“There’s lies, damn lies and then statistics.” Or so the adage goes.
In journalism, one comes across a lot of statistics, so this saying is a handy reminder to step back from the data that comes your way. Even when the information is collected in a professional, unbiased manner, contradictions can abound.
Take CHRR’s own CloseUp on industrial relations, included in this issue. A study just released from Statistics Canada shows work stoppages are down since the 1980s and another peak in the mid-’90s. Good news, but compared to the international average for industrialized nations, Canada is lagging behind competitors with as much a seven times the level of disruption.
Hopefully, a realization that mutual gains bargaining is a viable alternative is helping to bring down Canada numbers. It’s hard to judge. StatsCan reports that while there have been far fewer strikes and lockouts so far this year compared to the same period in 2000, slightly more work days have been lost due to labour disputes in 2001. Looks like less strikes, but they’re far nastier when they happen. Does this make the negotiating climate less or more confrontational?
And what about those simmering cauldrons of discontent where periods of “peace” are merely times when foes back off, lick wounds and wait. For the next contract. The next grievance. The next issue or PR opportunity. It can be difficult to measure the impact such poisoned labour management relationships have on productivity. As you may suspect, a public sector example is at hand.
From government workers to teachers and health-care professionals from B.C. to the Atlantic, relations are strained. In some cases, divisions run deep.
Take Ontario teachers and their unions versus Premier Mike Harris’ PC government. They’ve been fighting since Harris was elected in ’95 — strikes have shut schools and employee morale has plummeted.
The latest area of contention bringing the province and its educators to the brink is the question of teacher recertification. Ontario wants to test teachers every five years. Teachers maintain that’s not going to happen. Newspapers abound with arguments pro and con, as the education wars continue.
Should teachers be tested regularly in this manner? The history of hostility between the two sides pushes questions such as this aside. Is certification a good idea or another assault on the public education system by a government that doesn’t value public services? The answer is lost in a labour climate that has teachers unwilling to follow any government initiatives. Are the teachers right to be skeptical or are they just refusing on principle? Such is that sad state of labour relations in the sector. It’s an HR practitioners worst change management nightmare.
The relationship between teachers and the government is a high-profile example that will always be dissected in the headlines. But how many poisoned workplaces exist out of the media spotlight, and uncounted by statistics. Statistics can show damage done by work disruptions — it will be up to employers and unions to move beyond them to accept the value of mutual gains bargaining.
In journalism, one comes across a lot of statistics, so this saying is a handy reminder to step back from the data that comes your way. Even when the information is collected in a professional, unbiased manner, contradictions can abound.
Take CHRR’s own CloseUp on industrial relations, included in this issue. A study just released from Statistics Canada shows work stoppages are down since the 1980s and another peak in the mid-’90s. Good news, but compared to the international average for industrialized nations, Canada is lagging behind competitors with as much a seven times the level of disruption.
Hopefully, a realization that mutual gains bargaining is a viable alternative is helping to bring down Canada numbers. It’s hard to judge. StatsCan reports that while there have been far fewer strikes and lockouts so far this year compared to the same period in 2000, slightly more work days have been lost due to labour disputes in 2001. Looks like less strikes, but they’re far nastier when they happen. Does this make the negotiating climate less or more confrontational?
And what about those simmering cauldrons of discontent where periods of “peace” are merely times when foes back off, lick wounds and wait. For the next contract. The next grievance. The next issue or PR opportunity. It can be difficult to measure the impact such poisoned labour management relationships have on productivity. As you may suspect, a public sector example is at hand.
From government workers to teachers and health-care professionals from B.C. to the Atlantic, relations are strained. In some cases, divisions run deep.
Take Ontario teachers and their unions versus Premier Mike Harris’ PC government. They’ve been fighting since Harris was elected in ’95 — strikes have shut schools and employee morale has plummeted.
The latest area of contention bringing the province and its educators to the brink is the question of teacher recertification. Ontario wants to test teachers every five years. Teachers maintain that’s not going to happen. Newspapers abound with arguments pro and con, as the education wars continue.
Should teachers be tested regularly in this manner? The history of hostility between the two sides pushes questions such as this aside. Is certification a good idea or another assault on the public education system by a government that doesn’t value public services? The answer is lost in a labour climate that has teachers unwilling to follow any government initiatives. Are the teachers right to be skeptical or are they just refusing on principle? Such is that sad state of labour relations in the sector. It’s an HR practitioners worst change management nightmare.
The relationship between teachers and the government is a high-profile example that will always be dissected in the headlines. But how many poisoned workplaces exist out of the media spotlight, and uncounted by statistics. Statistics can show damage done by work disruptions — it will be up to employers and unions to move beyond them to accept the value of mutual gains bargaining.
