This crisis could have been so easily averted. The Charest government, however, decided to break the only important rule of negotiation. People like discounts.
When you go to Best Buy, you don't pay retail for your new 60" television. When you buy a car, you don't pay the listed price. In most markets, you don't even pay the asking price for a home. You get a discount, and everyone goes home happy. The seller gets his commission and the buyer gets a rush of hormones that comes with amassing crap, some sort of evolutionary leftover from our hunter-gatherer days.
This is how most labour negotiations work too. The two sides put up a solid front, give a best-case-scenario offer, and sit down to work out a compromise. Unions can spin it to their membership that they got the best deal possible. CEOs can stress the intrinsic value of labour peace to their shareholders. It's just how things work.
Unfortunately for Line Beauchamp, Quebec's students, and Montreal in general, Premier Charest sent the Education minister to the table with no room for negotiation. The opening offer was the final offer. Sure, there was some recognition of the minor issues that the students had brought to public attention, but the tuition hikes were sacred. The subsequent government offer went from the original $1625 in hikes to $1750. This was obviously not an honest attempt at getting kids back into class. It was Charest's recognition that his tuition hikes were far more popular than his government or even his person, and he was going to milk it for all it was worth. Beauchamp herself, I assume, had enough of playing Charest's puppet and threw in her political towel.
If Charest had really wanted to end the crisis, he could have launched an investigation into the apparent grift in university administration and dropped the tuition hike to $1250 over five years. $250 a year. The majority of students would have melted away. The government could have probably found enough savings to cover the difference, and certainly would have avoided the costs that are involved in prolonging the daily protests in the streets. And if they didn't, virtually all remaining support for them would have dried up. An even more dishonest but probably effective approach (judging by the above discussion of retail shopping) would have been to have originally introduced $2000 in hikes and then cut it back to $1625 as a compromise. The students could have at least consoled themselves with the discount.
Instead, Charest passed a law designed to radicalize the students even further and bring all of the local anarchists out of the woodwork who are willing to chuck rocks at cops and undermine the student movement. Yesterday, reeling from a Sunday night PR disaster which exploded like a stun grenade when the Montreal Police decided to pepper-spray patrons sitting on a St. Denis patio, the police left the protesters alone. Hopefully, the Police continue to refrain from enforcing Bill 78, and the protesters refrain from throwing molotov cocktails. I guess we'll see.
Oh, by the way, I didn't make it out to the protest last night. I was too lazy. Eventually, I'll make it happen.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
Are there even any students left?
I am thoroughly behind the student movement. However, I'm pretty sure that the chaos happening nightly in Montreal has little to do with the tuition hikes. Tonight, after I put my kids to bed, I'm going to go ask 100 random people wearing red squares what they are doing in the streets and see. I hope I don't get my head bashed in by the cops.
Violence in Demonstrations
It may seem like a moot point now that the government has passed Bill 78, thereby unleashing the wrath of every anarchist within striking distance of Montreal, but there was a time when there was a real debate about where the line could be drawn between civil disobedience and vandalism, and vandalism and violence.
Former Education Minister Line Beauchamp demanded that CLASSE leader Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois condemn violence in demonstrations as a prerequisite to joining the other two major student groups at the negotiating table (where of course Beauchamp had no room to bargain). He responded that there was a difference between violence and vandalism, and condemned the former. He of course did not hesitate to point out that most of the violence, in his strict construction of the term, had been, and continues to be, perpetrated by the Montreal and now Quebec Provincial Police, on the protesters.
Although I am in solidarity with the student movement, I will have nothing to do with some of their actions, which somehow they don't seem to understand has alienated most of the population-at-large. Throwing bricks or smoke bombs on the tracks of the metro or stopping traffic on one of the major bridges is a poor choice of tactic. By doing those things, the movement lost the support of the people who pay the bulk of their tuition.
