Compensation to parents for childcare expenses – proactive or undermining negotiations?
The Ontario Provincial government undermines the recent negotiations with the teacher’s unions by compensating parents for childcare expenses incurred as a result of the strike days. The provincial government should retain funds and re-invest them in the school system rather than swaying the public with financial incentives. CBC News posted an article on January 15, 2020 entitled, “Ontario public elementary school teachers set to begin rotating strikes on Monday” outlining the recent negotiations from both the Minister’s perspective and the four teachers’ unions participating in the talks (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/etfo-public-teachers-strike-1.5427368).
Providing financial incentives for families as a way to be “proactive” as indicated by Minister Lecce in the CBC article noted above, defeats the purpose of striking. Strikes are meant to place pressure on the parties to negotiate in good faith. In particular, the strikes provide the unions with leverage and negotiating power in the process. By reducing the financial burden on families, the provincial government has created a false illusion for parents receiving these funds. The financial incentive may sway the people from supporting the position the union is taking, and create support for the government, who may be viewed as being understanding, supportive, etc. of the working parents.
Minister Lecce, on more than one occasion, within the article, indicates the province and the unions are stuck on compensation as the main issue that cannot be agreed upon. Teachers’ disagree stating that not enough has been negotiated to satisfy their needs. For each union, there are real concerns that long-term impacts on children learning in the education system in Ontario. For example, “the [Elementary Teachers’ Federation Ontario] has said key issues are more supports for students with special needs, addressing violence in schools and preserving full-day kindergarten” (CBC News). For secondary schools, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation argues against the average high school class sizes increasing and the implementation of mandatory e-learning courses for students to graduate (CBC News). Although compensation plays a large role in the negotiations, there are real concerns the unions are advocating for that will play a larger role in children’s day-to-day lives. If there is a change to full day kindergarten, the provincial government will be shifting the cost of education to parents who will be required to find childcare for their children for half-days and/or alternate days. The impact of this change helps the government save on costs in education, but moves the cost of childcare onto the parents – or alternative, to subsidy programs.
The financial incentive program is not a proactive step as the Minister suggests. The incentive provides a short term solution for reimbursement for families, but is solely self serving for the Province to undermine negotiations with the unions.
Tiffany Johnston 
Hi Tiffany,
I really enjoyed reading your post as this is such an important topic that continuously seems to be mismanaged, only for the kids to be harmed in the long run. I agree with you that the financial incentive program should not be considered a proactive step as it will only help parents financially in the short-term. They need support for the long-term, throughout their child’s education. Not to mention, the way the government set up the incentive program seems very unfair in my opinion. They have somehow put a general daily cost on different children’s age groups and/or needs when no two families are in the same position cost-wise. This money desperately needs to be invested back into Ontario’s education system as it has been struggling for years; I was personally affected in high school from strikes due to failed negotiations on the behalf of the government as well. In addition to having chaotic classrooms with 28-30 students that made learning in that environment very difficult. The children that are in the public elementary and high school system deserve a better learning environment, and to be taught by teachers in person.
Lastly, I really enjoyed how you mentioned the illusion the government is creating and how the incentive program defeated the purpose of striking as I did not personally think of that aspect from reading the article myself!
Great post!
Erin
LikeLike
From the governments perspective, the route they’re taking makes sense: it is likely more cost effective than meeting the demands of the striking union, it psychologically sways the parents sway from supporting the strike, and it makes the government seem like the “good guy” of the situation.
Yet you are absolutely still correct that is undermines the point of a union and their right to strike. The limbo this puts teachers in is surely frustrating, and I personally am interested to see if any changes are made.
LikeLike