April 18, 2012 - No. 32
Organize and Resist
All Out for the April 21 Day of Action
Against Cuts!
Saturday, April 21 -- 3:00-5:00 pm
Queen's Park,
Toronto
For further information visit the OFL
website
See also the page for the Day of Action on Facebook
|
|
Organize
and
Resist
• All Out for the April 21 Day of Action
Against Cuts!
Discussion on the
Ontario Budget
• Jobs Must Be Recognized as a Right,
Not a "Policy Issue"
• Oppose "Job Creation" as a Scheme to Pay
the Rich - Dan Cerri
• Defend the Public Interest in the Electric
Power Sector - Jim Nugent
Letter to the Editor
from Northern Ontario
• Private Interests Make Off with Tens of
Millions at St. Marys Paper
Privatization and
Wrecking of Public Infrastructure
• No to Privatization, Poverty Wages and
Municipal Despots! - David Greig
• Northerners Speak Out to Save Ontario
Northland
Attacks on Public
Education
• Toronto School Board $100 Million Short
- Silvia Etts
• Figleaf Promise to Retrain Education
Assistants - Christine Nugent
• Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario
Responds to Government Misinformation
Announcement
• Special Issue of Workers' Forum
Organize and Resist
All Out for the April 21 Day of Action Against Cuts!
On April 2, in response to the Progressive
Conservatives' demands
for a mandatory two-year public sector wage freeze, Premier McGuinty
said, "[O]ur commitment to Ontarians is that we will enter into
collective bargaining with our public sector partners. We've also made
it clear that, should we not achieve
the result that we need to achieve in order to abide by our fiscal
plan, we'll then consider any and all measures necessary to ensure that
that happens. But at the outset, I want to make it perfectly clear: Our
intention is to respect the collective bargaining process in Ontario."
In other words, the right to collective bargaining will
be respected
in name only, not if it is actually exercised. Workers should discuss
the significance of the position taken by the Ontario Premier. It shows
that the mechanisms established in law so that the workers can defend
their interests are being destroyed.
Start by mobilizing for the April 21 Ontario Day of Action Against
Cuts! What is happening to Ontario is unacceptable. Workers do not
support a budget that lowers even further the living standards of the
most vulnerable. They cannot accept a budget that has as its
cornerstone that public sector workers must submit
"voluntarily" to a wage freeze and other concessions or have it imposed
legislatively! It is an affront to the dignity of the working class and
people.
For all the talk about democracy, the government has no
mandate for
this budget. Even the minority of electors who voted Liberal did not
vote for austerity or cuts. But the fate of this budget is not in our
hands. The working class and people have no say and they have to solve
the problem of how to end the
dictate of the financial oligarchy over the society. To make themselves
rich, the oligarchs have declared that Ontario must eliminate the
deficit immediately, by 2017! The choice for the people is: austerity
with enthusiasm or austerity with reluctance. The latter includes the
imposition of austerity with "balance."
The establishment has set the agenda and declares that
this is the
choice. The workers' movement is again under tremendous pressure not to
develop its own independent politics. Workers are told that if they
bring down the Liberal government, the danger is that a Hudak/Harper
regime is waiting in the wings.
Why not work for an alternative that favours the working class and
people?
Society is at a turning point. The necessity is to build
an
effective Workers' Opposition that can become the government. That is
the problem the advanced forces in the workers' movement must take up
for solution. The working class has to organize itself as an
independent political force with its own demands
and pro-social agenda for society.
The key is building Groups of Writers and Disseminators
(GWDs)
amongst one's peers in the workplaces, first and foremost, or in one's
economic sector to discuss what is happening to society and to set
their own agendas and work to achieve these agendas. This includes
popularizing the work and views of
the GWDs. This is key because in setting their own agendas, workers
activate the human factor/social consciousness and vest decision-making
power in themselves. Only in this way can they exercise control over
the implementation of what they themselves have decided. It is the
crucial step forward from merely reacting
to what governments are doing in our name.
All Out for the April 21 Day of Action
Against Cuts!