But the poor choice of tactic is not what I want to talk about. When someone attending a peaceful rally chucks a rock through a window or a beer bottle at a cop, thereby allowing the police to bust the heads of their brethren, that is violence. It is not violence against the population, nor is it even violence against the police, who are usually well protected. It is violence against the rest of the demonstrators. When you cross the line into vandalism, you get your friends beaten up by the cops.
People who would normally be out in the streets (students, or me, for example) are growing increasingly wary to have their voices heard out of fear that they will have their heads bashed in by police. Thus, I thoroughly and completely condemn any act of violence or vandalism without exception* in demonstrations.
Since the passage of Bill 78, this hardly matters. The cops do not need much of a good reason to tear gas the crowds. Hopefully they stop pepper-spraying the patio patrons on St. Denis, but that's another story.
*There is, I must say, one instance where I think it's okay to perpetrate violence in a demonstration. If you're marching peacefully and you see a fellow demonstrator who is about to toss a rock through a bank window, you are allowed to beat the ever-living shit out of him.
Former Education Minister Line Beauchamp demanded that CLASSE leader Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois condemn violence in demonstrations as a prerequisite to joining the other two major student groups at the negotiating table (where of course Beauchamp had no room to bargain). He responded that there was a difference between violence and vandalism, and condemned the former. He of course did not hesitate to point out that most of the violence, in his strict construction of the term, had been, and continues to be, perpetrated by the Montreal and now Quebec Provincial Police, on the protesters.
Although I am in solidarity with the student movement, I will have nothing to do with some of their actions, which somehow they don't seem to understand has alienated most of the population-at-large. Throwing bricks or smoke bombs on the tracks of the metro or stopping traffic on one of the major bridges is a poor choice of tactic. By doing those things, the movement lost the support of the people who pay the bulk of their tuition.
But the poor choice of tactic is not what I want to talk about. When someone attending a peaceful rally chucks a rock through a window or a beer bottle at a cop, thereby allowing the police to bust the heads of their brethren, that is violence. It is not violence against the population, nor is it even violence against the police, who are usually well protected. It is violence against the rest of the demonstrators. When you cross the line into vandalism, you get your friends beaten up by the cops.
People who would normally be out in the streets (students, or me, for example) are growing increasingly wary to have their voices heard out of fear that they will have their heads bashed in by police. Thus, I thoroughly and completely condemn any act of violence or vandalism without exception* in demonstrations.
Since the passage of Bill 78, this hardly matters. The cops do not need much of a good reason to tear gas the crowds. Hopefully they stop pepper-spraying the patio patrons on St. Denis, but that's another story.
*There is, I must say, one instance where I think it's okay to perpetrate violence in a demonstration. If you're marching peacefully and you see a fellow demonstrator who is about to toss a rock through a bank window, you are allowed to beat the ever-living shit out of him.
Entitlement and selfishness
Much of the general angst directed at the student movement includes rants about how ''kids these days are so selfish. They feel so entitled...''
Don't I know it. I'm a teacher by trade. High school students today actually believe that they have the right to text in class. They get all kinds of upset when you ask them to put their iPhone4 away or you'll have to send them to the office where it will be confiscated for 24 hours. Imagine, 24 hours without a spontaneous Facebook photo update? 24 hours without texting? Dear Lord...
I am with the general public on that one. Kids have been brought up to believe not only that they can get what they want whenever they want, but also that it already belongs to them. Parents, schools, and society-at-large are all at a loss as to what to do with the youth.
I'll admit that this may play a part in why the student movement has not folded up like a cheap tent under public and police pressure. The students do feel entitled to an affordable education. It's not their fault. Our society has been drilling that into their heads for many decades.
Their actions, however, are not selfish. The students currently in Quebec's universities will not bear the brunt of the tuition hikes. However, if they do somehow manage to come out of this with a tuition freeze, they will be the ones who will pay taxes to pay for tomorrow's students. How is this selfish?
