If there is a more futile approach to collective bargaining than our K-12 school system endures, none comes readily to mind. As we struggle through yet another teachers鈥� strike, the history speaks for itself: Over the past two decades, only one settlement has been freely negotiated.
There have been three strikes, and as many contracts imposed by legislation. In effect, the sa国际传媒 Teachers鈥� Federation and a succession of provincial governments have created a settlement process in which everyone loses.
Millions have been spent on lawsuits, with millions more to come, as issues are litigated that should be handled at the bargaining table. Political enmities are created that will play out later at the ballot box.
Parents are left scrambling to make child-care arrangements that many can ill afford. And students are denied end-of-year assistance in prepping for exams.
Part of the problem lies in mindsets. If the parties believe a legislated settlement is inevitable, neither has an incentive to bargain in good faith.
Part of the problem is that there is no agreed-upon method for costing the competing packages. This allows both sides to mislead the public about what they鈥檙e proposing.
Adding to the list of obstacles, there is no agreement about the kind of issues that should be bargained. Teachers want to negotiate class size. Government sees this as the employer鈥檚 prerogative.
And most difficult of all, deep-seated philosophical disagreements stand in the way of compromise. When lawyers, doctors or nurses negotiate with government, they don鈥檛 have to defend their standards of practice. The issues are mainly salary and benefits.
But in education, ideologies have a powerful, and often disruptive, presence. Which subjects belong in the curriculum? Which teaching methods are most effective? Are provincial exams a good idea? Should parents have more say in how their child is educated?
Teachers tend to believe these are professional matters that should be left to their discretion. Education ministries see a broader public interest, and tend to intervene. The result is an atmosphere of resentment and distrust whenever the two sides meet.
It鈥檚 not as if there is a shortage of suggestions for improvement. Forests have been felled in the writing of reports and recommendations.
Vancouver arbitrator Judi Korbin, ex-secretary of the Treasury Board Don Wright and mediator Vince Ready were all commissioned at various points to offer advice. Nothing of note came of their proposals.
Where we go from here is anyone鈥檚 guess, although there are signs the current system might finally be headed for the wrecker鈥檚 yard.
While the Education Ministry has guaranteed that Grade 10-12 exams will be marked, it appears willing to let the strike continue, at least for now. For the first time in years, there is no talk about legislating teachers back to work.
Harsh as it is, this could be the only way of bringing both sides to their senses. Teachers will face a loss of income while the walkout continues: Union strike pay is exhausted.
And the government must explain to furious parents why it has allowed this wretched situation to occur. MLAs will be getting an earful at constituency meetings and by mail.
The real shame, though, is that it had to come to this. If either party thinks they are 鈥渨inning鈥� this war, they are sadly mistaken. No amount of assurances from the union that it鈥檚 鈥渁ll about the children鈥� carry weight any more.
No amount of blather by the government about economizing conceals its bloody-minded desire to outmuscle the teachers鈥� federation.
Where there鈥檚 a will, there is supposed to be a way. A fair reading of the past 20 years would be that there is no will 鈥� on either side.
