City Workers Strike 2009

[GenerationW]

When the union sets a deadline to stop negotiations on Sunday, and an agreement comes on Monday via extended bargaining, the most likely conclusion is that the City caved.

Can't wait to hear the details, but the optics here look bad for Mr. Miller.

 

[kettal]

I doubt a garbage collector is going to spread illness when he has the sniffles. One, he's in contact with few people, and two, he's already handling garbage. Most colds are transmitted through contact, and these people should be washing their hands before using common surfaces.

Do you realize that most of the employees on strike are not garbage collectors? The contract covers childcare workers, nurses, paramedics, and many city office workers. Not the kind of people you want showing up sick to keep a sick bank...

 

[Eug]

What a frickin' joke.

Miller caved

The City of Toronto's current unionized employees will have the option to keep their controversial banked sick days, but new hires will be denied the perk under the terms of a tentative deal workers are expected to vote on tomorrow, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Sources say the potential agreement is three years long – not four as Mayor David Miller and the city proposed publicly earlier in the dispute – and includes pay raises of 6 per cent over three years, slightly more than an earlier public offer, which proposed a 4-per-cent bump in its first three years.

 

[kEiThZ]

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/sueann_levy/2009/07/28/10283586-sun.html

Not one to usually side with the Sun, but they are correct this time around.

The City's only hope to stay on a somewhat even financial keel next year is to get help from the province. Let's see how McGuinty feels about paying for Miller's settlements with the Unions.

For the record though, I do think the pay increments were fair. They were essentially cost of living increases. Not winning on the bankable sick days has failed to neutralize a huge liability. It'd be like Obama trying to fix the sinking ship that is the US federal budget without addressing health care and defence costs.

 

[Hank]

A cost-of-living increase isn't fair if the underlying wage is already 40% too high. The only fair solution would be to freeze public-sector wages for a number of years until they're more in line with what these jobs are worth. It's not going to happen (and certainly not under Miller) but something has to be done about this.

I think Miller's going to be in real trouble from any credible candidate in the next election that vows to take on the unions.

 

[Dilla]

A cost-of-living increase isn't fair if the underlying wage is already 40% too high.

Absolutely. Moreover, inflation was negative this year, and most likely isn't going to go over 2% for the next three years.

The one good thing about the deal is that it's three years. That means we don't have to wait as long for the contract to expire, then the city can tender out the garbage collection and maybe a few other services (ferry to the island?). In fact, it seems pretty obvious after living without 30 000 of these people working for over a month, a lot of them are redundant. If it weren't for the garbage, most people wouldn't have noticed that they weren't working. If the garbage collection is privatized, this union isn't going to have nearly as much clout; they could strike all year, and most people wouldn't care.

Also, the city should insist that 79 and 416's contract expire at different times. There's no reason one should be piggybacking on the other. What happened yesterday with the 416 waiting was beyond unacceptable.

 

[TOinTO]

Remember the TTC union negotiations? The city and the union talked about 'bitter' negotiations right down the the wire. Then the city gave the union just about everything they wanted - including the 'highest paid in the GTA' guarantee. (Then, of course, the union went on strike anyways, just for symbolic F U to the people of Toronto).

Sounds like the city played the same game with this strike. Essentially a long drawn out bluff followed by capitulation.

I agree with others that if the bankable sick days were retained (even for only current staff), and they got 2%/year, then Miller will be an easy target in the next election. The opponent won't even have to be a union buster. They'll just have to say 'I will not put the interests of the unions above the interests of the taxpayers'.

 

[Dilla]

An email from a friend of mine who works for the city (non-union), regarding David Miller's press conference.

You catch his speech? He thanked everyone except the non-union staff who have been working 84 hour weeks to keep the City running. Thanks Dave, you've got my vote for the next election.

Its even more fun when you're on the inside and have to watch this calamity unfold.

EDIT: I should add these are the people who got a pay freeze.

 

[GraphicMatt]

This looks to be badly handled. I'm terrified that this kind of incompetence will swing the electorate toward some right-wing candidate who will do nothing but cut services.

The City wasn't in terrible spirits. We could have gone another month or even two without service. The union's "deadline" was a sign that the union was weak - it's not like they could just stop negotiating full-stop.

 

[lead82]

I sincerely hope Miller does not get re-elected next year. He has screwed up big time on all fronts, but most importantly his credibility.

Toronto has had huge tax increases and a deterioration of services. We are paying more and getting less and less back. Most of this is caused by huge inefficiencies at City Hall and the insanely large public sector we have in the City of Toronto.

Lets keep this all in mind in November 2010, as everyone on UT forums and Toronto should have a mass rally against Miller and his re-election and ensure that everyone votes to kick Miller and his leftist supporters out of city hall and get this city back to work to serve the people that live and work here.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Lets keep this all in mind in November 2010, as everyone on UT forums and Toronto should have a mass rally against Miller and his re-election and ensure that everyone votes to kick Miller and his leftist supporters out of city hall and get this city back to work to serve the people that live and work here.

And then we can all welcome our new mayor: Karen Stintz!

We might be a little bit doomed.

 

[kEiThZ]

And then we can all welcome our new mayor: Karen Stintz!

