This past week, the Government of Ontario proposed legislation to freeze the wages of teachers for the next two years. Bill 115, also known as Putting Students First, would “force a wage freeze and cuts to benefits on tens of thousands of teachers across the province.”1 “The legislation, which three unions have vowed to fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, will also give the government the power to ban strikes and lockouts for at least two years.”1
Teachers unions are threatening retaliation and court challenges. With a by-election called for this week, “The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario – representing 76,000 members – said it’s calling on all teachers to volunteer in the riding of Kitchener-Waterloo, which was previously held by the Tories.”2
MP Olivia Chow, has voiced her view that “the Liberals are bullying tens of thousands of teachers and education workers by trying to force new contracts on them”.3
It’s hard not to draw a parallel between the governments approach to teachers and the standstill in its negotiations with Ontario’s physicians. Faced with a breakdown in negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) this spring, the government has legislated a $340 million reduction in total physician compensation through alterations to the fee schedules that are asynchronous and have inflamed the OMA whose website claims “that the government is putting our health care at risk”.5 The OMA has initiated a process challenging the constitutionality of the government’s actions.
The debate seems crystallized. Does a government, faced with an overpowering deficit, have the right to (some would argue the responsibility to) legislate fiscal control of escalating costs; or does it have the responsibility to, in all instances, allow the collective bargaining processes to conclude, regardless of the result? One could argue, that with human resource costs far and away dominating the financial picture in the public sector, without bold legislative action, our government would proceed down a course of provincial bankruptcy. One does not have to look too hard to find examples of where spiraling public costs are threatening the very viability of many nations; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece, to name a few.
On the other hand, for decades teachers and doctors have been able to negotiate wage settlements that for the most part have left Ontario in a good shape with respect to its human resource complement and the public well served with respect to the quality of both the education and health care that is delivered.
It is certainly hard to understand how the recent confrontational approach will result in anything but ongoing conflict. It would be my personal opinion that we need movement on both sides: significant movement. Our public sector unions, and in the case of doctors, our OMA, need to appreciate that our current situation mandates processes that are not just “business as usual”. Our government, on the other hand, can’t really believe that unilateral imposition of wage freezes and pay cuts is a model that is sustainable for our future. Both sides need transformative movement on many issues.
If you have views on this issue, please respond to this blog, or better yet…please stop by the Macklem House, my door is always open.
Richard
3. http://www.globaltoronto.com/teachers+to+protest+wage+freeze+bill/6442704222/story.html
Dear Richard,
Thanks for drawing attention to this important issue and recognizing the parallels with the situation for teachers.
The next Tony Travill Debate will address precisely this issue. Watch for it!–it’s bound to be another success in the tradition of the debate:
“Be it resolved that ….compensation for Canadian physicians is too high”
Dr. David Walker versus Dr. Mike Adams (with student partners TBA)
8 November 2012, Etherington Auditorium, 5 pm
Thanks Jackie
We look forward to the debate. They are always a terrific experience.
Richard
I read many of the comments posted in response to this blog; several writers brought out the complexity of the issue and provided context regarding the numbers of gun related homicides. Nevertheless, many of us are made increasingly uncomfortable by news reports of shooting deaths and injuries, especially when we suspect that the weapons are illegal. It seems to me that as a society we are quite happy to provide the police with laws regarding guns but much less eager to provide them with the tools they need to enforce even existing, old laws. Consider the contrast with alcohol and driving. We expect drinking establishments to check IDs and cut off patrons whom they deem to have imbibed too much. We also expect roadside checks for impaired drivers by the police especially in certain seasons. Why don’t we have spot checks for illegal weapons? Are there jurisdictions that have such programs? If so, does anyone know if they work?
Kanji,
You raise excellent points. I am not certain of the answers to your questions, but perhaps other readers will be able to provide.
Richard
Economic-political confrontations are too prevalent these days both in Canada and the United States. When governments or those hoping to gain control try to implement increasing, halting or decreasing benefits to stakeholders, it shouldn’t be surprsing that there will be push-back. My hope is that no one will try to kill anyone for whatever their stance is on controversial issues, or any lesser issue.
Bill thanks for your views, and we all couldn’t agree more.
Richard
This voter does not see the parallels at all. Both groups deserve fair compensation for their work. End of comparison.
My eye doctor, for example, tells me that new technology makes cataract extractions possible in much less time. So why a higher fee?
Pat
Thanks for your views. My comparison related to the use of a legislative or quasi-legislative approach to moing forward from an impasse.
Richard