Will Alberta teachers like the schoolmarm at left be happy with the Alberta Teachers Association for the tentative agreement it’s just signed with the government? Alberta schoolteachers may not appear exactly as illustrated – the FOIP laws would forbid it! Below: Education Minister Jeff Johnson; ATA logo.
What happens if Alberta’s teachers reject the deal their union’s just negotiated with the province?
Nobody knows the answer to that one, but it might be worth thinking about. Because it could happen!
As a teacher who reads this blog, commenting on a post from last month, observed yesterday of the tentative agreement between the Alberta Teachers Association and the government, “our provincial executive has gone behind our back again, negotiating in secret with the province and pretending that all our negotiating efforts should be with the school boards.”
“And the amazing deal they recommend we accept?” asks “Paddy O’Gogue” in his or her St. Patrick’s Day message. A three-year pay freeze (counting the year since negotiations started), followed by a 2-per-cent increase in 2015 plus a 1-per-cent one-time, off-the-grid, lump-sum payment.
In return, “Paddy” said, “we’ll get a survey on workload (again) which will report that teachers’ workload could be significantly reduced by not surveying teachers on workload every 48 seconds.” Alberta teachers, he or she concluded, “are apoplectic alright” – but not necessarily just with the government.
Well, “Paddy” is just one person – but you can count on it that there are a lot more teachers out there who feel much the same way.
Edmonton Journal political columnist Graham Thomson also got it right when he said the biggest winner in the deal revealed last Thursday evening is Premier Alison Redford.
“The deal buys her four years of labour peace with teachers who have been among her most ardent supporters both in her 2011 leadership bid and the 2012 provincial election,” Mr. Thomson wrote. “Significantly, the deal lasts until September 2016, long after the next provincial election (legislatively scheduled for the spring of that year).”
The deal also saves Education Minister Jeff Johnson, who up until now seemed to be mishandling the negotiations, from being seen with a generous helping of egg on his face.
The ATA is also in the odd – some would say conflicted – position of being not just a teachers’ union, but a teachers’ professional association. The union, as is right and proper, looks after the interests of teachers. The professional association, as is also quite proper, looks after the interests of the public.
But can one organization do both jobs? Well, the ATA – which likes things the way they are – would say yes, of course. Others might respectfully disagree – and point out that there’s an obvious reason medical doctors, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, lawyers and other professionals separate these functions.
As Mr. Thomson notes, the deal signed between the ATA and the government also ensures that that uncomfortable arrangement will continue for the next four years. “The ATA jealously guards its unique position as both a union that negotiates contracts and an association that regulates the teaching profession,” he wrote. “The ATA can rest easy from its perennial fear — at least for the next four years — that the government is out to bust the union, er, association.”
There are some who might argue that the ATA was not looking out for the needs of its members when it looked out for the preservation of its empire.
In negotiations with the government, at the very least the ATA gave up a percentage of pay increase in return for the comfort letter that allows it to keep its dual role – and that may ensure it can’t really fulfill either job properly.
A division of regulatory and negotiating powers is why Albertans can have confidence in the medical profession. They can count on the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta to make sure doctors are doing their jobs properly. Alberta doctors can trust the Alberta Medical Association to do its best to look after their economic interests.
But the joint role of the ATA suits the government. The public may see a reduction in the effectiveness of regulation of the teaching profession, but the effectiveness of the ATA as a union is also hobbled, which does no harm to the government at bargaining time.
Separating the roles would be in the interest of voters – who could be confident the body that regulated teachers was working in the public’s interest, including the young members of the public who attend public and Catholic schools in Alberta.
Separating the roles would also be in the interest of teachers – who would be able to negotiate better collective agreements with higher pay, as they deserve as some of the most important professionals in our society.
But the status quo serves both the government and the ATA very nicely, thank you very much.
In his column, Mr. Thomson suggests the deal with the ATA will also help Ms. Redford’s Progressive Conservative government keep a lid on its negotiations with other unionized professionals in health care and government services.
Anything’s possible, I suppose, but this seems unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, the government and its employer surrogates have nothing like the comfort letter to offer other unions. Second, of course, real unions look out for their members.
The government also needs to worry about what voters will make of their big success with the ATA if rank-and-file teachers say “Hell No!” and send their negotiators back to the bargaining table.
There is a teacher in my household, and that teacher is going to vote “no” to this agreement. FWIW.
