City
CUPE 416 rejects City's "final offer"
Apparently city officials have been watching too much "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" because they have just presented CUPE 416 with their so-called final offer and told to "take it or leave it."
CUPE has decided to go with the latter, according to local president Mark Ferguson, who says the offer "basically guts [their] collective agreement."
"It is the clearest demonstration to date that the city has no interest to bargain a collective agreement with us at this time," he said.
CUPE 416, which represents 6,000 outdoor Toronto workers, previously offered a deal that included a three-year wage freeze and five-year job security restriction. Although Ferguson says that the union will continue to negotiate, a strike or lockout is possible as of 12:O1 a.m. Sunday.
So is this just more public bargaining, or are we headed straight for a labour disruption?
Update (3:30 p.m.)
The City of Toronto has released its terms and conditions if no deal is reached by 12:01 on Sunday. If CUPE workers don't accept the city's deal then they could start laying off hundreds of workers.
For a full list of the terms and conditions outlined the city, see below.
Photo by syncros in the blogTO Flickr pool
Discussion
43 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
In today's economy, you should just be glad you have a job at all. Ask any American.
its ridiculous.
Actually, given that union membership has dropped, you'd think the economy would have improved. Not the case.
By the way, companies want you to simply appreciate your job. It's called brainwashing. Look what happened with Caterpillar in London Ontario -- massive profits, ask the union to cut wages in half. When the union refuses to just appreciate having a job, the company closes down the plant. That's awful.
Having said this, the attack on unions in this country is seriously troubling. Having worked in two seperate union environments, I think they still serve a purpose. However, the trouble comes in a fiscal environment such as the one we find ourselves in now and the temptation to cut, cut, cut when it benefits no one but the super wealthy. A look at the Caterpillar plant in London that closed is a great example of this.
I used to think the City should contract out all services - including the TTC. Having lived here for a while, I realize how wrong that approach is. If any of us were in a union, how could we turn down a 'jobs for life' clause?
It's a shame the unions in this City didn't have enough foresight to work with the City over the years and foster a trusting relationships instead of an adversarial one that has produced this outcome. We all lose now.
That said I find it hard to support the union when they were faced with a mayor who was co-operative they turned into bullies now they have mayor who is a bully and they get all co-operative. in the end its the people who lose when these positions get privatized but I really can't support the unions. This piece of garbage of a mayor was elected directly as a result of their actions in order to take them to task so be it.
My prediction: The union votes to accept the terms of the city eliminating the jobs for life clause. Big win for Ford. he manages to eliminate a very small amount of positions over the next 2 and a half years. A much more progressive mayor gets voted in and their positions are safe. As much as I despise Ford I think the only good that will come from his term is the eliminating of the jobs for life clause (I know it isn't actually jobs for life, but i don't care, they made this mess)
Not to mention that privatizing or contracting out services is a terrible idea. I work for a municipality who already contracts out a lot of services...the service is crap, there is no acountability and maybe we saved a few bucks the first contract, but by the second or third year we were spending just as much money for less service.
Finally, the public believes that if we privatize or cut jobs that things will be better for them. We need to wake them up...we contribute to the economy, we patronize their businesses, we buy their products...if we go, how long will it take for the ripple effect to hit them. We stop patronizing their businesses they make less money, they make less money, less money comes in to pay for services, they cut services, less people patronize business and the cycle continues. Why on earth would anyone believe this is acceptable.
Bruce Anderson, the city’s executive director of human resources, told reporters Friday the demands, suddenly tabled Thursday night after months of bargaining, will be unilaterally imposed at 12:01 a.m. Sunday. “All employees are expected to continue working and these new terms and conditions now apply to them,” Anderson said.
They include:
• Lump sum payments of 1.25 per cent in the first year, 1.5 per cent in the second year; and 1.75 per cent in the third. The fourth year would see a 1.75 wage increase. Local 416 is offering a pay freeze in exchange for keeping other benefits.
• Scrapping the need to get union approval of shift changes.
• Ironclad job security provisions that exist for all permanent workers would stay only for those with 22 years or more seniority, down from the city’s previous offer of 25 or more years. Local 416 offered Thursday to remove that protection for permanent staff with less than five years’ seniority.
• Streamline bumping procedures to make it easier to lay off workers.
• Clamp down on sick days and reduce optical and dental benefits.
right now what the city is doing is completely legal, if the workers don't like it the new terms they can strike.
http://bobloblawlawblog.ytmnd.com/
There are problems with labour unions, including city unions, but the city can't basically say: if we don't come to an agreement, we're forcing this on you. And if you don't like it, you're fired." It's absurd.
Unions/workers rights are very important. Without them, most, if not all employers would take advantage of their employees. It's human nature.
Everyone knows that City jobs are some of the cushiest around. Add to that union protection and you have a collection of overpaid, lazy employees with a huge sense of entitlement. Also human nature.
It's not a black and white, all or nothing discussion. The question is how to find a suitable middle ground.