Discussion on the Ontario Budget
Jobs Must Be Recognized as a Right,
Not a "Policy Issue"
Premier McGuinty and his government argue that
they are
committed to job creation and that their budget for 2012-13 reflects
this commitment. On
April 2 in the legislature, McGuinty said: "A big dimension of our
budget has to do with jobs: creating more jobs and building a stronger
foundation for
growth and prosperity." The unemployed and those who cannot find
permanent and decent employment want to know what this means when it is
not
consistent with their realities. They are demanding that words be
backed by deeds.
The McGuinty government claims that the budget will
create or protect 170,000 jobs. Ontarians want to know exactly what
these jobs will be. Will
they be full-time jobs? Will they be permanent? Will they provide
benefits so that people can live healthier lives and not feel that a
sudden
medical emergency
will jeopardize their finances? Will they be protected when they are
older with a defined pension based on the work they carried out for the
economy and
society today? Workers do not want a "job creation" plan that
simultaneously eliminates jobs in some sectors of the economy. They do
not want a
"balanced approach" based on "difficult choices" as described by
McGuinty which are euphemisms for attacking workers' wages and the
services that
Ontarians rely on in the name of "job creation."
Jobs and a livelihood must be recognized as a right, not
a
policy objective. People need work to sustain themselves and their
communities. The
ability to work, not withstanding those who cannot due to physical or
other
disabilities, is an inherent quality of being human and it therefore
must be
recognized as a modern right. Paying the monopolies is not a solution.
There
isn't a monopoly operation in Ontario that doesn't already receive
public money
in the name of supporting investment to create jobs. It does not
advance the
recognition of the right of all to jobs and a livelihood. It serves
only to
advance the trend of politicizing the same private interests which see
workers
as a cost of production and shutdowns, layoffs and lockouts etc. as
short-term
ways of increasing their profit margins.
Private interests already benefit from their ownership
of the socialized economy and now governments and political parties
want to give them more
wealth produced by workers in the form of tax incentives. It must not
pass! Workers are discussing what job creation should
look like.
They should be involved in deciding the necessary work for their
industries. They know best these requirements to develop a planned
economy that does
not disrupt people's individual lives or the economy as a whole. A
Worker's Opposition in the Legislature is also needed that would
require companies to
keep production at a sufficient level to ensure stable employment and
for the
economy to pay for social programs and other necessities. If they do
not hold up these
responsibilities, companies should be converted into public enterprises
that must guarantee work as a right.
Oppose "Job Creation" as a Scheme to Pay the Rich
- Dan Cerri -
All of the political parties in the Legislature,
including the governing Liberals, use job creation as a ploy to give
more wealth to the monopolies. This
must be opposed by Ontarians who have a different view of job creation
as a necessity in their lives.
Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives argue for lower
taxes for businesses which will, according to them, provide incentives
for businesses to hire
more workers. In response, McGuinty defends his government's tax
incentives for businesses: "I remind my honourable colleague
of our record
when it comes to reducing corporate taxes, making our business tax
environment all the more competitive for Ontario businesses... [W]e
remain, in all of
North America after California, the most attractive destination for
foreign direct investment." This is the same approach that witnessed
payouts to
monopolies like Caterpillar in London and Navistar in Chatham, both of
which closed their operations leaving thousands unemployed and
communities in
shambles.
The NDP have their own
proposal to pay the rich which
they present as tax credits for companies that create jobs. They want
government to pay 10 per
cent of the salary for new hires in their first year to a maximum of
$5,000.
Let's be clear where the
money for this policy would
come
from. There is no way to meet expenditures other than claiming realized
social
product from the socialized economy. The money to pay for the tax
credit would
come from taxes paid by workers that last year might have gone to
employ or pay
benefits for workers in the public sector. Through the tax credit, this
money will be redirected into the
hands of monopolies and other private interests in the name of "job
creation."
