Huffington Post Canada

Will an LCBO strike spark a private party?

The looming LCBO strike threat has suddenly gotten all sorts of Ontarians anxious about a potentially dry next few days (or weeks). LCBO workers, who are represented by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), voted 95 per cent in favour of striking, and the deadline is approaching.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario is the arm’s length agency of the provincial government which has the statutory authority under the Liquor Control Act to control the sale, transportation, and delivery of liquor, as well as fixing the prices at which they are to be sold.

Certainly the stakes are high on both sides. In all likelihood, it seems highly doubtful that the strike will go through. Yet a strike is in no one’s best interests. The LCBO management stands to lose lucrative revenue to a shuttering of stores, but workers may also suffer in the long run should a strike vote pass. Both parties should be prepared to afford each other leeway and reach an appropriate conclusion.

Continue reading

Advertisements
Standard
Huffington Post Canada

The Ontario teacher’s union is holding students hostage

Ontario high school students are being disproportionately affected by the conflict between the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) and the provincial government. The OSSTF mandated its members to withdraw from extracurricular activities in early December. Given that the Liberals have imposed contracts under Bill 115 for a period of two years, the OSSTF will likely continue to use the ban on extracurricular activities as a negotiating tool.

What is most worrying about the conflict is the way in which students are being used as pawns by the OSSTF to advance and promote a political message. The OSSTF has released two TV advertisements, one featuring students ready to attend band with musical instruments in hand, and one with a group of basketball players. The ads are short, and a female voice narrates: “there is only one thing standing between public high school students and their extracurricular activities. Fight Bill 115.”

This leads one to conclude that it is the government preventing students from participating in extracurricular activities. No other information is presented and the ad clearly aims to generate favourable public perception for the OSSTF and antagonize the government’s position.

It is conveniently glossed over that the extracurricular ban came from the top brass at OSSTF.

Students’ anger over the loss of extracurricular activities should not be directed towards the government, as the ad suggests. Nor should it be directed against individual teachers, who have very little leeway to deviate from the orders issued by the union. An Ottawa-area teacher did just this and continued to lead extracurricular activities in class. According to her, she was phoned and threatened by a union official with a fine. The OSSTF also posts the information of those who violate its orders in its publicly accessible newsletter, according to its vice president. With the union putting such severe restrictions on its members, it is no surprise that very few teachers attempt to hold activities for students.

The Guelph Mercury editorial board opines that the OSSTF has been successful in winning the hearts and minds of students. They note that teachers have likely not covered this subject in a “full and balanced” way, which should be expected before an informed opinion can be reached on any contentious political topic. This blatant one-sidedness should worry all Ontarians about a precedent being set in how teachers and unions can inject their political views into students. Students should be able to reach an informed decision after being presented with both sides of an issue.

Ontario students deserve the right to quality education, and as Premier McGuinty states, “Ontarians expect, rightly, that uncertainty in education will not continue indefinitely.”

Furthermore, the OSSTF is quite disingenuous with respect to its own internal policies when it instituted the extracurricular ban. According to section 6.6 of its Policies and Procedures, “it is the policy of OSSTF that involvement in extra-curricular activities should be voluntary.” The word voluntary is defined by Merriam-Webster as “proceeding from the will or from one’s own choice or consent,” or being “unconstrained by interference.” OSSTF’s call to end extracurricular activities dictates what members can do in their private lives. This same decree tells teachers that they must show up 15 minutes before classes begin and leave immediately after their final class. How much further will the OSSTF venture into its members’ personal and private lives until these infringements are recognized as rights violations?

Original post here

Standard
The Prince Arthur Herald

The role of student unions should be re-examined

Student unions are such a common part of our university careers that we tend to take them for granted. Student government often exists at all levels of the institution, ranging from the department, to the college or school, all the way to the collective student union. The student union levies fees on students and provides certain services in return. The representatives of the union are often directly elected by students (with usually abysmal voter turnout).

Unfortunately, student unions commonly engage in overtly political activity. Students should actively monitor their unions and speak out when they are engaging in questionable activity.  For example, Ontario’s radical student federation, the Canadian Federation of Students (Ontario) (CFS-O), was actively involved in planning the Quebec-Ontario Student Solidarity Tour. The phone number provided for the event linked directly to a CFS-O executive. The event was endorsed by a number of student unions, including those at Guelph, Queen’s, Windsor, and Ottawa. But it certainly was not by the people! At Guelph, students received no word of this decision until after the fact, and no attempt was made to consult the student body at large. The event involved student protest leaders with questionable politics. Guelph student union executives made a plea for students to join the strike movement, and even to donate money to student leaders fighting a legal challenge in Quebec.

Continue reading

Standard
The Prince Arthur Herald

PSAC, unions and political neutrality

This week, public servants at the Canada Revenue Agency wore “Stephen Harper hates me” buttons to work. They were asked by managers to remove their buttons and afterwards filed grievances through their union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC). It is understandable why public servants are speaking out. The cuts in the federal budget rammed through the House of Commons by Harper reduce the size of the public service. There is considerable mention of “consolidation of services,” “restructur[ing] operations,” “achiev[ing] savings,” and “modernizing services.”[i] According to PSAC, there are 16,873 members as of June 27th who have been issued with “Work Force Adjustment Notices,” a nice way of telling an employee that “his or her services will no longer be required.”[ii]

PSAC grieves under s.5 of the Public Service Relations Act: “Every employee is free to join the employee organization of his or her choice and to participate in its lawful activities.” Legally, this argument likely would not hold up. S. 7, which PSAC has conveniently not mentioned, reserves the right for employers to “assign duties and to classify positions and persons. This section is acknowledged by another public service union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (part of PSAC) as giving management “the exclusive right to determine the organizational structure, assign duties, and classify positions.”[iii]

Continue reading

Standard