As a teacher, working in brutal conditions, I respectfully disagree with you. We have been served well by our Association for many years, and when it comes down to doctors being told they will get a big cut in pay, and soon the nurses, I believe our Association has our best interests at front of mind. But to the heart of the matter in these negotiations, who holds the wealth? It is no longer the school boards as they have lost all power in the province. Our government appears chaotic and very aggressive with the public sector. Maybe you should consider that if we were to expend all of our energy fighting at this moment when there is no money coming out of government it is a no win situation. Don’t get me wrong, I am very upset with this government, but I am also very realistic and want to have issues of workload looked at closely and dealt with. That is the true test for me, will my school board and government make real commitments to or will they let us wither on the vine. It is not as simple as point the finger back at the ATA, I know my local president and the teachers in my school are connected. This is about our voices coming to the ratification vote, with all of the dissent and challenges, to a conclusion that we will be able to own for the next four years.
David,
Sometimes even a fire breathing union with no professional obligations has to settle for a result that reflects the political and fiscal realities of the government it is bargaining with rather than what it would like to achieve under other circumstances. The ATA has extracted an offer from government that in our judgement is better for our members than any of the likely alternatives to a negotiated agreement . It’s not about protecting the institutional interests of the organization. I suspect that UNA had to do the same thing in 2010 (see below).
% increases
Year ATA UNA
2009 5.99 5.00
2010 2.92 0.00
2011 4.54 2.00
2012* 0.00 4.00
* assuming Premier’s offer is accepted.
I assume this is the same Dennis Theobald that is responsible for PR for the ATA. I think it should be incumbent on persons who express partisan ideas to reveal their connections if they are spokespersons for an organization under scrutiny.
As a career long ATA ‘activist’ and Local Executive member for the Edmonton Catholic Teachers’ Local, I am intimately aware of the machinations of the Staff Officers of the Association and the heavy hand of the non-elected staff of the Association. Although the members of Provincial Executive Council (who are the elected representatives of teachers) have the last word on policy and the direction of the Association, Executive Staff (who are hired to actually run the Association) provide the framework and ‘guidance’ that determine how the Association will go forward.
These Executive Staff and their departments, as I have said, determine policy in the way they advise their elected ‘masters’. It is they who will have advised the President and Executive council, largely through the intervention of the ATA’s Teacher Welfare division. This is the same division that dictated higher salaries for administrators (from whose ranks they almost exclusively come) although there was no pressure from the membership for this to happen. I was forced, as negotiator for my local, to forgo items in the collective agreement that would have benefited the majority and instead was strong-armed into concluding an unpalatable deal that began to widen the financial gulf between teachers and administrators. It happened to all Chairs of Local Negotiating Subcommittees, whether in the larger jurisdictions such as ours or the far-flung smaller locals in the province.
I long ago learned that the Executive Staff of the Association doesn’t work for teachers (who many of them, in private, look down upon) but according to a philosophy of taking care of the Association, Barnett House, and their own view of what is best for education in this province.
Give me a break! This isn’t about the ATA at all, it is about a government that is single minded in its purpose to cut spending and avoid revenue reform. This is a government that wants to hold the line on spending for all public servants and is going to do it whether the government looses all of its support or not. If they don’t get you to agree, then they will legislate a settlement. So do you hold the line or as Janet said expend all of your energy in a fight that you won’t win for at least three years anyway.
Just watch what will happen to the doctors in Alberta on March 23rd and then the Nurses in April. I can see it in this Premier and governments resolve, come hell or high water, they will hold the line on public service salaries. At least the ATA got some form of concessions in this agreement, I bet you will not find that with the nurses, doctors or post-secondary institutions in the next few months.
Yes, Paddy has one opinion. I have another.
I expect that teachers will be split down the middle on this one. On one side are those who find the tentative deal bitter medicine, but accept that sometimes you accept the vile liquid to keep the body in good health, grit their teeth, and swallow. On the other side are those who taste the medicine, spit it out, and suffer the consequences.
That’s why even though the Teacher’s Association recommends this deal, it is up to each teacher to exercise their democratic right and vote accordingly.
I think the threat of splitting the ATA is something of an empty one. Yes, the government may have made it. And they may even have been sincere. But would they do it?
Splitting the professional college from the union is a tricky business. When the nurses were split, the result was a radicalized union and the government no longer had anything to hold over its head. Ask Ralph how he enjoyed dealing with the nurses at the table!
Maybe, in a fit of spit, the government would have split the ATA. But, in the medium term, so what? The organizations would eventually right themselves and get back to its (then separate) businesses. I’m not sure preventing this possibility should play much of a role in teachers deciding whether to take this deal or not.
