Don Wright's report on Teacher Collective Bargaining hasn't gotten much attention because it was released just as politicians, media scribes and pundits were taking off for a long holiday season. If the resignation of Gary Collins counted as a lump of coal in Premier Campbell's stocking, the Wright report was a giant candy cane, big enough to be used as a club.

Wright essentially said that teachers don't really have the right to strike because governments of all political stripes legislate them back to work rather than taking the pressure and waiting until an agreement is reached. He deserves credit for recognizing that the absence of child minding is one of the factors that contribute to the pressure to end strikes. While his report makes twelve recommendations, the bottom line is eliminating the right to strike for teachers and replacing it with final offer arbitration.

As of January 5, 2005, no one in the Campbell government has reacted to the report; it falls under the responsibility of Minister of Skills, Development and Labour, Graham Bruce. When Education Minister Tom Christensen was asked to comment on the report, he said he hadn't read it yet.

Once upon a time, less than 20 years ago, contracts between teachers and their respective local school boards were routinely settled by arbitration. The government concluded that arbitration was too expensive, so Bill Vander Zalm eliminated it and gave teachers the right to strike. The difference between final offer arbitration and simple binding arbitration is that in the former the arbitrator must choose the final offer of one of the parties; splitting the baby in half is not allowed.

The BC Teachers' Federation reacted strongly against Wright's report. Within days of its release, BCTF President Jinny Sims authored an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun and hit the talk show circuit. In the BCTF's news release she described the report as a "pre-election ploy". She may be right.

It would not be surprising to see the Campbell government introduce legislation sometime in February to implement the recommendations of the Wright report, in particular, legislation that would eliminate the right of teachers to strike and that would impose final offer arbitration in the event the parties could not negotiate a contract. The Campbell Liberals campaigned in the last election with a promise to make education an "essential service", but an essential service under the Labour Code is different from eliminating the right to strike. Essential service simply means that the Labour Relations Board determines essential staffing levels. When the BCTF began their last job action, the Campbell government imposed a contract by legislation long before all options were exhausted under the Labour Code. This time the government that didn't understand essential services may be willing to come right out and eliminate the right to strike. The difficulty was immediately recognized by the BCTF; final offer arbitration might only mean the forced acceptance of the employer's last offer since the government would still be able to use its legislative power to overturn the arbitration if the arbitrator choose the BCTF's last offer. That is exactly what the Campbell government did to the BCMA when it refused to implement a binding arbitration.

Notwithstanding the legitimate concerns of the BCTF, the Campbell government is likely to be attracted to the divisive nature of imposing Wright's recommendations. It will drive their much hated critic, the BCTF, off the wall. It will force the NDP to vote on whether it supports the right of teachers to strike. If the NDP votes against the legislation, it will provide the Liberals with a rallying cry throughout the election campaign; they will say the party is in the pocket of labour and doesn't care about kids. If the NDP votes for the legislation, the BCTF will turn on it more harshly than it has on the government, and it will call on the BC Federation of Labour to do likewise. It looks like an issue where the Campbell government wins no matter what happens. The only losers are those who depend on stable industrial relations in the K-12 education system.

Political observers of all stripes will be waiting with great anticipation to see how the political parties and interest groups deal with Wright's report.