The teachers' union does itself no favours when it shoots down a 10-year deal with the provincial government without giving it some serious thought.
James Sanyshyn, the Burnaby Teachers' Association president, told the NOW last week that the deal touted by Christy Clark as a path to "labour peace" is "union busting". Sanyshyn argues that "if you put someone in a 10-year deal" you make the union irrelevant. He has a darn good point. What will those union leaders do if there's a 10-year deal? Grievances can keep them busy for a bit, but the all-consuming business of negotiating collective agreements is a big chunk of a union's time.
When teachers see that their union leaders aren't out rallying the troops all the time, they'll wonder if they really need a union - hence Sanyshyn's comments. Unions depend on the occasional battle to remind union members of why they're paying union dues and why, all criticism aside, they really do need a union.
But here's the thing - a 10-year deal, if it addressed long-term problems, inefficiencies and avoided politicizing the whole education ball of wax, could actually be beneficial to students. And, shouldn't that be the goal?
Perhaps Clark is just full of hot air on this proposal and wants to lock teachers into an unimaginative bare bones agreement. But perhaps, just perhaps, she'll entertain some real changes if the teachers will consider longer-term labour peace. How will we know when union leaders dismiss the idea without even sitting down to discuss it? Good leadership (in unions or other groups) is the ability to at least explore options. The teachers' union doesn't have all the answers - and they shouldn't press the automatic attack button every time the government suggests something. Yes, we know, there are darn good reasons to be cynical and suspicious - but that doesn't mean you can't sit down and talk.