At this point I am willing to give her a kick at the can instead of enduring another round of Neville Chamberlain type appeasement. He wasn't even willing to threaten them with privatization in the future. So what stick did he have to negotiate with? He essentially sought concessions by offering them a small carrot and no stick. They responded by demanding the the entire vegetable patch and he caved.

 

[Whoaccio]

That Karen Stintz is considered to be "some right-wing candidate who will do nothing but cut services" is sort of proof that politics are out of whack here. I wouldn't vote for her NIMBYism, but lets be real, there are very few if any 'right wing' candidates at this point. Most of the people who are referred to as "right wing" are almost always Liberals by any other name. Maybe at best a red tory of some sort, but left leaning Torontonians have to stop crowing about how anyone to the right of former Marxist Paula Fletcher is an abortion clinic bombing Mike Harris redux. It is ridiculous. You can support broadly social democratic goals without being a total union stooge or LRT fanboy.

 

[Asterix]

R
I agree with others that if the bankable sick days were retained (even for only current staff), and they got 2%/year, then Miller will be an easy target in the next election.

As much as I don't agree with the whole concept of bankable sick days (let alone getting 18 of them a year), I don't think it can be justified to take away something that has already been earned.

By all means, remove the ability to accumulate/bank sick days going forward, limit (or even cut salaries and job positions) but you have contractually agreed to allow their banking to date and I don't like the idea of retroactively taking away what has already been 'earned' (whether one agrees with what was earned or not).

Maybe it's possible that the city stopped the continued banking of sick days (allowing Miller to say the city got the concession) while the union ensured that sick days that had been banked will not be taken away (which I've heard was a worry amongst union members), allowing them to say they fought off the concession.

Just hypothesizing.

 

[cdr108]

THE COMPROMISE - Strike aftermath: Who blinked?

From the Toronto Star:

Workers can take sick day cash now or freeze what's in the bank for bigger payday at retirement, sources say

John Spears
Donovan Vincent
City Hall Bureau

It was compromise by both sides on the strike's key issue – city employees' ability to bank sick days until a rich retirement payout – that let exhausted negotiators finally shake hands after 35 days of bruising discord, sources say.

The 30,000 workers hit the bricks June 22 determined to preserve the system allowing them to accumulate up to six months of unused sick time to be paid out when they left or retired.

Mayor David Miller has argued the city is no longer able to afford the provision and should scrap it, giving employees an immediate but partial payment for banked time, estimated to average $8,500.

Three sources confirmed that yesterday's wee-hours breakthrough gives workers an option: take the immediate cash, or freeze what's now in the bank and collect the payout upon retirement.

No further sick days can be accumulated, as the city moves to a short-term disability plan that provides benefits only to those who are ill or injured.

The compromise lets the city say it ended the sick-bank system, because no further days will accumulate and many workers will want the instant cash.

But it also allows the leaders of the two striking Canadian Union of Public Employees locals to say they protected the banked time of members who want to hold on to it until retirement

Miller, asked yesterday if sick day banking is over, would only say: "Any issue at the table, to reach agreement there has to be flexibility on all sides.''

The most recent financial statements show unused sick pay will cost $249 million in future payments, offset by reserves of only $63 million.

Miller said the deal falls within parameters set by council before the strike and "is consistent with 2009 public sector settlements." He enraged union leaders mid-strike by publicly releasing an offer with a 1 per cent pay hike in each of the first two years, 2 per cent in 2011 and 3 per cent in 2012.

Miller's opponents on the right-wing faction of city council were concerned and puzzled yesterday by a statement by Mark Ferguson, president of CUPE Local 416, that his negotiators managed to "fight back all of the concessions" the city had sought.

The critics said that, before they'll support a deal, they want evidence that the city made some measurable gains, given that residents suffered through a five-week strike that shut down daycares, summer camps, garbage pickup and building inspections.

"I will be looking for wage increases that are reasonable and affordable for the city. I certainly do want to see what the value of the entire package is, so that we understand the long-term implications for the city," Councillor Karen Stintz said.

Stintz added that the "sick bank needs to be out, absolutely," and replaced with a short-term disability plan for the deal to get her vote at council.

Councillor Doug Holyday, who sits on the Employee and Labour Relations committee, said: "If for some reason sick leave has been taken off the table – I can't believe that could be the case – but if that was the case, then I think this would have a tough time getting through council, period.

Ann Dembinski, president of CUPE Local 79, said workers will be happy with the agreement, but that hostility to council and senior city managers will linger.

"Labour relations has been set back decades," she told reporters after the deal was reached.

"It will not be the same for years to come.

"You can't treat members like this and expect things to ever be the same," she added later, predicting there will be a much more combative attitude in day-to-day dealings with senior managers.

The union leaders were especially angry when Miller released the city's proposal publically July 10.

They regarded that as an attempt by the city to bypass the union and bargain directly with the members.

And throughout the strike, the city and union each accused the other of dragging their feet during bargaining.

The city and Local 79 couldn't even agree at the end to coordinate their news conferences: Miller and Dembinski spoke almost simultaneously, in different locations, instead of the usual procedure of letting one go first.