The students in the streets are promising to continue the social contract that has existed in Quebec for decades. You pay cheap tuition and high taxes. Unfortunately, it is the boomers and Gen Xers (like me) who profited from cheap university to get all of the good jobs who now do not want to pay the piper. It is hypocritical and shameful. Anyone who attended a Quebec university and paid thousands less than everyone else in the country and who now supports the tuition hike needs to take a long look in the mirror and decide whether they want to fork over $10000 more ($4000 for the first year, when Quebec students are at CEGEP, and $2000 for each subsequent year) in student loans plus interest (a low-ball estimate on the difference between the cost of a Bachelor's degree in Alberta and Quebec in the 1990s), or continue to subsidize higher education to the same degree in Quebec.
Who is selfish here? Middle-class boomers who feel entitled to a good retirement but continue to flood the market because they can't yet afford to pay off the cottage? Gen Xers who profited from low tuition and now don't want to pay back their social debt? The students who just want to go to school and finish up before tuition rates go up? Or those students who go out in the streets every night and risk their own safety because they know that one of their brethren will act like an idiot and break a window thereby giving the police the justification they seek to unleash the hounds?
Sure these students feel entitled to a cheap education. However, they also feel that their own kids are entitled to one too. They are even willing to pay for it. Their actions and stubbornness are born out of entitlement, but they are not selfish. I invite anyone to explain to me logically how these actions are selfish. Of course, such a debate would take a readership... but that's sort of beside the point.
Don't I know it. I'm a teacher by trade. High school students today actually believe that they have the right to text in class. They get all kinds of upset when you ask them to put their iPhone4 away or you'll have to send them to the office where it will be confiscated for 24 hours. Imagine, 24 hours without a spontaneous Facebook photo update? 24 hours without texting? Dear Lord...
I am with the general public on that one. Kids have been brought up to believe not only that they can get what they want whenever they want, but also that it already belongs to them. Parents, schools, and society-at-large are all at a loss as to what to do with the youth.
I'll admit that this may play a part in why the student movement has not folded up like a cheap tent under public and police pressure. The students do feel entitled to an affordable education. It's not their fault. Our society has been drilling that into their heads for many decades.
Their actions, however, are not selfish. The students currently in Quebec's universities will not bear the brunt of the tuition hikes. However, if they do somehow manage to come out of this with a tuition freeze, they will be the ones who will pay taxes to pay for tomorrow's students. How is this selfish?
The students in the streets are promising to continue the social contract that has existed in Quebec for decades. You pay cheap tuition and high taxes. Unfortunately, it is the boomers and Gen Xers (like me) who profited from cheap university to get all of the good jobs who now do not want to pay the piper. It is hypocritical and shameful. Anyone who attended a Quebec university and paid thousands less than everyone else in the country and who now supports the tuition hike needs to take a long look in the mirror and decide whether they want to fork over $10000 more ($4000 for the first year, when Quebec students are at CEGEP, and $2000 for each subsequent year) in student loans plus interest (a low-ball estimate on the difference between the cost of a Bachelor's degree in Alberta and Quebec in the 1990s), or continue to subsidize higher education to the same degree in Quebec.
Who is selfish here? Middle-class boomers who feel entitled to a good retirement but continue to flood the market because they can't yet afford to pay off the cottage? Gen Xers who profited from low tuition and now don't want to pay back their social debt? The students who just want to go to school and finish up before tuition rates go up? Or those students who go out in the streets every night and risk their own safety because they know that one of their brethren will act like an idiot and break a window thereby giving the police the justification they seek to unleash the hounds?
Sure these students feel entitled to a cheap education. However, they also feel that their own kids are entitled to one too. They are even willing to pay for it. Their actions and stubbornness are born out of entitlement, but they are not selfish. I invite anyone to explain to me logically how these actions are selfish. Of course, such a debate would take a readership... but that's sort of beside the point.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Bill 78
A couple of days ago, I found a red square in the Metro. I said to Sophie, "I'm going to start supporting the students."
I picked it up. Sophie had just finished rolling her eyes when she said, "I have a safety pin."