In Ontario we have a separation between the union and the regulatory body (OSSTF and the Ontario College of Teachers).
The College has created a massive bureaucracy that has done little to either improve the status of the profession or engage the public confidence in self-regulation of teachers. The union has had little success in denying the bad fiscal management of the provincial government (the cost of three scandals in this province exceeds the savings achieved by imposing contracts on us).
The College and the Union are opposition forces, with the College prosecuting teachers (deservedly in some cases) and the union defending teachers. The separation of roles has had no perceivable impact on the ability of the union to secure consistent gains for its members, but it has clarified the role of the union.
As a member of the ATA I will vote “no” as well, although the school boards will likely put this agreement 6 feet under prior to my voting. There are no means for the boards to fund this agreement, and teacher’s workload will increase as a result of layoffs.
The provinical government needs to decide if they wish to make education fully a provincial area of responsibility. In which case, dissolve the local boards (not necessarily my choice BTW).
In regards to the ATA, they need to decide if they are a union or a professional college. It is sheer insanity, and I would say unethical, to be both!
It is very clear that the government was intent on establishing long term stability and cost containment. I find it ironic, and interesting, that they froze their salary for one year in these very tough economic times to help establish this long term stability. Meanwhile, teachers of Alberta are being asked to freeze for 3 years. The average inflationary percentages run between 1.5% and 2% per year and we are therefore giving up anywhere from 4.5% – 6% of our buying power as citizens of this province. I doubt that my taxes, price of utilities, food costs, retirement contributions, etc will also freeze. I am the sole income for my family of four (two very small children) and doubt very much that the ATA will come to my rescue a few years down the road when things are tight. Maybe I can speak to the Association when my planning and other classroom commitments are suffering because I need to get a part-time job in the evenings or on weekends to help financially support my family. Life with two pre-school children isn’t going to get cheaper for me anytime soon. I think a 2 years deal would have sufficed as the economy will likely have turned around in that time period and there would still be stability to help ease the system and rescue the province; after all, it is the teachers, doctors, nurses and other union services that created this economic downturn and situation… correct??? So if it is our fault we should be the one to blame and rescue Albertan’s correct. I mean we are well paid professionals… yet I doubt we earn 44% than our colleagues in the other canadian provinces. Yet Alberta MLA’s have that privilege and work how many days? They sit for just over 55 days?!?!?!
I am glad that the focus of the Association was to obtain real meaningful workload improvements for teachers while securing their employment stability. However, if I (and many other teachers) was informed that the survey I took was to be used for our collective negotiations and not so much as part of our stance during last year’s provincial election I think people would have replied differently. There is nothing wrong with a cost of living increase… not a huge salary increase just something fair. I have thought long and hard how this recent workload adjustment will actually take place. The provincial government has reduced the amount of money going to school boards, yet they are also stating they will address class size. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out this isn’t fiscally feasible. The amount of money allocated to school boards did not increase and so therefore they will have to layoff teachers. This means more rather than fewer students in the classrooms. Next, if we look at hours of instruction in classrooms (more so rural than urban) it means that school boards will need to hire more teachers to offset this issue. However with education funding not increasing this too is impossible. I again site the Learning Commission and how it never came to fruition. I would also like to site the last major instance when the Government of Alberta fell upon tough economic times; I think we can all remember how the pension issue became a major hurdle in the unfunded liability. It took years, many surplus budgets and a provincial election to urge Mr. Stelmach to look in favour of the teachers. Quote me on this… : the ATA will live to regret this collective agreement and it will be something the teachers of Alberta will have to claw back for years to come as well.”
It has come to the attention of many that this agreement was struck behind closed doors between our Association President and Premier Redford (just before the budget was announced). As I understand it the Minister Learning and his bullying tactics of wage roll-backs and misguided threats to Alberta’s electorate about some supposed upcoming labour disruption were not allowed to wreak havoc and cause a breakdown. Yet according to a response from the ATA above that states “loopholes that existed in the February 20 offer have been mostly closed.” What does mostly closed mean exactly?
I doubt that the collective bargaining system between the ATA and School Boards is broken. I think the Minister of Learning couldn’t be further from the truth. The issue is that the government holds the purse strings and allocates what boards can offer teachers. In essence the government is creating the problem and break-down between the teachers and school boards of Alberta. The fact that the Minister of Learning was inferring in negotiations between School Boards and the ATA is deplorable and he, in essence, broke the system.