I've been reading a lot of backlash about the ontario teacher's unions and their job actions against Bill 115 (which was organized by the government to save money, so includes a lot of contract strips and a suspension of our right to strike).

So I'm curious--I know most of you aren't from ontario and are therefore not involved in our little public skirmish. But what do you think about teachers right to strike in general? Most of the issues involved here are fairly universal.

(and say what you mean. It's been boring around here lately. I myself am on the fence about a number of these issues, so I'm interested in honest opinions.)

Doctors go on strike and they're in "professional associations" so I don't see why teachers shouldn't be able to engage in job action. In fact... I think everyone should be able to - but I'm a sworn socialistcommiepinkoliberal so what do I know, eh?

but I'm a sworn socialistcommiepinkoliberal so what do I know, eh?

Hellofalotmorethanarightard.

I have to give the poll questions some thought because I have mixed emotions about a few of them ~ I can only speak to how things are done here ~ teachers can strike here but only over compensation issues ~ I'm pretty sure any other reason makes for an "illegal strike" ~ but most cities are in pretty rough shape financially right now, just like many families ~ one of the problems is how schools are funded here ~ which is via a floating percentage of real property taxes ~ so there is often great disparity between inner city and gold coast suburban schools ~ I'm pretty sure the state contributes to all public schools, but I don't know what kind of formula is used ~

I believe teaching is an essential service ~ but police and firefighters are essential services as well ~ so a fairly stagnant amount of dollars needs to be split several different ways, trying to be fair to all ~ teachers in Chicago actually make at least 7% more than their contract salaries because they are required to pay 9% of their salary into the teachers' retirement fund and schools pay 7% of that 9% for the teachers ~ I need to check, but I don't think that additional 7% is taxable because schools pay it directly into the retirement fund in the teachers' names ~ most schools here do pay teachers a stipend for after-school and coaching activities ~ and I see that as fair ~

Most supplies and tools here are provided by the schools ~ as for teachers buying "extras", I can only speak to how we do it in our charter school ~ we have 2 classes of each grade ~ each grade has a budget for "extras", but the teachers of both classes in each grade must determine/agree how that budget is spent ~

A major "plus" for unions is the right to strike ~ but I think that "plus" can be abused ~ I believe essential services should be paid fairly, but I don't know any cop or fireman or teacher who went into their chosen field expecting to get rich ~ and while teachers work long days during the school year, they have far more vacation and holiday days than anyone with a regular 9-to-5 job ~ bottom line for me: I'm not sure I agree that essential services should be able to strike ~

Sooz

I believe in the right of individual workers to organize and cooperate to amplify their individual economic power, which is just a shade more than nothing otherwise. That goes for auto workers, police officers, teachers...everyone.

The 1% already have their union. It's called Wall Street.

Fair enough. I'm more interested in the right to strike and collective bargaining than whether or not you think teachers are fairly compensated now or any other time. I mean, talk about whatever you want, I'm not the thread police. But in general...do you think teachers should have the right to strike?

If you think teachers should not have the right to strike (i.e. essential service), then would you support binding arbitration for settling disputed contracts?

and think about the extra curricular question. the reason i included it is that withdrawl of extra curriculars is a really common job action for teachers, since under most contracts extra curricular supervision or clubs are considered voluntary. There has been discussion about including extra curricular activities in contracts properly, so that they cannot be taken away by teachers during work to rule situations. The problem with that is compensation. Would teachers get time away from other supervisory duties in lieu of club running? Would they get extra pay for working extra hours? In general governments have been unwilling to consider compensation for extra curriculars (prefering to put money towards academics--like language and math consultants, testing, etc.) Thus extra curriculars have remained voluntary exercises for teachers, taken on at their own discretion and on their own time.

I included the pay for extras because most teachers do pay out of pocket for materials for their classrooms. Schools pay for most things, but anything interesting or unique in a classroom usually is sourced and paid for by the teachers. I have heard some say that they think that's fair--it's the equivalent of mechanics providing their own tools, or construction workers paying for their own safety gear. The arguement against is the disposable nature of anything handled regularily by children, incurring costs of not only the original purchase but repair and replacement...but sure, it's a grey area.

