In an attempt to avoid the last major teachers' strike in 2002, then-Learning Minister Lyle Oberg offered the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA) a ten-year deal. Teachers' wages would be annually adjusted and the government would pay-off the teachers' portion of their pension's massive unfunded liability. In exchange, teachers would agree not to strike. For taxpayers it meant offering billions to cover a pension shortfall in exchange for a decade of labour peace. When teachers went on strike in 2002 the government's generous offer was withdrawn.

For teachers the dream of taxpayers paying-off their pension obligation has not gone away. In fact, the ATA continues to request the Alberta government start negotiating with them on a new deal to assume the pension debt. Their debt stands at $2.1-billion today, which works out to $600 for every man, woman and child in Alberta - that's $2,400 for a family of four.

While it clearly is the ATA's responsibility to make an offer to taxpayers as to what taxpayers are going to get in return, should voluntary labour peace (as per the 2002 offer) be one of the negotiating options

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says no.

Paying a monopoly union not to strike is like paying a bank-robber not to rob your bank. Neither should be allowed to do so in the first place.

The ATA holds a monopoly over the public education system in Alberta. You cannot teach in a public school in Alberta without being a member of the ATA union. As such, the ATA holds the power to shut down the entire public education system.

This monopoly power, granted by our government, to hold students and parents hostage, gives the ATA an unfair advantage when it comes to negotiating. The ATA has the power to withhold educational services until the government (i.e. taxpayers) succumbs to their demands. This would be equivalent to taxpayers having the power to withhold school funding until teachers succumb to government demands.

Ideally, school boards would have the ability to hire accredited, non-ATA teachers, allowing them to keep public schools open in the event of an ATA teachers' strike. Or, parents would have more options, including school vouchers, to put their children in schools operated by the private or non-profit sector - schools that are not mandated by law to only hire ATA union member teachers.

The government has a choice: it can both encourage true alternatives to the current monopoly and maintain teachers' ability to strike; or it can maintain the ATA monopoly and ban teachers' ability to hold students hostage with a strike.

Banning teacher strikes does not mean the government can impose their will on teachers. The ATA would still have the right to continue "work-to-rule" campaigns and withhold extra-curricular activities. They would still have the right to speak about class size, working conditions and various other education issues. They would still have the right to spend thousands of dollars running radio ads complaining about education funding (as they currently are).

Banning teacher strikes does not mean teachers will be underpaid either. Of the five U.S. states that have the highest average teacher's salary, four of them ban teacher strikes. In fact, 37 of the 50 U.S. states ban teacher strikes.

When the Alberta government sits down to negotiate with the ATA as to what teachers are willing to give up in order for taxpayers to pay-off the teachers' $2.1-billion debt, they should forget about offers of temporary, voluntary agreements not to strike. As it currently sits, teacher strikes should already be illegal. And that's not negotiable.