I put it on my hat. Since then, I have had a few interesting conversations, and received some funny looks while out walking. Of course, I have been anticipating the funny looks, so I am probably imagining them. But it has turned out to be a conversation piece.
At first, I didn't care much about the tuition hikes. Although I live and work in Quebec (well, work... although trained as a teacher, I'm basically a stay at home dad who picks up some substitution work from time to time), I am not pure laine Quebecois (but I am pretentious). I'm not even a dyed-in-the-wool anglophone-Quebecker. I am from Alberta. 12 years ago, I met a girl from Quebec and followed her home. That seems like a lifetime ago.
Since then, I have bounced around a lot. I moved to Ontario, returned to Alberta, lived in Nunavik, fell in love with another Quebecoise, made a family, and have recently found myself calling Montreal my home. Turns out that Montreal is an interesting place to be these days.
Like I said, the tuition hikes barely entered my mind. I was happy that the youth of Montreal and Quebec were standing up for what they believe in (even if I think Quebec has bigger fish to fry). That all began to change after a rally of more than 200 000 people in March failed to bring the Liberal government to the bargaining table with student leaders. I began to realize that democracy had broken down in Quebec. The students had done everything correctly. They had protested peacefully, in unprecedented numbers, and Premier Charest didn't even bat an eye.
Well, it didn't take a genius to see where this was headed. Since then there have been weeks of protests on end which disrupt the city to varying degrees. The students have become more and more militant as the government becomes more and more stubborn. They sent their Education minister to the negotiating table with no room for negotiation. She quit over it.
Now, there is a law limiting the right of people to protest. Bill 78. It makes things really easy for the police to declare a march illegal and start shelling out the noise grenades and tear gas. To me, this law was not designed to restore calm. It is a law designed to provoke the students into even more angry and illogical tactics. It's a law designed by an unpopular government to garner public support. It's too bad that the students seem to be willing to oblige the police. It just might work.
I picked it up. Sophie had just finished rolling her eyes when she said, "I have a safety pin."
I put it on my hat. Since then, I have had a few interesting conversations, and received some funny looks while out walking. Of course, I have been anticipating the funny looks, so I am probably imagining them. But it has turned out to be a conversation piece.
At first, I didn't care much about the tuition hikes. Although I live and work in Quebec (well, work... although trained as a teacher, I'm basically a stay at home dad who picks up some substitution work from time to time), I am not pure laine Quebecois (but I am pretentious). I'm not even a dyed-in-the-wool anglophone-Quebecker. I am from Alberta. 12 years ago, I met a girl from Quebec and followed her home. That seems like a lifetime ago.
Since then, I have bounced around a lot. I moved to Ontario, returned to Alberta, lived in Nunavik, fell in love with another Quebecoise, made a family, and have recently found myself calling Montreal my home. Turns out that Montreal is an interesting place to be these days.
Like I said, the tuition hikes barely entered my mind. I was happy that the youth of Montreal and Quebec were standing up for what they believe in (even if I think Quebec has bigger fish to fry). That all began to change after a rally of more than 200 000 people in March failed to bring the Liberal government to the bargaining table with student leaders. I began to realize that democracy had broken down in Quebec. The students had done everything correctly. They had protested peacefully, in unprecedented numbers, and Premier Charest didn't even bat an eye.
Well, it didn't take a genius to see where this was headed. Since then there have been weeks of protests on end which disrupt the city to varying degrees. The students have become more and more militant as the government becomes more and more stubborn. They sent their Education minister to the negotiating table with no room for negotiation. She quit over it.
Now, there is a law limiting the right of people to protest. Bill 78. It makes things really easy for the police to declare a march illegal and start shelling out the noise grenades and tear gas. To me, this law was not designed to restore calm. It is a law designed to provoke the students into even more angry and illogical tactics. It's a law designed by an unpopular government to garner public support. It's too bad that the students seem to be willing to oblige the police. It just might work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)