Strategic Electoral Dilemmas and the Politics of Teachers’ Unions in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThis article seeks to explain both convergence and divergence in Ontario teacher union electoral strategy. After coalescing around a strategy of anti-Progressive Conservative (PC) strategic voting beginning with the 1999 provincial election, Ontario’s major teachers’ unions developed an electoral alliance with the McGuinty Liberals designed to advance teacher union priorities and mitigate the possibility of a return to power for the PCs. The authors use campaign finance and interview data to demonstrate that this ad hoc partnership was strengthened over the course of several election campaigns before the Liberal government’s decision to legislate restrictions on teacher union collective bargaining rights in 2012 led to unprecedented tension in the union-party partnership. The authors adapt the concept of union-party loyalty dilemmas to explain why individual teachers’ unions responded differently to the Liberal government’s efforts to impose austerity measures in the education sector.RésuméCet article vise à expliquer les convergences et divergences au sein des stratégies électorales des syndicats enseignants en Ontario. Après s’être ralliés à une approche de vote stratégique contre le Parti progressiste-conservateur (PPC) à partir des élections provinciales de 1999, les principaux syndicats enseignants de l’Ontario ont par la suite développé une alliance électorale avec les Libéraux de McGuinty afin de faire avancer leurs revendications et éviter un retour au pouvoir du PPC. Les auteurs s’appuient sur des données de financement des campagnes électorales ainsi que des entrevues afin de démontrer que ce partenariat ponctuel a été renforcé au cours de plusieurs campagnes électorales jusqu’à la décision du gouvernement libéral de faire adopter, en 2012, des restrictions aux droits de négociation collective des syndicats enseignants, conduisant ainsi à des tensions inédites au sein de cette alliance syndicats-parti. Les auteurs adaptent le concept de dilemmes de loyauté syndicat-parti afin d’expliquer pourquoi des syndicats enseignants ont répondu différemment aux efforts du gouvernement libéral d’imposer des mesures d’austérité dans le domaine de l’éducation.Keywords: unions; education; elections; Ontario; strategic votingMot-clés : syndicats; éducation; élections; Ontario; vote stratégique
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".