CUPE Ontario votes to approve province-wide strike action

OMERS

[ 27 April 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CUPE_Reformer:
"Over 450 leaders attended an emergency meeting in Toronto, called to debate and vote on a plan of action to stop Bill 206."

CUPE Ontario votes to approve province-wide strike action

OMERS

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

---

Hmmm, now I'm not clear on what CUPE is saying, maybe someone can clarify this:

Accoring to CUPE: Sally, a CUPE member in OMERS,
worked for 30 years and retired at age 65. With the current OMERS accrual rate of 1.325 per cent,
multiplied by the five best years of her wages (at $30,000 a year) she receives a pension of $11,925 a year."

"oyee that together exceed an annual amount calculated as follows:

1. Two per cent of the employee's average annual earnings during the 60 consecutive months during which his or her earnings as an employee were highest, multiplied by the number of years of his or her pensionable service under the OMERS pension plans."

I do know that an increase in contributions is partly because of the legislated distribution of the surplus, something OMERS had no choice about. I do disagree with how they distributed the surplus.

Autonomy isn't necessrily a bad thing, if they had had autonomy at the time the surplus distribution was mandated, they might not be in a position of having to raise contributions now.

My understanding about the supplementary plan is that it is a separate, stand-alone pension plan that would offer benefits not available in the OMERS basic pension plan. I wouldn't object to it being offered to other groups if they wish to participate in itl.

http://www.omers.com/userfiles/page_attachments/library/1/Biro_Letter_1879_1736374.pdf

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: chilipepper ]

[ 27 April 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
450 union leaders just in Ontario? Sounds like more chiefs tha indians. A bloated organisation?

---

No, just the largest union in the country. CUPE Ontario has about 180,000 members according to their website, which translates to about one leader for every 400 workers. Doesn't sound too top-heavy to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red T-shirt:
This is a huge and complex issue which would take a great deal of study to understand completely. Here are a few things I do know.
We're dealing with 2 different groups of people. One have an NRA (normal retirement age) of 60 and the others are NRA 65. The NRA 60 group pay more of each dollar earned into the pension plan to compensate for their earlier retirements.
The supposed "sweatheart deal" gives nobody anything beyond permission to negotiate for certain pension improvements. Each improvement comes with an attached cost to be shared equally by the employee and his employer.
Each improvement will also be bargained as part of a total compensation package and therefore if achieved, will be gained in lieu of other pay and/or benefit improvements.
Because the cost of each benefit is calculated by OMERS and levied against the individuals who will recieve it, nobody will be expected to pay for anyone elses benefits.

---

That's the way I understand it too. I have done some reading and still havn't been able to find out what CUPE is basing its information on. It also appears that CUPE members have not been fully informed.

http://www.omers.com/English/OMERS-pensions-remain-secure-as-Bill-206-moves-forward.html

http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/session2/b206rep_e.htm

http://www.ontla.on.ca/french/hansard/committee_debates/38_parl/session2/gengov/G015.htm#P80_3073

Check out the comments here:

quote:

---

Here’s what’s wrong with Bill 206:

* It requires a 2/3 majority vote for any changes to the pension plan or governance of the plan — something that does not exist in any other public pension plan in Canada and does not make sense when the board is half employers and half employees. Pension improvements will be virtually impossible.

* It stacks the Administration Board in favour of employers. The bill gives a group representing the top level of management a seat on the employee side.

* It requires a majority vote to send a dispute to mediation and 2/3 to accept the recommendations, not the mechanism, similar to the Teacher’s Plan, promised by Dalton McGuinty when he was in opposition.

* It discriminates against the majority of members — women and lower paid workers especially — giving a minority the right to fast-track supplemental benefits while everyone else must get 2/3 majority support.

Here’s what we want instead of Bill 206:

* A negotiation table for employer, employee and retiree organizations to decide a fair model for a self-governed pension plan

* A defined timeline so negotiations do not go on forever

If the provincial government introduces Bill 206 for third and final reading in its current state, CUPE Ontario will exercise the mandate it has received from CUPE members who belong to OMERS and call a strike.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
From the CUPE website

---

* It discriminates against the majority of members — women and lower paid workers especially — giving a minority the right to fast-track supplemental benefits while everyone else must get 2/3 majority support.*

How does it discriminate against women and lower paid workers? Granted it doesn't seem fair that they don't require 2/3 to fast track. And why can't CUPE negotiate the same supplemental benefits for all workers, if gives them the option right ?