All of the "job creation policies" have to be analyzed
in the context of the private ownership of the economy by the
monopolies and the politicization
of their private interests by governments and political parties. Each
party proposes their own way of recognizing private right and their
quest to maximize
profit but all have the same negative results for workers and the
economy. Experience shows that giving money to the monopolies thorough
bailouts and
tax breaks does not guarantee jobs. Policies such as tax credits must
also be opposed because they take wealth that is produced by workers in
the socialized
economy and give it to private monopoly interests. The monopolies want
to
lay claim to more wealth through these government subsidies to make up
for
their declining profits. Workers must demand that this be stopped!
Defend the Public Interest in the Electric Power Sector
- Jim Nugent -
In the Ontario 2012 Budget,
the Ontario government
committed itself to launching "a comprehensive review of the
electricity sector and its various agencies." This is
a promise to the financial oligarchy that Ontario will continue down
the path of further privatizing Ontario's electricity sector, to the
detriment of the important public
interests and interests of the working class at stake in this highly
socialized economic sector. For the working class, the electrical power
sector needs to be organized so
this essential service is available to households at affordable rates
and so it contributes to the even development of the economy,
especially manufacturing and other
goods producing sectors.
To sections of the
international bankers and allied
monopolies in fossil fuels, construction/engineering and technology,
Canada's electrical power generation,
transmission and distribution system represents a fantastic revenue
stream of $28 billion a year in rates paid by industrial/commercial
users and households. Ontario's
electric power system is one of the jewels in this prize with a revenue
stream of $9 billion a year, a third of the national total. In Ontario,
as in other parts of Canada,
there is a fierce scramble underway among the rich to capture this
revenue stream and to extract from it as much tribute as possible.
A recent Globe and
Mail article promoting electrical
system privatization in Ontario cites "inside sources" which report the
McGuinty government is working on plans for
opening up the municipal power distribution companies (LDCs) to
privatization and selling off Hydro One which is responsible for over
90 per cent of electricity
transmission. Local electrical utilities and Hydro One were set up with
corporate structures by the Harris government with the aim of
later privatizing them. The
McGuinty government according to the media is now preparing to complete
this process, using the current fiscal deficit crisis as an excuse to
realize the ambitions of
the rich in this sector.
Ontario Hydro, which used to generate and transmit
almost
all electrical energy in the province, and municipal electrical
utilities were cash cows for financiers and
other monopolies even before the Harris government began privatizing
electricity in 1998. Debt financing of the system enabled the financial
oligarchy to extract billions
from the economy as bond premiums over the last hundred years. Billions
more were extracted as profits by electrical sector engineering,
construction and equipment
manufacturing monopolies. Privatization allows the rich to impose
additional tribute on the electrical system in the form of demanding
the going rate of return on
ownership equity.
This can be seen in the way that the Ontario Energy
Board (OEB) calculates the rates imposed on electricity ratepayers of
transmission and distribution companies.
The OEB is a quasi-judicial government body that regulates the amount
electric and natural gas transmission and distribution companies can
charge customers. OEB regulators base
charges allowed on what it calls "recovery of the cost of service." OEB
allows utilities to include in cost of service an amount for what it
calls the "cost of capital." In
cost of capital OEB includes: short-term debt financing; long-term debt
financing and a return on equity, with ratios set for each.
The standing order of the OEB for 2012 on the values to
be used in calculating sets out the following: short-term debt interest
2.08 per cent; long-term debt interest
4.41 percent and Return on Equity 9.12 per cent. The Return on Equity
permitted is 4.71 per cent greater than the interest bondholders get on
long-term bonds. Financiers
can double their take compared to just being bondholders. The
additional tribute financiers can extract from ratepayers by owning the
utility is the motivation for
privatization. They get to skin the ratepayers twice, once as
bondholders and again as owners of equity in the utility.
As matters stand now, even though all transmission and
distribution utilities are set up as corporations, most are still
publicly-owned. The Ontario government is the
sole shareholder of Hydro One. Municipal governments in almost all
cases are the sole shareholders of local distribution utilities.
Because of
this, the return-on-equity portion
of the electricity rates stays within the public sector as does control
of the activities of the utility.
At Toronto Hydro for example, the return on equity
results in the City of Toronto (the shareholder) receiving $25 million
a year in dividends that the city can apply
to public purposes. City councillors also sit on the Board of
Directors. This public benefit and control of electrical utilities is
what the Ontario government is planning to
change.
