Yes, they should.

Yes, I do. As I said in #11 above:

You know, that brings up an interesting issue.

Teachers can't exactly pick up their skills and go elsewhere. If we want to be professional teachers (at least in Ontario) we pretty much have to work for the government. So we don't exactly have a free market deciding the worth of our skills. We can't rely on demand to drive up our relative worth. If we don't have bargaining power, we don't really have any way at all to ensure that we're paid or treated well.

You could say that we could move on and change professions--many people have to do that in today's economy. And many teachers do--two thirds of new teachers move on in the first 5 years of their profession. The problem with relying on that, for the profession anyway, is that when we're treated badly in the public it's all the GOOD PEOPLE that leave. Young teachers right out of college that can afford to uproot their lives. What you end up with is exactly what everyone complains about--complacent teachers waiting out their time until retirement.

I left after one year, because I didn't like the babysitting element of the job. I think if I had started right out of college or had been assigned different classes it may have been different. It is not a job for everyone.

In the US it's about half leave within five years, but people are fighting for those positions. There are many more people with teaching degrees than positions to fill.

Most teachers are employed by the government. There are a few small, private schools and for the most part they pay poorly.

I don't think it's all the GOOD PEOPLE who leave. For the most part, it's people who are not satisfied. They thought it would be different; or it's just not for them or they still feel like they are in high school.

My family and my husband's family is rife with teachers. It is a very noble profession. However, it is NOT the only noble profession.

I think I stated it before, you should be permitted to strike but also be prepared for the consequences.

Blunt answer from me is "no" or, at least not to the extent that it affects the classroom. There are other ways of resolving contractural disputes which both sides have to learn to live with.

Teacher's unions love to portray a strike as the poor, hard done by teachers standing up to the big bad bully of government to help all their eager little students to be the best they can be. Meanwhile the government portrays the teachers unions as money grubbing little entitled ideologues who have no concept of the hardships faced by people living in the real world.

The reality is that the only parties who benefit from a strike are the teacher's unions and the government. Everyday the teachers are on strike, the government saves scads of money because they don't have to pay the teachers. The Union is in it's glory because it gets a great bully pulpit to spread it's goofy ideology and try to expand it's control over the education process. Meanwhile, the teachers themselves suffer through the loss of their paycheques and their students get a year of their lives ripped away while their teachers play union.

There are two reasons why teachers' strikes are very unpopular, the first one being perhaps part of the impeus for the second one. When school is closed, people have to miss work to care for their children. This affects the larger economy and affects many families adversely. I may get fired from my job if you don't go to work and do yours. So I may not be able to support teachers striking, even if they have very good reasons for doing so.

The second reason is the perception people have of the teachers having inordinate amounts of time off. Even if it is uncompensated, even if the perception doesn't match reality, most people ( not the sensitive ones on this board, but others) think teachers have a short workday, lots of vacations during the school year, more holidays than the private sector, and 10 weeks off each summer. Now I know and you know that teachers work in the summer toearn enough money to live on, but most people do not see that. So they do not support teachers striking.

A job action is supposed to make the employer uncomfortable, so that they need or want to make concessions. In the case of the electorate being the ultimate employer by way of electing the government officials in charge of teacher pay, public opinion plays a bigger role than the loss of profits.

What seems to be happening in Canada is that the government is changing the rules mid-stream ~ my first reaction is that that in itself is not fair ~ then there's the question of whether or not teachers should be able to strike ~ my response to that is a qualified "yes" ~ my qualification is that striking should be the very last option and should be limited to clearly identified and limited issues ~ I see teachers' strikes as going far beyond the typical union strike where the strike generally affects the strikers and the employers ~ teachers' strikes affect not only the strikers and employers, but children and their families as well ~ and THAT is the teachers' most potent and dangerous weapon ~

Here, because of how schools are funded, teacher strikes affect the bottom line negatively, which translates to less funding ~ I see that as self-defeating ~ there's also the issue of contracts ~ I don't know if Canadian teachers sign annual contracts, but our teachers do ~ when you sign the contract, you are legally agreeing to the salary, benefits, and working conditions ~ since it's the Canadian employer who seems to be changing the rules during a contract period, there would be cause for a legal action ~ litigation is a whole new can of worms ~

There just is no simple and definitive "yes" or "no" answer ~ way too many variables ~

Sooz

Actually that highlighted section irritates me and always has. A school social worker works 7 hours a day for 192 days and STARTS at $50K. At my hospital which is high-paying for the area, an MSW social works 8 hours a day for 250 days and STARTS at $58K. Don't tell me school social workers work harder and blah, blah, blah. It's not true. I also know that they don't work in the summer to earn enough money to live on.

Starting teachers start at comfortable salaries; comparable to private industry. They are NOT suffering at $18K with class sizes of 45. That myth perpetuates. All districts start at over $40K (my old job would start at $46K now) and many districts start over $50K for new teachers.

If people work over the summer to pick up extra money, it is because they have the time and opportunity to do it not because they are destitute.

http://www.njea.org/njea-media/pdf/40Km ... 4640818514

Maybe, Kathy. When I taught I could not afford to go without a paycheck in the summer. Most of the teachers I knew worked at summer camps or taught summer school. A few of us got jobs with the federal school lunch program which was a cash cow for me- I made more per hour in the summer than I did for the school year. I wasn't destitute, but I could not have afforded an apartment in the cheaper ( crime ridden) neighborhoods of Boston if I didn't. Certainly things have changed since the 80s, an dI did not have a husband or children to help or support then so it's really hard to compare my situation. But teachers I know now all have two income households, extra stuff like coaching or department head supplements, and several do work during the summer. Overall they are better compensated than we were in the 80s

I posted this because I was curious about people's attitudes in general about teacher's strikes. So many people seem to bash teachers during teachers strikes, but when asked the question "should teachers be allowed to strike" aren't willing to go as far as to say no to all strikes. Just every strike that's ever actually happened. (and kudos to jimwilliam for at least being consistant). And that's what I hear when I hear that people think we're holding families and children hostage with our stikes or work to rule actions--teachers should not have the right to strike. So why aren't people actually willing to say that? It's a conundrum for me.

