I teach history in North Vancouver. The place of history in the curriculum is secured by the belief that you canât understand where you are unless you know where you have been. This doesnât mean that there is any predictive powers gained through an understanding of the past or that probing into our shared experience leads us to similar conclusions. It does mean that you are unlikely to develop a coherent and defensible grasp of your present unless you examine the experiences that brought you to your present circumstance.
The current era, marked by the rule of the âCoalitionâ of BCTF history began in 1999 at the AGM that ended the 12-year domination of âTeachers for a United Federationâ, known by its acronym of TUF. TUF was formed in 1986 when the progressive, left group, âTeachersâ Viewpointâ (TV) split over the tactical response to Bill 19, the legislation that established the BCTF as a trade union and gave teaches full-bargaining rights, including the right to strike.
Bill 19Â gave teachers the option of forming a union or a professional association. Although teachers in all 75 locals chose to unionize by overwhelming majorities, BCTF activists at the time believed that it was likely that some BCTF locals would choose the âassociationâ option. Teacher Viewpoint asserted that only locals that opted for unionization would remain in the BCTF. They conceived of the BCTF as a âunion of unionsâ, a concept formed by the fact that the locals were the bargaining agents rather than the provincial organization. A more moderate or pragmatic element within TV, led by BCTF President Elsie McMurphy and her successor Ken Novakowski, believed that it was imperative that Bill 19 not succeed in dividing the ranks of teachers. They proposed that the BCTF would be a big umbrella that welcomed all, whether unions or associations.
At a highly-charged and divisive special Representative Assembly held in October 1987, the Association opted for the umbrella by a vote of roughly 67% to 33%, a majority that expressed itself over the next dozen year until the fateful AGM of 1999 through the presidencies of McMurphy, Novakowski, Ray Worley, Alice McQuade and Kit Krieger
The seeds of the defeat of TUF were planted in the mid-90s when the Harcourt government legislated a provincial bargaining framework to replace local bargaining (government believe that local school boards could not match the bargaining prowess of the BCTF) And amalgamated school districts, reducing the number from 75 to 59. A 60th district, the Francophone Authority, was added later.
TUF opposed the shift to provincial bargaining, but saw resistance as futile. Rather than resist, it focused on shifting the Federationâs resources to ensure success at the provincial table. Teacher Viewpoint called for strong resistance. The acrimony was so great that some Teacher Viewpoint locals attempted to challenge the BCTFâs assumption of bargaining agent status and threatened to secede from the Federation. This division between political resistance and struggle versus adaptation and maintaining some positive relationship with government was a recurring theme in the years during which TV and TUF dominated the BCTF political stage. As in 1987, the majority of locals sided with the TUF strategy of adaptation over a declaration of war.
In amalgamating school district, BC was following a national trend. Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba were among provinces that sought to achieve economies by reducing the number of school boards. The BCTF had contemplated amalgamation and had a bylaw (3.4) that provided for the amalgamation of locals if districts were reduced in number. The bylaw was predicated on the principal of one union for one employer.
TUFâs domination was eroded by amalgamation. TUF supported the application of Bylaw 3.4. Teacher Viewpoint opposed it, asserting that government should not dictate the Federationâs structures. In fact, a much more practical principle governed Teacher Viewpointâs response to amalgamation. It saw amalgamation as a wedge to encourage amalgamated locals to defect from TUF. The so-called âCoalitionâ was, in fact, a union of traditional Viewpoint locals (Surrey, VESTA, Burnaby, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, New Westminster, Qualicum, etc) and the smaller locals in the new amalgamated districts.
TUFâs support of by-law 3.4 was, in retrospect, politically unwise. It took its position for very good reasons. Allowing amalgamated locals to survive was undemocratic and costly. Locals in amalgamated districts, if left intact, would have greater representation at BCTF decision-making bodies than their membership justified. For example, Rocky Mountain was a new district that merged Golden, Windemere and Kimberly. If the locals were amalgamated, they would have the AGM and RA representation of one local; if left alone they would have the representation of three locals. The financial implications were staggering. Since 1988, the BCTF had provided for full-time release for presidents in every BCTF local. Subsidies in the form of presidential release grants were provided for locals on the basis of their membership, with smaller locals receiving subsidies that paid for virtually the entire costs of presidential release. The cost of maintaining presidents in the vestigial locals exceeded $1,000,000 annually. Many members have asked how the BCTF found itself without a strike fund going into the recent job action or why BCTF fees are the highest of any union in the country. The failure to amalgamate districts imposed a heavy financial obligation on the BCTF which was, of course, paid by the members and is reflected in their dues.
While the fate of by-law 3.4 and frustrations over the loss of provincial bargaining were backdrops to the fateful 1999 AGM, the polarizing issue was the contract legislated by government shortly after the AGM of the previous year.
After eight months of fruitless negotations with BCPSEA, the BCTF entered into direct negotiations with government. BCPSEA was effectively barred from the table. The shift to direct negotiations with government necessitated a blackout and many activists ,particularly from the Viewpoint faction, found this intolerable. They defined the negotiations and the contract that it produced as a âbackroom dealâ. In fact, BCTF president, Kit Krieger, and chief negotiator Ray Worley, reported regularly to both the AGM and RA, explaining why the Federation had entered into the process. At each meeting, the membership supported the ongoing discussions.
The agreement that was reached stands out as the best negotiated by the BCTF in the era of provincial bargaining. The team secured the primary class size limits and non-enrolling ratios that were stripped by the Liberals in 2002. It provided an increase in the hours reported for EI purposes from 7.1 to 9, greatly increasing the number of TOCs and new mothers who would qualify for EI. It provided other benefits for TOCs and the last Early Retirement Incentive Plan negotiated for teachers.
The Bargaining Team, which included members of both political groups voted to reject the Agreement-in-Committee with current BCTF President, Jim Iker, among those who thought the provisions insufficient. The Executive voted by an 8-3 margin to accept the deal and submit it to the membership for a ratification vote. Teacher Viewpoint locals organized a campaign to encourage members to reject the agreement with âTen Reasons to Vote No.â Despite their best efforts, the membership voted to accept the deal by a vote of 74% to 26%. Trustees voted overwhelmingly against the agreement by a margin of 97%, which led government to legislate the contract. The BCTF walked away with almost all of the money earmarked for the public sector.
In March of 1999, the Coalition ran a full-slate of candidates and accused incumbent president Krieger of back-room dealing and he was defeated by Teacher Viewpointâs David Chudnovky. The Coalition continued its hold on BCTF electoral politics until the 2014 AGM when independent candidate attained a majority of 6 of the 11 seats on the BCTF Executive.
The question is whether the Coalitionâs ownership of the debacle that was the most recent round of bargaining will end its 15-year control of the BCTF. It has blocked efforts in recent years to go to a one-member-one-vote electoral system and efforts to reduce grants to amalgamated locals.
âIts Time for Changeâ was the campaign slogan of the Coalition in 1999. They indeed ushered ni change; higher fees, annual budget deficits and a culture of confrontation that has alienated the BCTF from the public and the educational community. They placed their commitment to âsocial justiceâ ahead of their commitment to the welfare of the members and were content to use the membership to pursue their ideological goals.
The 2015 AGM presents an opportunity to redirect our union and return its focus to the membership and restoring public confidence in our public school system. It is, once again, âtime for a changeâ,