But the reality is that over the past decade the union friendly council has traded an ever favorable collective agreement for union backed votes. The problem with that is it only benefits one group at the cost of the tax payer. The current agreement is too restrictive and too costly. Now the City is forced to dig in its heels to try and bring the collective agreement more in line with other public sector workers in Canada. And in the end the front line worker is the pawn in the game that Union bosses and politicians play.
If peole want to vent their anger at someone it should be Miller and the former councils who dug this hole and then handed the shovel to the City, the unions, and the tax payers.
Noted above is the clause to be deleted: "Employment Security: Delete Letter of Agreement protecting ALLPermanent Employees when work is contracted out(LOA from 2005."
No responsible government in Ontario history has ever given out such a job for life clause in any form without a huge fight, but the facts are there that in 2005 Miller gave his allies this perk, in a dark room, without a fight and without informing the public that he was selling out the public to reward his political friends. It is no different than signing a private sector purchase contract like MFP that gouges the taxpayer to further political ambition. In dollar terms Miller's JfL sell out , which was just one of many favours done for his public sector allies, cost much more than MFP and he should be judged by history as the most fiscally corrupt public official in post war Ontario history.
And yes, perhaps the CUPE unions have too much power. But foisting a take-it-or-leave-it union-busting contract on them is not the answer.
Has anyone stopped to realize just how much money unions make? from almost EVERY construction project, every city worker, every union member.. it takes a cut of the money.. adding to Billions of dollars and only a small portion is ever given back. Its a better, more profitable business than all McDonalds franshises put together !
Eliminating the Unions puts Millions upon millions back into the city while enabling the city to FAIRLY treat its employees !
In a unionize environment you are afforded certain protections that would otherwise be unavailable to you. In most cases unions are the only real voice for changing labour laws. If you were mistreated by the employer and chose to sue them, the likelyhood of you winning against a large well funded company while having no income to pay your lawyer is very unlikely indeed. However, if you work in a unionized environment, the reality is quite different, first, you have a collective agreement that affors you in most cases, a grievance procedure that will help resolve issuses in the workplace, and if your employment was terminated unfairly you would have the support of your co-workers (the union members) who's union dues go to support,(amongst other things),legal representation to ensure your legal rights are upheld. Indeed many of the things that we hold dear today like having vacations, were fought for and won by unions, raising the minimum wage, was fought for and driven by unions, Health and safety, WSIB & Employment Insurance were all fought for and won by unions! So having said all that, you might say, but we have all of that now so why do we still need unions? We the answer is really easy....Do you want to keep it??? Look around the conservative agenda is one that will look to "reform the system" Why? well to make it more difficult for you to have it! To reduce your benefits to take it away from you. The american system of pay your own way health care would leave most families bankrupt if the couldn't afford there own personal healthcare coverage. and yes OHIP was fought for and driven by the labour movement. Look around you and you will see that everywhere corporations are looking to "downsize" "contact out" and "outsource" jobs to temp job agencies so that they don't have "job security". lets look at one senario.... the average Garbage worker, lets say for the sake of arguement that the average garbage worker makes $50,000 per annum it's a fair wage you might say and no one will argue. Now out of that comes about 50% for various taxes paid throughout the year. All of which goes right back into the local economy! The work is being done for what it actually costs to do the work without the impediment of having to make a profit. Now on the other side you have a company that is a foreign based private company that hires the majority of its staff from a staffing agency. The Contractor says I can save you Millions! Great says the City where do I sign? Here is what happens... The city divests itself of it's assets and hires the contractor, The contractor has bid in order to get the contract and still has to make a profit, the contractor gets a tax break in order to preserve its profit margin, the contractor hires a temp agency to provide staffing, they pay the temp agency $48,000. Now the temp agency is company unto itself and it has to make a profit too! So it makes it's profits directly off the worker! The worker has to literally buy his job! ata a cost of say, $18,000 per year! Most of this pure profit and if the parent company happens to be based in another country as is usually the case takes the money out of the local economy. This in turn leaves the Worker with less than $30,000 with which to feed his family pay his bills and put a roof over his head, and of course pay taxes but given that he now doesn't make enough to pay taxes, reducing the Tax base of the country. If the country doesn't have a decent tax base it can't afford to provide services. It is really quite a complex cycle. But the reality is very simple, the people that have money the more it stays in circulation and thus a stronger economy! If you allow only a few to have all the wealth then the rest of the community suffers and a recession occurs. Unions do not create recessions they help prevent and recover from them?
Only Contractors that are "approved" by the unions are allowed to work on these projects, any others are bullied out, threatened by these mob orginizations who have supreme power and the law on their side. Only those select contractors willing to submit to the Mob demands and conform to the "rules" and pay large amounts of money under the table will be allowed to work on those projects. ( remember how the Mob used to demand "protection money" from businesses?)
I can go on forever with not only allegations but proof of such as well.
We no longer need UNIONS to protect workers. We have excellent labor laws in place in Ontario and with some small changes in Ontarios Fair Wage policy and implementation of legal resources made available to workers we can offer workers the same benefits unions claim to fight for and save tens of millions of tax dollars at the same time.
Mr McDonald.. would you care to respond to this ? I am certain should you decide to do so you will cleverly address the issues and allegations and i shall gladly respond as well.