|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America : Canada
Pivotal struggle over the future of public education in Canada
Ontario teachers threaten to resume strike
By Keith Jones
15 August 1998
Tens of thousands of teachers in Ontario, Canada's most populous
province, are threatening to strike in coming weeks, as part of
their continuing struggle against the provincial Tory government's
assault on their conditions of employment and on public education
as a whole.
On Monday, August 17, the 360 high school teachers employed
by the Near North District School, which covers the North Bay-Nipissing
region, are set to strike.
An Ontario government conciliator reported this week that negotiations
between the Toronto District School Board and the Ontario Secondary
School Teacher's Federation (OSSTF) have reached an impasse, meaning
7,500 Toronto-area high school teachers will be in a legal strike
position in little more than two weeks. The Toronto OSSTF local,
like most others across the provinces, voted massively in support
of job action in a strike vote in June.
Under Bill 160, legislation passed in late 1997, the Tories
have centralized control of education funding and policy in the
hands of the provincial education ministry, the better to impose
massive budget cuts and changes in the school curriculum tailored
to meet the demands of business.
Teacher contract negotiations, on the other hand, remain decentralized,
with the teacher unions negotiating with local school boards.
Not only does such a collective bargaining regime serve to divide
the teachers. It means that the provincial government--which under
Bill 160 has become the sole arbiter of what school boards can
spend and has further restricted the boards' already limited powers
over curriculum, class-size, and teacher workload--is not even
a party to the contract negotiations.
Claiming that the provincial government's funding policy and
its decree limiting teacher preparation time leave them no choice,
the school boards are demanding cuts in benefits, and in some
cases wages. They are also bent on forcing high school teachers
to work seven out of the eight periods in the school-day, instead
of the current six. Says Liz Sandals, of the Ontario Public School
Boards Association, "I'm not sure I would characterize it
as the boards doing the government's dirty work. But there's no
doubt the boards are caught in the middle between the teachers
and the government."
Bill 160 more than halved the number of local school boards,
so as to facilitate the consolidation of services, school closures
and cuts in the number of school support staff. If, in the interests
of avoiding an administrative nightmare, the Tories decreed that
all existing teacher union-school board contracts will expire
this August 31, it was because they calculated that the union
bureaucracy will ensnare teachers in a collective bargaining system
designed to frustrate any struggle.
The lessons of last fall's strike
Last November, the Ontario teachers mounted a powerful two-week
strike aimed at forcing the Tories to withdraw Bill 160. The Tories
thought they would be able to witchhunt the teachers by claiming
that they had taken two million school children "hostage"
and by denouncing the teachers for striking in violation of Ontario's
restrictive labor laws. But the plan backfired. Teacher picket
lines and demonstrations were swelled by parents and teachers
outraged by the Tories gutting of public education. Moreover,
the strike quickly came to be perceived as a vital test of strength
between the Harris Tory government and all those who have opposed
its agenda of stigmatizing and victimizing the poor, slashing
social spending and attacking the trade unions.
Unquestionably, were teachers to return to the picket lines
this fall, their action could again serve to galvanize working
people in Ontario and across Canada. But it will do so, only if
teachers and the entire working class draw the lessons of the
betrayal of last fall's strike and strive to make the teachers'
struggle the catalyst for the independent political mobilization
of the working class--for an industrial and political struggle
aimed at driving out the Tories and developing a movement for
a workers' government.
A review of the conduct of the Ontario Teachers Federation
and the Ontario Federation of Labour both during and since the
strike provides irrefutable evidence that the union bureaucracy
is opposed to and incapable of waging such a struggle.
Last fall's strike ended in defeat, not because the teachers
were cowed by a powerful government, but because the teacher unions,
the Ontario Federation of Labour, and the trade union-based New
Democratic Party scuttled it. They feared that the teachers' strike
was becoming the spearhead of a mass popular movement against
the Tory government.
The leaders of the five teachers unions that comprise the OTF
called the strike--which they termed a "political protest"--fully
expecting that the government would obtain a court injunction
ruling it illegal. This would have then provided them with a pretext
for terminating the strike and cutting a deal with the government.
But the Tories' application for an injunction was rejected. The
Ontario Court judge hearing the case concluded that popular support
for the strike was so great state intervention against it might
dangerously erode support for the existing political order. In
effect, the judge ordered the teachers' unions to assume responsibility
for ending the strike.