Opening up the ownership of Hydro One and the LDCs to
privatization will allow the return on equity to be claimed by the
financial oligarchy, removing funds from
use for public benefit and from the economy. As well, it will allow
private investors rather than public officials to control the
activities of the utilities.
In the conditions of the current global economic and
financial crisis, electrical energy sector privatization is
particularly
attractive because profit on the investment is
guaranteed. Privatization is advertised as being about "competition,
open markets and private sector efficiency," but in fact privatization
of the electrical system is based
on guaranteed returns on ownership equity. This guarantee is not a
policy, but a fundamental right guaranteed by the courts including the
Supreme Court.
In 2009 the OEB conducted a review of its pricing
calculation system to bail out electric and natural gas utilities
following the crisis created in 2008 by global
financial swindling. One of Ontario's few private transmission
utilities, Great Lakes Power (owned by Brookfield Asset Management),
was an intervenor. In its
submission it said, "The Court has found that the regulator has an
'absolute' obligation to set rates which allow for cost recovery and a
fair and reasonable return. The
Board can not adjust the return on equity to mitigate an impact on
rates. The return on equity is set independent of rate impact and is
based on factors that have been
discussed thoroughly in this proceeding."
The OEB decided to reset the rate calculation and in its
reasons supported this demand by Brookfield and others that monopoly
right to the going rate of return on equity
trumps public right to affordable services from utilities. "Further,
the Board notes that the Federal Court of Appeal was clear that the
overall Return on Equity must be
determined solely on the basis of a company's cost of equity capital
and that 'the impact of any resulting toll increase is an irrelevant
consideration in that
determination,'" the OEB said.
Neither the courts nor the OEB will uphold public right
over monopoly right in the electricity transmission and distribution
system despite the important public
interests at stake. To them the public interest is an "irrelevant
consideration" compared to the right to profits. As Ontario's
anti-people anti-social government prepares to complete the
sell-off of public ownership of electrical power, the task of
resisting private interests and asserting public interests falls on the
shoulders of the Workers' Opposition.
Letter to
the Editor from Northern Ontario
Private Interests Make Off with Tens of Millions in
Public Money at St. Marys Paper
St. Marys Paper in Sault
Ste. Marie has been forced to
close forever -- on March 26, an Ontario court gave authorization for
the sale of the plant to a numbered company. St. Marys demise puts a
different face on all the talk
about creating or saving
jobs through giving incentives to business. It served as
a poster child for handing tens of millions in public funds to private
interests. And
when the final nail is being driven into St. Marys' coffin the same
politicians whose careers have been built on that pipeline to
government cash, are right
there, pledging more yet.
This is to be the legacy of the governments and
politicians currently in power in the Soo. For the employees, the
community and
the taxpayers, the loss of St. Marys is very costly and unforgivable.
The workers directly
affected may have lost the battle
for their former jobs, but we must now fight for control of our
resources and our economy.
St. Marys was forced into
bankruptcy by International
Forest Products (IFP) which had exclusive distributing rights for the
supercalendared paper the
mill produced. St. Marys owed IFP $3.21 million from a loan agreement
and $4.4 million under a pulp supply contract. The numbered company
that
bought St. Marys' assets reportedly paid IFP something less than the
$7.6 million; however it is not even certain that the mill had received
$4.4 million in
pulp from IFP -- only that it had a supply contract of that value.
The real treachery is that the Ontario government not
IFP was the largest secured creditor. The
owners of St. Marys Paper
had received $25 million in start up and capital development loans from
the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines just a few years ago.
Other local
suppliers -- uninsured creditors -- were owed $9.6 million. The city
had
waived or been forced to rebate St. Marys more than $1 million in tax
revenues in
recent years.
The workers in particular have been fleeced yet again in
this second bankruptcy money grab in less than a decade. The union,
deemed an unsecured
creditor, is owed more than $10 million in severance and vacation pay
for its members. As part of the sale, the employment of the 300 current
mill workers will be officially terminated the day before the closing
date.
