First of all, the monopoly problem remains.

Second of all, the federal government doesn't actually have any legal authority to overrule the provincial government in this area. So that doesn't solve the problem of the government being a player and a referee.

Posted by:  salty cracker

Re: giving the public sector union less power....

I think the current dispute is also an example of why that would not work, because of the monopoly that the government has on dictating the laws (and in this case the classroom conditions also). At least with private sector unions, if there was an injustice from management or the union itself, one could appeal to the labour relations board or the courts, which would play the roles of more neutral parties (how ironic... :))

A few weeks ago (I read it in the Vancouver Sun... I forget the date) columnist Vaughn Palmer was discussing with Gordon Campbell the prospect of a commission to examine and revamp the bargaining system. When Palmer asked Campbell if he would abide by such a commission's recommendations, Campbell replied that he couldn't comment on that without knowing what the recommendations would be. Given the history of this dispute, I think we know what that means.

If we want to limit the power of the unions, we also have to remove the conflict of interest with the government. Referendums, perhaps? (Yeesh.....) Or some sort of binding arbitrator.... (with the power to dictate to the government? another can of worms....)

And yes, treating union and non-union members equally would be ideal; however, with the stereotypically confrontational perspectives between unions and management (especially when disputes come up), I question whether equal treatment would ever be realistic.

But I agree with you that the real issue here is that the public is inevitably affected. And I have no clear-cut solution for that....

Posted by:  Carla

I have very little patience for this strike. (which I'm watching on the news by the way, since the CBC STRIKE is over and they're back to posting the National online- I can't STAND CTV news.) Anyways, I digress....

While the BCTF maintains they're doing this job action for the best interests of students, it's the kids that are missing valuable school time. Education is an essential service - the teachers should be back at work - full stop.

That being said, it's difficult to.. ahem, *negotiate* with a party who may act like a bully.

Now that the teachers have demonstrated their antics, back to work, back to school, and back to negotiations. Binding arbitration it may be!

I'm not overly familiar with the negotiation style of the BCTF, but perhaps it leaves something to be desired. Non-militant unions do exist in BC, and generally they are very successful.

Posted by:  Carla

>There was an interesting photo in the Langley Advance the other day of a group of 15 year olds protesting the strike. One of them wore a sign that said simply "Teach me".

Protesting the protestors??? Sounds like UBC engineers. ;)

Posted by:  issachar

Salty Cracker...

The reason you can't see a solution to the public used as a hostage in the labour dispute is that there isn't one. If a union with a monopoly is given full right to strike the public will be used as a weapon. The more strike rights they have, the more the public will be used as a weapon. It is inevitable.

As for binding arbitration, there's really no such thing when you're dealing with the government. Democratically elected governments answer to no authority other than themselves and the ballot box. Thus any "binding" arbitration depends on the desire of the government to be bound. This is unavoidable.

Even if those two things weren't true, (and they are), public sector union disputes are still inevitably political and they are not subject to standard market checks.

There's just no getting around the fact that public sector unions don't fit the Management/Union bargaining model.

Posted by:  issachar

Carla...

Nice to see you online again! :)

The BCTF is a fairly militant union. But more to the point, the organized labour movement in this province is highly militant and political. It's an open secret that the leaders of the unions want the BC Liberals out of office and the NDP back in. Unions help finance the NDP and the NDP reserves 25% of the votes at it's conventions for union representation. (That's the unions themselves, not NDP members who are also union members). This is not exactly helpful for having a good working relationship with a Liberal government.

Posted by:  salty cracker

Issachar, I still don't see where you're going with this.

The union/management situation is different here. True. As is the lack of market influence. As is the politicization. But when you deal with the government, politicization is inherent. Even if a public sector union did not support the NDP, a labour dispute with the government would still cause disruption.

So if your suggestion is to limit the power of public sector unions, then what leverage would workers have when dealing with their employers (the government)? Especially when the government can dictate the terms, and every time a government changes the terms could change. Who in their right mind would want to work under those conditions, without any significant representation? It seems to me that such limitations would lessen the effect on the public, but would completely marginalize a sector of workers (provided that anyone would want to fill those jobs).

Unless you are suggesting that public sector unions could have limited strike rights (rotating, perhaps). This would lessen the effect on the public.

I don't mean to be glib here, but arguing against actions by public sector unions because they affect the public.... it's like arguing against a dictionary definition. :)

Posted by:  issachar

The thing is that public sector unions currently don't have any real leverage with the government. (At least not any leverage that is both "real" and legal).

Any legal leverage is illusory because the government always has the power to simply change the rules. Public sector union leverage is entirely dependent on the good will of their ultimate employer. I wouldn't call that very real.

I'm not actually against public sector unions. I'm just saying that they're not the same creature as private sector unions and it makes sense to have different rules in place for them. (Ones that address the fact that their leverage is ultimately based on nothing more than their employers good will and that they frequently have a monopoly on their sector).

For the specific case of the BCTF, I would prefer that parents had free choice in the education of their children so they could not be used as a weapon in the strike. While that wouldn't make it impossible for the government to legislate teachers back to work and remove their right to strike it would make it much more difficult politically and therefore less likely. It seems like an everybody wins solution to me. That's why I like the idea of carefully regulated school vouchers.


But as to your question about "who in their right mind would want to work under those conditions"...

That's the situation you have in a non-union workplace. If the management treats workers well then many people will. If management doesn't then few will. The flip side to free choice for parents is that teachers have the same. They can go work elsewhere.

Posted by:  salty cracker

I do see some positives in your voucher system idea, but I do have concerns on its implementation and public perception. (see other thread)

In terms of public sector unions, yes, their leverage is illusory (or intangible, which is a little more positive sounding :)), but versus a government with legislative power, the monopoly is essentially the leverage. Without the monopoly, even the illusory leverage is gone.

My concern is a system where there are fewer checks and balances on the government. Elections every 4 years are not sufficient checks. Passing responsibility outside the public system has its value at times, but when the electorate of a democratic country continually lists public education and health care as top priorities, it is the government's responsibility to abide by that and look at means of improvement rather than looking at ways to make the status quo (or worse) run more cheaply.