My own personal opinion--i'm still mixed up about all this. I'm not sure whether or not teachers should have the right to strike, honestly. On the one hand, we only have one employer--a monopoly on our employment, if you will. so we can't exactly pick up and move to another employer if we aren't treated well. We aren't allowed to pit one board against another to bid for the best of us with superior wages and work conditions. Which makes collective bargaining really the only tool we have to ensure fair and marketable deals.

the other side of the coin, as was pointed out, is that we end up punishing those other than our employers when we go on strike (an issue that comes up with all public sector strike actions). In our case it's children's futures--so the stakes are darn high. So i don't know.

I do support the strike we're in right now though. (Skip this part if Ontario politics bore you.) For reasons other than our own work conditions and compensation. I don't know what's fair. I don't know enough about wages to really have a good idea how much teachers should be paid, or how much prep time or sick days we should get.

I support our current strike action because of Bill 115, and the precident it sets for all labour negotiations in this province from now on. Bill 115 arbitrarily gives the government the right to end any strike after any amount of time for no justifiable reason. It has the right to completely circumvent the union and impose contracts arbitrarily without any form of mediation or arbitration. It in effect eliminates the roles of unions without any votes of workers. it's union breaking, robber baron style.

I worry that if bill 115 is left to stand, it will be used as a template for labour negotiations in all aspects of canadian society. It could be used for any public sector labor negotiations at any time a government finds itself short of money, regardless of the value of the work of the union members. The government is NOT saying we are over compensated for what we do--they are just saying they can't afford us. That is a dangerous slope. Should contracts be negotiated without consideration of the value of the work that is done? Ever?

What ramifications will this bill have in the private sector? Could private companies, some of whom have become so large that their monopolies of certain kinds of workers approach those of the government monopoly on teacher employment, access bill 115 type legislation to renegotiate contracts because of fiscal shortfalls, especially if companies are designated too big to fail? Walmart, who employs so many people it resembles it's own country, and who pays its employees so little that full time workers are accessing welfare topups, foodstamps, and other anti poverty programs paid for by the government despite their full time employment, is facing labor organization attempts. Should I, a middle class woman who is paid enough to support her family, cave in the face of a new law that could make labor organization significantly harder for a woman who works full time and lives below the poverty line?

Bill 115 is being actively contested in courts by our union . Our union is paying the bill for that contest, and plans to take it right to the supreme court. Aside from our own charter of rights and freedoms, which bill 115 blatantly contradicts, international labour law is being used. Our government, in Canada in 2012, has written a law that contradicts an international law that was designed to protect women working in maquiladoras who are paid so little they prostitute themselves after work to support their families, and where union leaders are actively shot.

For these reasons I support the action in Ontario by the teacher's unions. And I am prepared to lose wages and fight my part of the fight to end this evil bill. I'm not a wealthy person--we live pretty close to paycheck to paycheck since my husband lost his mind a few years ago--but I recognize the issues involved here are much larger than my own finances, and i'm prepared to do my part.

It's the media that is causing that disconnect, GAT.

How many times have you heard the news story being portrayed like this?: "And today the Ontario teachers union has voted to hold parents hostage with rotating strikes...."

It's very subtle propaganda implying that a certain perspective is the accepted truth, thereby blunting any further discussion. Viewers (or listeners/readers) automatically assume the teachers are holding people "hostage" even though there has been little to no discussion prior to the introduction of the news piece about what the teachers' actual concerns/demands may be. This in turn leads the public to "speak out" against the teachers regardless of whether they actually have all the facts or not.

"And today the Ontario teachers union has voted to hold parents hostage with rotating strikes

That's because it's incmoplete.
The full version was:
"And today the Ontario teachers union has voted to hold parents hostage with rotating strikes" Parents are angry that they will have to cancel nail and hair appointments and have to pay for baby sitters.

I'm not sure that's fair. Everyone is feeling the crunch right now, and being asked to take time off from work is a major hardship for those paid by the hour. Babysitters are difficult to find with so many children out of school at the same time suddenly.

To be fair though, the admin are going to try and keep the schools open to provide supervision for stuck parents in the gym or some such. it will be far from ideal (and will not be an educational format by any means) but might be the needed bridge for parents that find this an extreme hardship.

Once again:

MOST OF THAT WHICH I POST HAS MY TONGUE FIRMLY PLANTED IN MY CHEEK.

there are two separate cases here: personal and transpersonal.

at the personal level, i am SURE you are conflicted. your actions adversely impact you, your students, and their parents. that can't feel right- especially when, unlike other actions of this kind, you can't expect solidarity from the people you are impacting the most: the children. nurses have this same sense of conflict, as do social service workers. but most workers need only be concerned with themselves, their families and their fellow workers. i don't envy you this choice.

at the transpersonal level this action is a lot easier. it has wider implications, and i agree that LL115 is a very dangerous law at the proximate level, in that it could be used as a template to pound organized labor down in any market, from garment worker to professional sports.

i think that if i were in your position, i would try to focus on the wider implications.