Teachers and the notion of "essential" services

dragon wench · #1 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 01:52 PM

Seeing as the teachers in BC have been off the job since October 7, I thought I would pose the question here.

First some information can be found at:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=teachers

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vanc...2-d4de18c3c170

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vanc...2-38751591c2ec

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ers051017.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/st...acktowork.html

In a nutshell, some time ago our provincial government in its oh so infinite wisdom declared teachers to be an "essential service." This, in addition to recent court rulings makes their strike illegal.
A major issue is classroom size; when teacher contracts came up for renewal the government ensured that discussion of classroom size could not be present at the bargaining table...
On October 7 they walked off the job "illegally"

So, do you think teachers should be legislated as an "essential service?"

My personal view is that they should not be. To my mind essential services are only those that fall into the 911 category (i.e police, fire, hospital).

slade · #2 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 01:59 PM

I think your right...teachers are not in the 911 catagory and therefore should be allowed to strike....my teachers did...we even did a walk out back in high school....

Ravager · #3 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 02:02 PM

I would agree that they shouldn't. In the UK, I remember even 'essential services' strike, such as the Fire Service. Their replacements being the British Army and 50 year-old green trucks called Green Goddesses.

Anyway, saying a strike like that is illegal and arresting a few people, isn't going to deter the most determined protesters. Those arrested may even become martyrs for their particular cause.

dragon wench · #4 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 02:20 PM

Incidentally,
I do not in any way intend to devalue the role that teachers play by saying they should not be viewed as an essential service.
I'm just saying that governments should not declare them as such for the purpose of controlling labour disputes. All of this, IMO, is nothing more than an attempt to break the Teacher's Union.

And our premier's sanctimonious preaching about breaking the law is sheer hypocrisy considering that he was busted for drunk driving in Hawaii a few years ago...

Phreddie · #5 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 03:11 PM

I agree, teachers while most are gov't employees, and they are all essential, they should not be classified as a government run "agencyish" macjigger.. however being a highschool student, it is my honor-bound duty to diseregard diisrespect and disagree with all that my teachers say... except or my old world history teacher and my phyiscs teacher and my ol spanish teach, ellos fueron los mejores (sorry to all spanish speakers if i ever butcher your language, it jsut sounded to cheesy for engilish.)

Fiona · #6 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 03:14 PM

On this reasoning I rather think all employees are "essential" (except accountants)

Phreddie · #7 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 03:21 PM

acountants are essential, im not going to count anytihng if i can get people to do it for me... and were you refering to gov't employees or all?

Of gov't i dont think the IRS is necessary i think taxes should be run strictly on an honor system.. or atleast i say that should happen in 3 yrs when im 18. I refuse to pay to fund for certain wars that should no have happened.

slade · #8 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiona

On this reasoning I rather think all employees are "essential" (except accountants)

No one is saying their not "essential" just not to the point were they are considered neccessary enough not to be allowed to strike(Police, Doctor, Firefighters...etc are a neccesity((sp)) ).

Fiona · #9 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 03:38 PM

Conservatives have an interest in expanding that list. Essential is an ambiguous term, which in this context has a legal definition. Beware of government playing on such ambiguity.

Phreddie · #10 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 03:44 PM

I guess it does sort of depend on whos in power at the moment to see who gets classified as really essentail, but then again if you look really cclosely republicans and dems arent THAT different, neither takes extreme stances on most issues, not to say they odnt take thme on some i.e. abortion gay rights, but they mostly hover in the middle ground to gain the most support possible come election time.

slade · #11 (**permalink**) 10-20-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiona

Conservatives have an interest in expanding that list. Essential is an ambiguous term, which in this context has a legal definition. Beware of government playing on such ambiguity.

*looks behind my shoulder*...will do... thanks

Chanak · #12 (**permalink**) 10-21-2005, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiona

On this reasoning I rather think all employees are "essential" (except accountants)

And lawyers. Don't forget about them. Lawyers and accountants usually come in pairs.

@DW: That is obviously a move designed to control and break private labor. I agree that "essential services" can be defined as functions which serve to protect the health and safety of the public. The teaching profession does not fall into such a category. It is somewhat depressing to see teachers in Canada in a boat similar to the one teachers in the US are forced to float on.

A great deal of teachers in the US public system are underpaid and overworked. A common cry of local and federal governmental statements in the press: "we have a shortage of qualified teachers! That's why we are forced to seek out less qualified individuals to teach in our public schools!" It's not too difficult to determine the cause of that phenomenon, IMO. They are simply not willing to compensate teachers adequately, hence an exodus of professionals from the public system over the years.

Labor has had its teeth removed here in the US, for the most part. Unions are a ghost of what they once were, and the effects are plain to see throughout the workforce. Longer working hours, less pay, fewer benefits, and a rapidly eroding set of professional standards which sets the pace for a downward spiral with no end in sight.

Fiona · #13 (**permalink**) 10-21-2005, 10:15 AM

Hear Hear

Red_X · #14 (**permalink**) 10-21-2005, 10:34 AM

Wow Chanak, I dont think anyone could of said it better. I agree 100%, I would say more but I think you took the words out of everyones mouth.

CM · #15 (**permalink**) 10-21-2005, 11:05 AM

Teachers? Nope. Doctors and Nurses yes. Teachers should be paid more and generally be given better perks and benefits than they already recieve. Welcome to capitalism