Bankruptcy proceedings have effectively flipped St.
Marys assets from one unnamed cabal of owners to another, a numbered
company whose primary
interest was to secure the license for a hydro co-generation plant and
a 10-year power purchase agreement that the Ontario government had
offered to St. Marys in order to "save jobs." There are no jobs at St.
Marys so why is the
co-gen permit even on the table?
If the aim of the millions upon millions the government
of Ontario handed over to private interests like the owners of St.
Marys Paper was to "save"
and "create" jobs then it should have been turned into a public
enterprise so that it guaranteed the interests of the workers, the
community and society.
[Signed]
Privatization and Wrecking of Public
Infrastructure
No to Privatization, Poverty Wages
and Municipal Despots!
- David Greig -
At the April 11 Toronto
City Council meeting the
city-wrecking Ford administration encountered another obstacle to its
agenda. By a vote of 29 to 12, council
subjected contracts with private cleaning companies to a council vote.
Previously, such contracts involving less than $20 million would have
been dealt with by the city
manager responding to Ford's executive. This prevents the regime from
moving rapidly to contract out further cleaning functions, or renew an
existing contract, and
raises the prospect these contracts may be blocked by a council vote.
The
majority the Ford regime seemed to hold in council one year ago has
disintegrated this year on
several issues.
As part of implementing its
infamous program of
contracting out, privatizing, selling or cutting "anything that's not
nailed down", in 2011 the Ford administration
had privatized the jobs of about 100 city cleaners at police stations,
replacing them with a private contractor. Another 900 cleaners and
janitors at other city facilities
were targeted for elimination. Cleaners working for the private
contractors or the subcontractors they often engage usually pay not
much more than minimum wage rates
with few if any benefits, are not often unionized, and are notorious
for other abuses, while those covered by the city union contracts earn
about $20 to $22 per hour with
benefits.
Ford regime figures like the Mayor's brother Doug Ford
and
Deputy
Mayor Doug Holyday and the media organs at their service reacted to
the
vote with predictable outrage. According
to them, when it comes to city functions that are not being cut
outright, the
goal is to provide them to private profiteers that remunerate workers
at a bare minimum. As before, all
is justified in the name of abstract taxpayers, fictions unconcerned
about the effect of low wage rates, lack of jobs, benefits,
public services, or the general
well-being of society.
Faced with resistance and setbacks, these anti-social
elements have taken to venting their rage against any individuals or
social forces who oppose them in any way,
including former allies or hangers on. They are all the enemy, worthies
like Holyday, the Fords, et al.,
clearly
imply,
so
away
with
them
all
--
the
social activists,
unionists, bicyclists! We, anti-social warriors, champions of
austerity, private monopoly right, the rich (the taxpayers who really
count), must rule unopposed! How dare
they prevent us from disposing of labour at poverty wages!
The residents of Toronto, the poor, the middle strata,
students, youth and the workers who create the wealth and provide the
services that sustain the city and society
have, through their struggle against the Ford regime, helped put
obstacles in its path, helped erode its domination of municipal
politics and helped expose its despotic
essence. Let us advance this struggle for the rights of all and
establish ourselves as the decision-makers, not this band of rogues who
would relegate workers and society
to poverty for the profit of the very rich!
Northerners Speak Out to Save Ontario Northland
The Ontario Northland
Transportation Commission (ONTC) is a Crown
Corporation that provides vital telecommunications, inter-city bus as
well as freight and passenger rail infrastructure to northern Ontario
communities. On March 23, the Ontario government announced plans to
wind down operations, privatizing
those aspects of the Crown corporation that are profitable and
destroying the rest. Premier McGuinty justified this wrecking activity
saying the ONTC is a failing operation with declining revenue and
ridership.
McGuinty's claims are false, but more important is that
the loss of
the vital public infrastructure organized under the umbrella of the
ONTC would be a serious blow to the viability of many northern Ontario
communities and industries.