The OTF and OFL leaders quickly complied. In the immediate
aftermath of the rejection of the government's request for an
injunction they offered the Tories sweeping concessions. When
the government refused their offer, they declared nothing further
could be done and ordered the teachers back to work.
Unions complicit in slashing teacher workforce
On terminating the strike, the leaders of the Ontario Teachers
Federation vowed they would continue the struggle by joining with
the OFL in its anti-Tory protest campaign, by mobilizing political
opposition to the Tories, by mounting a court challenge to the
constitutionality of Bill 160 and by fighting to uphold public
education
What has been accomplished on these four fronts?
Within days of the end of the teachers' strike, the OFL elected
as its president a United Steelworkers official who had been boycotting
the OFL's Days of Action--one-day, anti-Tory regional demonstrations
and walkouts--because he considered them too radical. Predictably,
the OFL has now terminated its anti-Tory protest campaign altogether.
The teachers unions have allied ever more closely with the
Tories' parliamentary opponents, the Liberals and the NDP. Yet
these big business parties have been complicit in the assault
on public education, health care and social programs. The federal
Liberal government has cut $6 billion per year from the transfers
it makes to the provinces for welfare, post-secondary education
and health care. It was the previous Ontario government, formed
by the NDP, that launched the program of massive cuts to education
and attacks on teachers' wages and working conditions. Neither
the NDP nor the Liberals is proposing to restore the cuts made
by the Tories. Former Premier Bob Rae, who according to press
reports counsels his successor as NDP leader at least once a week,
recently wrote that it would be folly for the NDP to commit itself
to a program "based on undoing many of the Harris changes."
As for the unions' recourse to the courts, it has resulted
in a court judgment that further undermines public education.
Last month, an Ontario Court judge upheld all sections of Bill
160, except those that abolish the right of Separate--i.e. Roman
Catholic--School Boards to levy taxes. This ruling bolsters the
constitutional position of Ontario's Church-dominated parallel
system of publicly-funded schools--a bastion of social conservatism--and
is completely in line with Tory policy. The right has long-promoted
the Separate Schools as a counterweight to the generally more
liberal public system. An important result of the Tories' changes
in education funding has been to reduce provincial grants to the
public boards, while increasing them to the Separate Schools.
In any case, the system of education funding lauded by the
unions--a combination of provincial grants and local property
taxes--is no more progressive or equitable than that imposed by
the government. Tying education funding to local property taxes
means, as the Tories have been quick to point out, that wealthier
communities can spend more on education then poorer ones.
While denouncing the Tories for imperiling public education,
the OTF has in fact has accommodated itself to the Tory agenda.
When the government threatened to make unilateral changes to the
teachers' pension fund, the OTF agreed to the fund being used
to finance an early retirement scheme. This scheme has a double
purpose: it enables the government to further reduce costs by
cutting the number of high-seniority teachers and it, to a certain
extent, insulates the Tories and the union leadership bureaucracy
from rank-and-file discontent by enabling the government to slash
the teacher work force through attrition, rather than through
the layoff of younger teachers.
Last spring thousand of teachers across Ontario received layoff
notices. Now few are expected to be without work, although many
will be working under short-term contracts, and teaching subjects
for which they have no training. School administrators admit that
the quality of teaching will decline still further. Teachers,
meanwhile, speak openly of chaos in the classroom.
That some 8,000 older teachers have taken chosen to retire
early is a measure of both their disgust at the state of public
education after more than a decade of budget cuts and their lack
of confidence in the program of the union leadership.
At issue in the struggle to defend public education are two
opposed social principles: should education spending and the curriculum
be determined by human need or subordinated to the capitalist
market and the profits requirements of big business. There is
no question that the means exist to provide a quality education
for all. But if society's resources are to be mobilized to end
poverty and systematically raise the cultural and material level
of the people, then economic life must be radically reorganized
so as to bring the banks and corporate giants under the democratic
control of the working class.
Such a transformation can be brought about only through a political
struggle--the fight for a workers' government. Even were the unions
not controlled by a privileged caste of bureaucrats, these organizations
by virtue of their aims and composition are completely inadequate
for leading such a struggle. What is required is the building
of a new mass socialist party of the working class.
See Also:
Ontario unions bury protest
campaign against Harris government
[31 July 1998]
The betrayal of the
Ontario teachers' strike:
The lessons for all workers
[17 November 1997]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |