My OECTA TSU Election statement follows this blog, as does your updated teacher union news link digest for this week.
Voting closes at 4pm Thursday April 18th.
The following guest blog has been forwarded to me by it's author, teacher + REWT member Rob Scott. To be fair, a chart comparing Rob's points with those of a yes supporter has been added at the end of the blog, before my own commentary on the situation OSSTF members face. Here is Scott's submission:
Why I Will Be
Voting No to the Proposed OSSTF Contract:
As I walked
through Bill 115's scorched-earth labour landscape, I saw an oasis in the
distance. Political donations, favourable results at a leadership convention and
a “new tone” had led me to
expect a tall drink of fairly negotiated water, but woe is me, the oasis was a
mirage and negotiations nothing more than heat lines above a summer's highway. I
will vote over the next week and my vote will be no. I hope that at least 50%
plus one will vote with me. Here is the short version of my rationale for such
a vote. A provincial ratification of this deal will allow the government to
loudly and proudly announce that they successfully negotiated a deal with
Ontario’s teachers. They will claim to have “negotiated” the elimination of
bankable sick days, they will boast that they have managed to “fairly and
legally collectively bargain” the end of the gratuity and a yes vote will aid
and abet in these lies. So I will vote no, the detailed version of my rationale
follows.
The Contract
Itself
In a normal year
contract negotiations begin with an examination of the pre-existing contract.
From that point the conversation between the stakeholders moves to a discussion
of what each side would like to see removed, changed or added to the expiring
(or expired - as is usually the case) Collective Bargaining Agreement. The deal
that we are voting on did not use the previous contract as its foundation.
Rather this deal is built upon the contract that was imposed effective January
3, 2013. The proposed agreement is not a new deal at all; it is a series of
amendments to a problematic deal that reneged on contractual promises made to
teachers over decades of legitimate negotiations. And about those amendments, as
it turns out, they are all minor.
Most of what’s in
this deal was available to us before Kathleen Wynne ever set foot in the
Premier’s office. This MOU looks very much like the deals that were voted down
in York Region and the Niagara District and accepted in Upper Grand in
November.
Sick Days
Consider the sick
day provisions. Everything in this amended deal is the same as the three
November deals. Identical. Except for the elimination of the adjudication
process and the possibility of receiving two-thirds pay while off sick for an
“unapproved” illness. Sounds good,
until you realize some boards ,including mine, had abandoned the idea of the
66% payout because it was too expensive to operate the adjudication process. So
the OSSTF was able to get the government to eliminate an initiative that was too
costly to be implemented. Well done.
VLAP
The Voluntary
Leave of Absence Program is another left over from November’s contractual
trifecta. I have to believe that the OSSTF could have negotiated this into our collective
agreements at any time over the past thirty years. Why wouldn’t the boards or
government go for a program that saves significant money every time it is
accessed? Financially, the VLAP program makes more sense for the boards than the
four-over-five program.
Gratuities
The amended
payouts for money owed to teachers under previously, and freely, negotiated
gratuity agreements is laughable. The York, Niagara and Guelph deals were
paying out at ten percent of money owed, now that has increased to the lofty
sum of 25% (FYI. Guelph had no gratuity - so it’s little wonder why that
bargaining unit accepted their deal). If I were to receive one of these
payouts, my 161 sick days would pay me a total, before taxes, of just over $7
000 (instead of the $2 800 in the November deals - and instead of the $28 000
owed to me). So instead of breaking into my house and robbing me of everything
I own, except for the floorboards and light fixtures, the government now has
seen fit to leave me a couple of eggs in the fridge. And if, like me, your sick
days are vested, you get to collect one of the lesser of three calculations
when you retire. So for me, the $22 000 my vested days merit (the least of the
three calculations) will be collected in 2029, when it’s worth maybe $10 000.
As for the half a year’s salary specified in the contract I signed over a
decade ago, forget about it. But don’t forget, all of this has been “fairly negotiated”
if we vote yes to this deal.
Unpaid
Days
The unpaid days
provision in the in “new and improved” amended deal is worse than the unpaid
days outlined in the Upper Grand contract. The pre-Wynne triple-header of deals
actually included only one unpaid day. The soon to be voted on deal includes
two unpaid days off. One of the days might be eliminated, but we will have to
wait and see if the board saves enough money through other means, and if you
don’t take six sick days - you will get reimbursed for the other day. So the
OSSTF effectively managed to negotiate a “maybe” on one unpaid day and the
potential reimbursement for the other if you don’t get too sick next year.
Future
Grid
The federation
has been trumpeting a grid guarantee from the government. However, when one
reads the MOU, he or she discovers that this guarantee is rather weak. Read the
following, taken directly from the MOU:
The government
shall meet to review school board employee salary grids with stakeholders during
the term of the 2012 to 2014 collective agreements including, but not limited
to, how employees move on the experience and qualification salary grid
(where applicable) and the variation currently in the monetary value of each
grid step, with a view to future sustainability.The funding parameters for
OSSTF/FEESO salary grids shall remain consistent throughout the process. Absent
agreement during the review, any change to grid issues shall be the subject of
collective bargaining for the next collective agreement.
So all that is
guaranteed, is that the government will negotiate any changes to the grid at
the conclusion of this deal (August 31, 2014). Why would they have to promise
something that is clearly ensconced in labour law? Will they “negotiate”
changes to the grid much the way they “fairly negotiated” the elimination of
sick days and gratuities? Will the union tell us a 15 step grid is a good deal
after the government originally imposed a 17 step grid?
The Court
Challenge Of Bill 115
I recently read
the latest OSSTF communication claiming that a strong yes vote would strengthen
our court case against Bill 115. As a result of reading that message, I now
know what it’s like to step through the looking glass and converse in
jabberwocky, to swallow the blue pill, to embrace the Roswell lien, and to slow dance with Mr. Topsy-Turvy.
A yes vote will allow the government to enter the courtroom armed with a strong
argument for the case’s dismissal, as not only did they repeal the bill, they
managed to fairly negotiate and collectively bargain a deal freely agreed to by
the province’s teachers.
I have
heard other arguments, among them is the goal of avoiding Hudak’s Tories.
The hypothesis that forfeiting this battle will help us maybe win a future war
does not bode well for future contracts –win the contract battle, and
then win in the political arena when the time comes.
When I hear some
amongst us suggest that we should vote to accept this deal because it’s
imperceptibly less awful than the imposed contract, I recall smoke, stars and
being asked “which would you rather, to lick your father’s deodorant stick or
your mother’s summer worn pantyhose?” And while “which would you rather” is an
awesome campfire game, it’s a horrible way to negotiate a compensation package
for educators in the number one educational jurisdiction in the English
speaking world. Mr. and Mrs.Teacher which would you rather, to get royally
screwed or to get regally screwed? I for one will vote for not getting screwed
and frankly for never getting screwed again. Ratification is complete
surrender.
Rob Scott
BALANCE = POINT + COUNTERPOINT:
Here is a chart contrasting Robs "No" argument with the "Yes" position from teacher Misha Abarbanal @ Yay or Nay?
MY 2 BITS:
Please do not make the mistake OECTA did in ratifying the MOU. OSSTF members can vote no! Know that any promises are only as good so long as the current government is around. Also, that by removing the 66% sick day rate you can now get 90% or zero! Anybody thinking of a lateral transfer to another school board can forget that under the new Fair Hire provisions. In the case of OECTA the implementation procedures were not delivered or supported now leaving us in quite the mess. Look forward to many more grievances and trips to the OLRB for the final word on what the agreement really means! Last but not least, perhaps you might look at it this way:
The Liberal government needs a deal just as much as you do if not more! You are not getting anything substantial back from what they have taken away, just table scraps and abstract terms. Hell, you are even agreeing to let them steal your sick days be it at 10% or 25%. Democracy, labour rights and the Collective Bargaining process are being dismantled. It's a very bad precedent, that could result in the future destruction of unionism in our province which is all now well underway. Do you really want to enable the Liberals in their folly? IMHO it is better to go down fighting than to live in servitude, especially one that you have even agreed to! How sad if OSSTF gives up and does so now joining OECTA in our shame!
COMMENT BELOW:
.png)