The unions representing employees of the ONTC's
operations have
spoken out and
set the record straight on McGuinty's misrepresentation. Brian Kelly,
spokesperson for the General Chairpersons' Association (GCA) of the
unionized ONTC workers explained that "ridership has
increased year over year in all passenger
services" -- 10 per cent in 2010/11 and another 16 per cent this year.
Even despite the demise of mining in Timmins and of the forest industry
across the north, the ONTC was generating seven per cent more revenue
in
2011/12 than in 2003 when McGuinty first came to power.
That said, the issue is not simply one of whether the
public
infrastructure is profitable or not. There are fundamental principles
at issue. Public infrastructure -- be it the services provided by the
ONTC or mail service provided by Canada Post or access to public
health care, etc. -- is critical to nation-building,
to the existence of Canadian standards for one and all east, west,
north and south. The McGuinty Liberals are very self-serving when they
argue for federal transfer payments at levels necessary to support
country-wide Canadian standards for funding of social services, but
deny the same principle when it comes to
investing in public infrastructure for the north.
The principle applies whether the issue is access to
sanitation,
fresh water, transportation, or telecommunication services,
etc. The GCA is calling for all Ontario residents to have equal support
for provincially-funded infrastructure such as inter-city passenger
service at Canadian standards, without
distinction, whether in the south or the north.
Northern Ontario United Against Privatization of
Ontario Northland
Northern Ontario is speaking with one voice against the
McGuinty Liberals' decision to dismantle the Ontario Northland
Transportation Commission, privatize whatever
is profitable and otherwise wreck the public rail, bus and
telecommunications infrastructure this Crown Corporation provides to
the north. Below are some examples of
where northerners stand:
George Payne, Chairman of the Ontario Northland
Pensioners' Association (ONPA) said he was shocked. "They give us
assurances that pensioners have nothing to
worry about. That sets off alarm bells... We're unhappy with the way
the
[Ontario Northland Railway] has treated pensioners." The ONPA was
formed in 1999 to recover $100
million that they say
was improperly removed from the pension surplus by the ONTC to pay for
retirements between 1996 and 2004. The lawsuit continues.
Alan Spacek, Kapuskasing Mayor and President of the
Federation
of Northern Ontario Municipalities (FONOM), immediately asked that this
decision be rescinded until
some form of proper study and consultation with Northerners -- both
citizens and industries -- can be undertaken. "We ask that the Province
put a two year moratorium on
this decision while we consult on the best ways to proceed."
Peter Politis, Mayor of Cochrane said 1,000 jobs between
Cochrane and North Bay are at risk. Cochrane was established as a
rail town and has a rich history
associated with the ONTC. "We've worked hard to create a positive
economic environment in our Community and our region ... [T]he last
thing
we want to hear is
something like this."
David Plourde, Kapuskasing Deputy Mayor and former ONTC
commissioner, said to divest the ONR is essentially divesting Northern
Ontario because "the ONTC was
developed to help northern Ontario." "Now is the time he said for
northerners to stand together," he added. "In my opinion, the northern
communities
should band together and
purchase the ONR because there is a need and there is room for growth,"
he said.
Tom Laughren, Timmins' Mayor, expressed dismay and
disappointment with the McGuinty Liberals, citing the many times he had
travelled
to Queen’s Park to discuss development, never for a moment imagining
what the
government was actually planning.
The Timmins Chamber of Commerce is also advising the
government to reverse this decision.
Madeleine Tremblay Mayor of the Township of
Fauquier-Strickland (Cochrane District) said, "Between the Far North
Act, the Planning Act,
reduction in wood allocations
to the forest industry, the woodland caribou and wolverine habitat
protection plans and all other rules, regulations and acts that work
against a prosperous Northern
Ontario, it is enough evidence that the Liberal government wants to
drive people and investment out and away from Northern Ontario."
Al McDonald, Mayor of North Bay, pledged the city's
unwavering support for the fight to overturn the decision to divest the
ONTC. Each councillor at a recent city
council meeting promised the standing-room-only crowd that they stand
behind the employees and that the ONTC is not for sale.
The North Bay Chamber of Commerce offered $5,000 out
of their reserves to help ONTC employees mobilize public opinion
against the destruction of ONTC
public infrastructure.
