With the B.C. Teachers’ Federation calling for arbitration to settle the school strike, it’s worth asking: Is this a good idea? The public certainly thinks so. The polls I’ve seen suggest something like a two-to-one majority in favour.
And certainly, from the union’s perspective, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. No arbitrator is going to award them less than the employer has already offered.
But from the government’s viewpoint, arbitration is a losing proposition.
First, there is a long history of arbitrators settling disputes by going up the middle.
It’s not hard to see why.
In that line of work, you have to maintain the appearance of strict impartiality. And the best way of doing that is to split the difference. Each party gets something, neither gets all it wants, and it looks like justice has been done.
That might be a workable solution here if the two sides were already close. But so far as we know, there is a huge gap between them. If the teachers get even half a loaf, they come out miles ahead.
Second, the government’s offer matches the pattern of public-sector contracts that have already been negotiated. It’s a fair bet those other unions were told there would be no exceptions.
If the teachers win more by going on strike and forcing arbitration, what message does that send? Refuse to settle and you’ll win in the end.
Third, the Ministry of Education allocates $5 billion a year to the K-12 system. Handing over such a huge chunk of cash to an arbitrator is giving hostages to fortune.
For arbitrators have no skin in the game. It costs them nothing to throw a few more bucks on the table. They don’t have to face angry voters when a tax increase is required to pay for their largesse.
I’ve heard it said the government has plenty of money. I’m not so sure. Yes, the latest fiscal forecasts show a slight improvement.
But about 80 per cent of the province’s budget goes for salaries and benefits. With revenues still flat after the recession, the only way the government can avoid lurching back into deficit is by holding the line on wages.
Rather than arbitration, I suspect Premier Christy Clark and her colleagues would prefer back-to-work legislation, if that’s what it comes to.
True, Clark has repeatedly said she will not legislate an end to the strike. But the shutdown cannot continue indefinitely. If we reach the end of September and there is still no agreement in sight, something will have to give.
By that time, the government might feel it has made its point.
I imagine the BCTF would also rather be ordered back than come to the table and and have to back down. But there is a very delicate balance here.
The longer the union holds out, the more its members suffer. The strike must have cost individual teachers $10,000 or more in lost wages already.
When the dust settles, and the pay increase is no more than was offered in June, some hard questions will be asked.
There is a possible escape hatch here. If the union allowed teachers to vote on settling or maintaining the strike, either way, the leadership would be off the hook. The members have spoken.
But from the start, these negotiations were never about reaching a settlement. They were intended, on both sides, as a form of public theatre.
The government meant to portray the union as stubborn and greedy. The union wanted the drama of being legislated back to work by heavy-handed politicians.
Ironically, they might both get their wish.
Lawrie McFarlane was a deputy minister of education in Saskatchewan.
