[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

The negotiators need a strong mandate from teachers to be able to do anything.

They showed up to the table last year to be told by TEBA that TEBA does not have any permission from the government to negotiate class size, student:teacher ratio, or salary beyond a certain point. They went back and forth for some time before getting a mediator who recommended terms of settlement. 3% over 4 years & a committee that meets twice a year to hear teachers concerns about class size & complexity. Teachers soundly rejected that offer. The message was, include class size & complexity or student:teacher ratio language or pay us more to tolerate what we have to tolerate.

So back to the table. As I understand it, TEBA asked the ATA what might get teachers to move more towards a yes? ATA suggested that more teachers are needed to address class size and student:teacher ratio issues. Did they put a number out there? Who knows. But the government came back with the same offer: 3% over 4 years and 3000 FTE teachers (1000 a year for 3 years) hired across the province to address class size issues. Now at this point the ATA brought this back to teachers.

Frankly 3000 teachers is maybe 1/3 of what we need. This was not going to make an impact for 90%+ of teachers. There was no movement on salary, and I think what really pissed people off is that there was a free Covid shot included with this offer. To be clear this is the first time the government actually offered teachers anything - the deal that was voted down in the spring was a mediator's recommendation. Teachers soundly rejected it (89.5% NO, 94% turnout). The message, this is an insult, include class size & complexity or student:teacher ratio language or pay us more to tolerate it.

Last week, the government offered the ATA "enhanced mediation" with the caveat that under no circumstances was the mediator to consider class size or student:teacher ratio. The ATA, under clear mandate from their members, said that was unacceptable to members and they would not be participating in mediation that did not include those terms.

The government, knowing they are not in a "winning" position to go to binding arbitration (because every other jurisdiction has this language) could have dictated the terms of arbitration and sent us there. But they wanted to leave nothing to chance. The risk of an arbitrator awarding teachers 5% or 6% was too great, so instead they chose to impose a contract, leave nothing to chance, and use the NWC to block any sort of court challenge. They imposed extremely stiff penalties to essentially make it impossible for the ATA to defy the legislation. The fines on the association amount to 6x what they normally would under Labour Relations Code, the fines on individuals end up being double what the Labour Relations Code says.

They never had any intention to come to a fair deal. When the ATA didn't accept their "enhanced mediation" offer last week, they decided to just put the hammer down and end it - and impose their terms.

Do you think the ATA was surprised with the outcome? If not, could they have negotiated differently? And was the strike effective for teachers if it got them nothing incremental?