Attacks on Public Education
Toronto School Board $100 Million Short
- Silvia Etts -
Toronto District School
Board (TDSB) held a special
meeting April 4 and a regular general meeting April 11 to put forward
recommendations for cuts to programs, teachers and education workers.
The cuts are intended for "the TDSB to meet its legislative
responsibility to
balance the 2012-2013 budget." The final decision will take place in a
budget committee vote sometime in June.
Inadequate provincial funding has put the Toronto school
system in a
$100 million deficit. The Minister of Education Laurel Broten refuses
to acknowledge the reality and insists "they have the fiscal means to
be able to deliver high quality public education in the city of
Toronto." Broten
visited the TDSB offices the day before the first meeting to put
pressure on the administrators to balance the budget.
The board's proposal is to
implement job cuts for those
employees who play an essential part in the delivery of quality
education
of which the minister speaks. They are the regular program educational
assistants (EAs), special education and aquatics supports, school
office staff,
caretakers, school-based safety monitors, secondary teachers,
elementary and secondary vice principals, and
administrative staff.
School employees, their unions and members of the public
attended the meetings showing resistance to these regressive actions.
Some
people left the meeting in disgust at the decisions being made. Several
trustees spoke against the cuts and opposed the balancing of the budget
on
the backs of the workers and voted against them. They called on the
TDSB administration to resist the government's austerity measures
outlined in
the Ontario budget.
The action taken by the TDSB does not provide a way out
to the funding crisis that the boards face. School boards across the
province
alongside the teachers, education workers, their organizations and the
communities they serve must take a firm stand against cuts and
concessionary
measures. They are not solutions. Governments must take up their
responsibility of ensuring quality education as a right.
Figleaf Promise to Retrain Education Assistants
- Christine Nugent -
The Toronto District School Board has recommended
cutting over 200 education assistants (EAs). EAs assist in keeping
students
engaged in the
range of activities that take place in the learning environment. They
assist the supervising teacher with preparatory work. They are an extra
pair
of eyes
and hands and are invaluable to the smooth functioning of the active,
fast-paced work environment. They contribute to student safety. So who
is it
that is deciding to remove them from the classroom?
The Board is trying to head off resistance by saying it
plans to
retrain the EAs. The union says: "some of the trustees and senior
staff hid
behind a fig leaf of retraining." They will lose their jobs and have to
take a two-year course to then be allocated to kindergarten classrooms
as
Early Childhood Educators. While there are promises of financial
support, they will incur costs, fees and in some cases debt. The other
two
"options" are to accept a severance package or to enter into a bumping
process which would possibly mean waiting up to two years to be
recalled to
work.
All school boards in the province are preparing
budgets in an environment where governments have failed to provide
adequate
funding formulas for years. The ministry allocates funding to each
board using a formula that's based on student enrolment and the unique
needs
of the students in each board. The number of schools, their
distribution and their physical condition are also factors. Boards use
this money to
make the local decisions needed to educate their students. They do this
by funding and staffing schools, designing programs to meet the needs
of
their students and fixing, maintaining and building schools.
The funding formula is starving the
education system of adequate resources to provide all students
with
appropriate educational programming that supports their participation
in the academic and social life of their school. This creates fertile
ground for
the elimination of the public system as we know it and sets up
conditions for parents to seek quality education elsewhere outside the
public system.
This would further drain it of funds and ultimately open the door to
charter schools and the privatization of education.
Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario Responds to
Government Misinformation
Sam Hammond, the President
of the Elementary Teachers'
Federation of Ontario (ETFO) held a press conference April 12 to defend
his
organization's decision to withdraw from the Provincial Bargaining
Table
following what he said were "provocative and
unprecedented comments" made by Education Minister Laurel Broten on
April 9.
Minister Broten threatened the teachers indicating that
if they do not come back to the table they may jeopardize gains they
have made in the
past.
The teachers' collective agreements expire on August 31,
2012.
