In a cab ride yesterday, I happened to catch Laurel Broten on the radio explaining how necessary it was to first deny teachers' right to negotiate, then impose a contract, and then repeal bill 115 to make the teachers happy again, all to help decrease the insane provincial deficit. What a hero.
My concern with her speech (and everything about this) is she presents part of the argument as if it's in its entirety. She leaves out crucial information, and some information she includes is misleading. It's beyond a biased presentation and sliding into propaganda territory. And it's so easy to simplify it all to "teachers are greedy" sound-bites instead of elucidating honestly on the entire dilemma.
She suggested that unions walked away from negotiating tables because of money. But back in April, OSSTF negotiated some substantial money-savings initiatives, and the government walked away.
My concern with her speech (and everything about this) is she presents part of the argument as if it's in its entirety. She leaves out crucial information, and some information she includes is misleading. It's beyond a biased presentation and sliding into propaganda territory. And it's so easy to simplify it all to "teachers are greedy" sound-bites instead of elucidating honestly on the entire dilemma.
She suggested that unions walked away from negotiating tables because of money. But back in April, OSSTF negotiated some substantial money-savings initiatives, and the government walked away.











