April 19, 1978

Do Teachers Have Right To Strike?

The Brunswick teachers' strike has focused national attention on a fundamental issue it is time to settle.

Do public employees have the right to strike?

It is somewhat unfortunate that the controversy should be decided by the present dispute.  Neither side has a clear cut case.  Moral questions deserve decisive answers.

Yet, most great battles occur at the wrong places at the wrong times for the wrong reasons.  History turns more on circumstances than strategy.

The Brunswick strike was precipitated by unworthy differences.  Constitutional principles were dragged into the situation rather late in the proceedings.

The labor contract between the Brunswick Board of Education and the Brunswick Education Association expired about 14 months ago.  The teachers wanted a raise, the board said it didn't have enough money to give all that was asked.

Eventually the matter went to advisory arbitration.  The arbitrators recommended a raise retroactive to September.  The board agreed to the increase but said it had only enough funds to pay back to January - a four month-difference.

With this the teachers struck, throwing large picket lines around several school facilities.  The board sought a temporary injunction to limit picketing, and the judge issued an order to confine picket lines to 11 specific locations.

When the teachers picketed the Berea and Hiland schools - for reasons unclear - in violation of the court order, the judge held 35 teachers in contempt of the injunction and jailed them in lieu of $100 bonds which the teachers refused to post.

The BEA appealed to Federal District Court which upheld the lower court.  BEA then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court which supported the lower courts on the basis of the Ohio Ferguson Act, rather than the merit of the original injunction.

By this circuitous route, therefore, we have arrived at the crux of the issue as viewed by the general public.

The Ferguson Act prohibits strikes by teachers, police, firemen and other public employees - replacing the usual remedies of inadequate contracts with Civil Service, tenure, super-safe pensions and other advantages not available to the private sector.

The right to strike, however, has become so sacrosanct in the minds of Americans that it has taken on the aura of personal freedom.  As a result, public employees have felt free to defy the law under the mantle of liberty.

It has been a great ploy by public employees that has netted them wages five percent above private employees - on an average - plus lifetime security.

The Brunswick teachers have garnered considerable public sympathy on the notion they were jailed for striking.  The board and the judge, of course, had ignored the Ferguson act just as had the teachers.  They were not contesting the strike, just the usual laws limiting picketing to that necessary for demonstration rather than intimidation of others.

Nevertheless, the battle ground has been staked out so let us fight on the perceived issues.

We give a lot of lip service in this country to the "private enterprise system" but less and less actual support.  The Ferguson Act was an attempt to curb market place haggling that might endanger or inconvenience the public.  It was an interference with the dynamic forces of competition that was bound to fail.

If you believe in private enterprise - as I do - then you have to give all employees the right to with hold their services, just as you have to give all employers the right to with hold employment.  The freedom to strike and to fire is necessary to a balanced equation.

The unspoken issue, probably the determining one, in the Brunswick strike is the teacher's determination to win a "fair dismissal" policy in addition to higher wages.  The Board contends this is just another form of "instant tenure" whereby new teachers on probation would receive the same procedures of dismissal as long-term teachers.

A consistent and even handed approach to public employment would be full access to the privileges of open negotiation and abolishment of civil service tenure - or -submission to the judgment of government in return for guaranteed income and protection.

The desire of Brunswick teachers for the best of both worlds certainly is understandable, but it is unrealistic.

Inflation is out of hand and grinding the U.S. economy into little pieces.  We have gotten to this perilous juncture by our natural desire to get more for less - to improve our leverage in obtaining a bigger share of the pie.

Teachers are neither more, nor less, guilty of this inclination than you and I.  But all of us are at the moment of truth: are we going to compete and take our chances for individual advantage, or are we going to play it safe with group mediocrity?

The Brunswick judge has backed off from the decision, declining to make his anti-picketing injunction permanent.

The teachers now must decide which turn in the trail they will direct their next steps.  The ultimate decision, however, lies with the tax payers who pay the bills.

Author: Lindsey Williams