All workers in the same company, pay in to the plan at the same percentage and receive benefits based on the same forumula. (Except very high paid workers whose pension is capped under legislation, unless its been changed since )

Its the second time the McGuinty government has pulled this kind of shit.

They first pulled this tactic over the "card check" system for union certification (the card check system had been abolished by the Harris government). They agreed to restore it for the construction trades but not for workers in other industries.

It was denounced by other unions as being sexist...which it is...and perhaps racist as well.
How many female construction workers are there in this province?

So if you were trying to organize (predominantly male) construction workers you had the card check system. If you were trying to organize low wage female largely immigrant and visible minority women in the service sector...you're stuck with the full weight of the old Mike Harris anti-union legislation.

Some of the most aggressive organizing drives going on in the province these days are by unions like UNITE-HERE and SEIU amongst low-paid immigrant and visible minority women.

In the OMERS situation its somewhat more complex, but from where I sit, the workers who will benefit from this bill tend to be higher paid, white male workers.

CUPE represents most of the folks in the OMERS plan...and represents most of the lower-paid groups who tend to be female and/or visible minority. So yes its institutionalized sexism/racism...the very things that the labour movement should be fighting against.

Supplemental Plans
Under Bill 206, the Sponsors Corporation is required to set up a supplemental pension plan for members employed in the police and fire sector (this includes paramedics). The benefits to be provided are outlined in the Bill. The Bill allows for the Sponsors Corporation to establish supplemental plans for other members as well. These are separate, stand-alone registered pension plans that would offer benefits not available in the OMERS basic pension plan. Within each supplemental plan there would be a choice of benefits that would be bargained at the local level.

Supplemental plans are established under specific criteria in the Income Tax Act. In OMERS case, supplemental plans would be negotiated between individual employers and eligible employees. This would allow for local bargaining of benefits between the employer and the union. If additional benefits were offered, contributions for those participating employees and employers would be increased.

But the main thing I see happening here is the McGuinty Liberals playing a game deliberately attempting to divide the labour movement by setting up a situation where one group of workers is put in an ever so slightly "better" position than another group of workers.

One group feels the need to defend their "gains" (and shouldn't it be easier to organize unions and get better pensions?) while the other group of workers is left out of the picture.

1) solvency deficiencies will be borne by the entire membership (hence the 65 group being forced to subsidize emergency workers).

2) Fiberals made the promise, municipalities bear the cost. Mike Harris all over again.

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: disobedient ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
I'll stand corrected on the percentage of CUPE members in OMERS, but its still the largest single union...and while yes it does have members who are in higher paying male-dominated occupations, it has the bulk of public sector workers who are in the lower paid female and immigrant/visible minority dominated occupations...so yes they do have something to complain about.
.

---

This is true, Toronto Hydro was in the forefront of employment equity (which was very aggressive at the time) and pay equity. They hired and trained the first female Lineperson, don't know how many there are there now. They hired female mechanics and of course there were visible minorities hired, not just clerical but in engineering positions.

If women and minorities are in lower paid position it's not because of discrimination, its because they lack the qualifications/education for the higher positions.

There seems to be two different sides to the OMERS issue, and to me some of it is interpretation, not necessarily actuality. Red T-shirt has posted information from OMERS; I honestly don't see anything discriminatory etc. about it. CUPE is free to negotiate supplemental benefits for other groups, which they should concentrate on doing.

quote:

---

CUPE is free to negotiate supplemental benefits for other groups, which they should concentrate on doing.

---

The real underlying story is that the Proince is failing to pony up for the increased Employer costs. CUPE's primary concern in return is that:

a) Their members will bear part of the increased liability of the plan. Or technically speaking they bear the consequences of the Employer failing to meet its liability.

a) Their members will bear part of the increased liability of the plan. Or technically speaking they bear the consequences of the Employer failing to meet its liability.

quote:

---

If women and minorities are in lower paid position it's not because of discrimination, its because they lack the qualifications/education for the higher positions.

---

Thread drift for a second... I think that we are a long way away from a "discrimination-free" workplace. "Formal" discrimination has pretty much disappeared, but systemic discrimination has not.

quote:

---

With the union poised to walk off the job, about 6,500 said yesterday they won't join the strike.