Somewhere I have the job description for a school teacher at the one-room, 12-grade Rust school where my wife got her elementary school education. It was just a small step up from indentured servitude. To be clear, the document is from the very beginning of the school back in horse and buggy days, not in the '57 Chevrolet BelAire era when wife went to school there. But it proscribed most of the personal liberties we all take for granted in our lives now. No inappropriate socializing, (with men, for example. It was assumed the teacher would be female). I think it specified how often and under what conditions a teacher might host a male caller, for purposes of courting. No drinking of strong spirits, no swearing. No wearing of inappropriate clothing. Church attendance required. All of these were part of the "strong moral character" requirement. And the pay plan guaranteed that the teacher would be the very model of frugality in her private life.

The document set forth that the teacher would start the woodstove in time for the room to be habitable in the wintertime, would keep order, mete out corporal punishment as needed, etc. Attend to the moral development of the children.

My point in writing this, I think there's still some of that expectation for a teacher to do whatever it takes, to be whatever the community demands, to accept whatever compensation is offered, and to subjugate reasonable expectation of a normal private life to the high (albeit low-paid) calling of the teacher. Even after all these years. That's why there are teachers' unions.

That's kind of why I posted this. I think we've been framing the question wrong--talking about teachers vs. students, that type of thing. I guess I wanted to see what people would say if i framed the question as if it was any other unionized worker--should the teachers have the same rights as any other unionized workers? Or are unions themselves the stuff of history, with no current relevance?

Are people ready and willing to say outright that teachers do not have the right to strike or negotiate collectively? (and if so, fair enough. at least you're honest).

Anybody should have a right to strike.
Anybody should have a right to get fired.
Anybody should have the right to find a new job if they don't like their current one.
Any employer should have the right to fire any employee for just cause.

There is a lot of drama at the hospital right now because the nurses are unionized and they talk striking now and then. I actually think teachers have more of a right to strike than nurses.

Greeny, at the beginning of this school year, Chicago had the first teacher strike in something like 25 years ~ the financial demands were resolved on [I think] the 2d or 3d day ~ but the Chicago Teachers Union decided to stretch their action into an illegal strike that went far beyond finances ~ and the school year started something like 2 weeks later ~ at the beginning the teachers had full support from parents and others ~ as the strike stretched into areas not allowed, the CTU and the teachers lost credibility from everyone ~ any union can abuse the right to strike ~ that's why I wrestle with essential services having that right ~ maybe the answer for me is that teachers and other unions should have the right to strike UNLESS/UNTIL they abuse that right ~

Here's a question: do you see any difference between a strike by tradesmen and a strike by essential services?

Sooz

Sure. And so does the law of my land--it is illegal for police officers and fire workers here to strike.

But we haven't been declared essential yet. And there's a reason for that. The province lost a big legal fight with the Toronto Transit union earlier this year (it might have been last year) where they were declared essential and ordered back to work. Once a service is declared essential, then unresolved contract talks can be turned over to a third party for binding arbitration. And that's what happened with the transit workers--and the arbiter found in their favour. They were granted much more than the province was offering them.

So now, the province is afraid of playing fast and loose with the term "essential". The term itself gives the workers/profession a ring of importance, that will play both in court and in the court of public opinion. They just passed bill 115 without declaring us essential, and brought bankruptcy lawyers to the table to try and justify it.

But your case isn't that special Sooz. Teacher's strikes are universally unpopular, with teachers usually losing in public opinion. Which is why they don't happen that often as full out strikes. But if we legally have the right to strike, then we should be able to use it--and if they take that right away, I think they should have to be able to legally justify that decision.

I don't know what to say about only having the right to strike over money. That sounds like a copout to me. Money is almost never the major hurdle in talks, and is often bargained with in lieu of other benefits (ie. we'll take less in wages in exchange for more preparatory time, for instance). I think it should be one or the other. Either we have the right to strike until a contract is signed, or we don't.

If it's against the law for police to go on strike, and the police go on strike, who is going to arrest them?!