"We want to negotiate renewals to those agreements that
ensure peace and stability; respectful workplaces, and a good learning
environment for
students." Hammond said. "The Ontario
Labour
Relations
Act [OLRA] sets out the
longstanding rules for collective bargaining in the education sector.
We have
successfully negotiated local agreements in good times and even in some
not so good times in the past. We are fully prepared to bargain under
the OLRA
starting in June."
He explained that the voluntary provincial discussion
process and the parameters the Government has tabled are outside of the
legal frame work
for negotiations, that it was voluntary.
"We indicated to the Minister that we will exercise our
right to bargain under the OLRA as the law provides and requires. Since
that time, a lot
of misinformation has been spread about our decision. Let me set the
record straight.
"First, as I said to the Minister prior to her press
conference, and as ETFO has repeatedly told Government officials, the
narrow parameters
tabled by the Government for provincial discussions -- which involve
not only wage freezes but substantial compensation rollbacks and
reductions -- are
destructive, ask too much of teachers and single them out. If we are
restricted to discussing only the government's proposal, that is not
true
negotiations.
"Second, we expect the government to include on its team
representatives who are experienced in the education sector; who
understand what
happens in today's classrooms and schools, and who have experience in
teacher negotiations. Bankruptcy lawyers are expensive. They know how
to slash
budgets but they don't necessarily understand the impact on kids,
teachers, and the education system. Just from that initial meeting, it
is clear that they do
not understand the education sector nor the complexities involved in
teacher bargaining.
"Third, there are no established ground rules for these
proposed provincial discussions. It's pretty basic really. The OLRA
sets out the rules for
teacher bargaining. If the government wants to engage in a provincial
discussion instead of bargaining as the law provides, we need to know
the rules
before we start."
In defence of his members he concluded:
"For teachers as a matter of law and practice,
collective bargaining has always taken place with local school boards,
with each party free to
assess and determine the priorities and trade-offs that make most sense
to them. This centrally imposed process with rigid predetermined
parameters is no
substitute for collective bargaining.
"Bullying behaviour and threats to legislate are no way
to demonstrate respect for teachers or the collective bargaining
process. When we bargain
locally, we know the ground rules and what is on the table. If the
government expects us to bargain provincially, the rules must be
understood and agreed
and there can be no predetermined solution imposed.
"The government parameters -- passed across the table,
restated in the budget, and now sent to every school board degrade our
collective
agreements. The government proposal removes working conditions that
have been in place for decades. Our membership is mostly women. The
government
proposal is an attack on women, an attack on unions, and an attack on
public sector workers. There is no incentive to return to this kind of
table."
Announcement
Special Issue of Workers' Forum
Across southern Ontario,
town hall meetings organized by the
Canadian Autoworkers are underway to discuss with autoworkers and all
those
concerned, the importance of the auto industry, its direction and the
necessity
to maintain Canadian standard wages, working and living conditions. A
special issue of Workers' Forum
has been
published to assist autoworkers with
their analysis and discussion of a way forward for the sector that
serves their interests and the Canadian economy. It features an article
entitled, "Autoworkers Firmly Defend Their Claim on What They Produce,"
by K.C. Adams which has the following five parts:
- Part One: Extortion Is a Crime -- Time for a New
Direction for the Economy
- Part Two: The Sham of Profit-Sharing -- Concessions Are Not
Solutions!
- Part Three: Profit-Sharing Means Even More Insecurity for Autoworkers
- Part Four: A Basic Problem in the Auto Industry
- Part Five: The Need for Equilibrium and a New Direction for the
Economy
This special issue also features an item entitled "The
Pillage of Chrysler: Chronology of Fiat's Takeover of Chrysler -- 1998
to March 2012"
The cost is $4.00. Workers'
Forum is a supplement to The
Marxist-Leninist Daily and is
published by the Workers' Centre of CPC(M-L) and can be reached at:
P.O. Box 264, Adelaide Stn,
Toronto, ON M5C 2J8
Tel: (416) 253-4475
Email: workerscentre@cpcml.ca
www.cpcml.ca
For the schedule of meetings on the future of the auto
industry, click here.
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Read Ontario Political Forum
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: ontario@cpcml.ca
|