But the union's quarrel is with the province, not with the city of Ottawa or its citizens, Ottawa-Carleton CUPE Local 503 president Jim Robillard said in an open letter to his members.

"We are not bound by CUPE Ontario's decision to strike," Robillard wrote. "Local 503 is not going on strike."

CUPE Locals in Peterborough, Belleville and Prince Edward County all rejected the idea of joining the strike...

---

CUPE solidarity breaks

CUPE Local 503 - Canada's Only No Strike Municipal Union

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red T-shirt:
Yes, discrimination is stil alive and well, if perhaps better disguised these days. Police, Fire and others have been doing outreach for many years in order to have our workforces better reflect the makeup of the community. For Fire the problem is greatly complicated by the physical demands of the job. While 75% of males can meet the minimum physical requirements, only 25% of women can do so. There are also not a huge number of women out there that are attracted to this traditionally male dominated occupation. The same could be said for minority candidates. They don't see themselves well represented in the occupation and some thus don't see it as a real opportunity. Still. preference is being given to female candidates and all of those that self-identify as visible minorities.
Sorry about the drift, but I think this all plays back into the idea that Bill 206 is racist and sexist.

---

Qualifications and standards have been lowered over time to help women pass the physical componont, and more weighting is given to the soft questions. This still hasn't reached the desired results. Why, because women simply do not have the physical means to pass the tests, some women can, but not many. Not too many women can handle a pile driver or other large scale equipment needed on some jobs, few women can meet the physical requirements to be a lineperson, and few minorities even appied. This is not discrimination, its just a fact of life.

I don't doubt that there are places which do discriminate, but over the years and contact with many other organizations and conferences, I feel that everything has been done to accomodate women and minorities. Old boy networking isn't what it used to be, neither is discrimination, if the applicant has the merit, qualifications plus the additional points, they will get the jobs over the white male. In fact, particularly in government, and public organizations you will find that it is the white male who is excluded from applying for a number of positions.

As this generation of women stay in the workforce until retirement, they too will have their own pensions and not be reliant upon their husband's.

I don't see the bill as being racist or sexist, but maybe there needs to be more consultation with other groups and some better information from both sides as to its real impact. I don't think we have the whole picture somehow.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: chilipepper ]

1- There will be some addtional costs because OMERS will now run both the administrative board and the sponsors board (the latter formerly run by the Province). Those costs will be shared by the employees and the employers (Municipalities) so AMO's claim that it will cost municipalities more is not totally false, just mostly.

2- Pensioners have nothing to worry about as their existing plans will not be impacted in any way, not even by the slight increase in administartion costs because they no longer make contributions.

3- The current plan would not have had one employee group subsidizing the benefits of another, but just to err on the side of caution an NDP amendment was accepted (word for word) that makes it crystal clear that the money in the main plan cannot ever be used to pay for any shortfall in any supplimentary benefit plan. Only those in a supplimentary plan & their employers will pay for 100% of it.

4- Paramedics will be eligible for supplimentary plans in spite of the fact that some stakeholders have been telling otherwise.

quote:

---

As a member of CUPE 79's part time Recreation Unit, I am embarrassed by the frightened behaviour of the leadership of my local. To bail out of this conflict with the Province is shameful. Are some of us more equal than others? Are office workers some how more special than garbage collectors?

In 2002, 79 left it to 416 to do carry out any serious actions. In 2006, 79 is asking the rest of CUPE Ontario to bail it out. We are asking our sisters and brothers to bear the burden of possible punishment and discipline so that we may benefit without risk. A duty officer told me today that the local was just "protecting its members jobs" and that any support for an illegal strike would be illegal.

For most people "illegal" equals "criminal" and implies that we could be held criminally accountible for participation in this strike. This is false.

The OMERS Bill is reactionary garbage that splits and divides working people with special protections going to police and some other workers. Splitting paramedics into different categories is rotten.

As a low waged recreation and child care worker I do not have a pension AND am exposed to numerous health and safety problems on a daily basis. I do not want to see my possible future pension thrown away.

Sincerely,

---

[ 22 February 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

Perhaps they'll come to an agreement...we can hope.

The fact that there are talks going on at all on the legislation is a tribute to CUPE being willing to mobilize its membership around the issue.

[ 27 April 2007: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]