It just means that police officers could lose their jobs by participating in strike action.

Legal and illegal strike action just defines what the unions are or are not allowed to compel their members to do.

A caveat to my vote on this one.

Extra curricular duties should remain voluntary--so that those hours do not have to be considered as part of their work day.

Volunteerism should be exactly what it says, volunteerism, and not something that is coerced out of teachers, which is the current situation.

I think we're still talking somewhat at cross purposes here, mostly because we are speaking from different systems ~ you say:


To me, limiting strikes to compensation issues is fair for essential services ~ I agree other things, as you note, are important and those "other things" should be part of the negotiations ~ but here, school funding is based on X number of days in class ~ is it fair to lose already limited funding and throw families into turmoil over child care because you want more time to prepare?

I've often posted that my respect for teachers has mushroomed since seeing first-hand what they confront every day ~ I do not doubt the deep sincerity of teachers wanting to do right by the students ~ but I've also gained great respect for people on the operations side who are trying to do the best they can with limited funding and limited options ~ there ARE at least 2 sides to the story ~

You also said: "Teacher's strikes are universally unpopular, with teachers usually losing in public opinion." ~ that really was not the case with the recent Chicago teachers strike ~ the teachers had strong support from the families UNTIL the union decided to push further into "non-compensation issues" ~ I hold the union bigshots responsible for that irresponsible act ~ yes, the teachers voted to ratify the action ~ but it seems to me if unions are created and mandated to protect its members, then the unions must play by the legal governance rules ~

I really do understand and sympathize with teachers' frustrations ~ but it ALL boils down to $$$ ~ if you need more time to prepare, that requires more classroom help ~ more classroom help requires more $$$ ~ but $$$ are limited ~ would you prefer to take a cut in your salary to provide the additional help? ~ if, as I suspect, your answer is NO [like my own answer would be], where do you propose to get the additional $$$ needed?

Sooz

That's a good point, oskar ~ those extra curricular activities that require an on-going commitment should be compensated ~

Sooz

those extra curricular activities that require an on-going commitment should be compensated ~

I wasn't suggesting that, exactly.
Volunteerism is volunteerism.
The only compensation should be for out of pocket expenses.
If there is an obligation to do something then it isn't volunteerism and should be fully paid.
That's my opinion, at least, and hopefully I was clear.

The US doesn't work that way. My nephew who is 48 years old and has over 26 years teaching experience. He teaches Pre Calc in a HS is coaching the Jr High Girls Basketball team for 2 and 1/2 months for $7K. The assistant coaches etc get paid, too.

All of the costs for sports and theatricals are budgeted into the school district budget. Some of the band trips etc need some kick-in from parents and fund raising events. My son went to New Orleans, Disneyland, DisneyWorld and Toronto with the high school band.

I don't remember any out of pocket expenses when I was teaching. I think I bought some glitter glue for projects (my choice) and I made some copies at home because it was more convenient for me (again my choice).

I taught 5 classes (three of them were the same) and had two prep periods. I thought it was enough.

gat is from Ontario, Canada where the provincial government is now dictating terms of employment to the teachers.

I understand that, oskar. I am explaining that there are differences between the terms in Ontario, Canada and in PA/NJ.

We don't pay public school team coaches, and, as far as I know, never have.
This role has traditionally been assumed by volunteers, usually PE instructors.
Now the governments are attempting to dictate that volunteer work be part of the employment contracts without compensation.
I have to wonder whether this is unconstitutional.
Our Constitution/Charter have not been tested to the extent of the US Constitution.

Ok, I'm not sure how you expect me to respond to that. It's not the job of the employee to find the money to pay themselves. Either an employer can afford the services of their employees or they can't. If they can't, they cut down the workforce and accept the declining services that come as a result. Asking teachers to take pay cuts because the government can't afford them (or says they can't) is like asking a grocery store to give you a loaf of bread because you can't afford it. It may be true, but it is not the grocer's job to provide that social service. Will everyone in the private sector be taking a wage cut and sending the government the difference to pay down the debt?

But all that gets away from the original question.

Do you think teachers should be allowed to strike or not?