CUPE Strike in Toronto: Union announces a deal with city
Outside workers only at this point
Negotiations between Toronto and the union representing the city's outdoor workers have resulted in a tentative deal shortly after a second deadline passed this morning after a full night of high-stakes bargaining.
CUPE Local 416 president Mark Ferguson says there is the “basis for a deal” with the city to end a 35-day strike.
....
Mr. Ferguson represents 6,200 outdoor workers, including garbage collectors, drivers and paramedics.
Negotiations with Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 79, which represents indoor workers, went through the night and continue today, Ms. Daley said. They have not set a deadline.
Earlier yesterday, city and union spokesmen agreed the pace of negotiations had picked up on the weekend, with a few issues sorted out, but only if an overall package falls into place.
“The fact there have been virtually round-the-clock discussions in the past couple of days is a good sign, but until an agreement is reached I won't be optimistic,” Mayor David Miller said. “I will be optimistic once I know that an agreement has been reached that is fair to workers and affordable to the city.”
Wow, "union spokesmen". We chicks have come a long way, baby, but not long enough, apparently.
Anyhoo, that point out of the way - that's great news! I hope the union gets a fair deal out of it.
Are you objecting to the lack of females speaking on behalf of the union, or is it the case that the "spokesmen" were in fact female?
I don't think we need to have this debate in this thread, but I'd be happy to start one in the feminism forum if you really want me to explain why it's problematic to use gender-specific terms to refer to people's positions...
This is absolutely good news. Hopefully this leads to a fair end to the whole strike.
And how is "spokespersons" difficult, Spector?
according to 1 report I heard. The union won on all 116 concessions it demanded from the city. if this is true then why the lengthy strike?
Saved the city a whack load of money?
I don't think the union was demanding 116 concessions from the city!!!!!
What I heard was that sometime last night, the city removed its last concession demands from the table.
But I could be wrong.
And how is "spokespersons" difficult, Spector?
I would call them spokespersons if I didn't know their gender, but if I knew their gender (as presumably the news reporters do) I would call them spokesmen if they were men, spokeswomen if they were women, and spokespersons if they were of mixed gender.
Similarly, I would refer to a group of people of unknown gender (or known to be of mixed gender) as "people". If I knew they were all men, I'd call them "men", and if I knew they were all women I'd call them "women."
Or you can just use gender neutral terms unless gender is specifically necessary to the story. "Spokesman" should be put in the dustbin, just like "chairman". A man or a woman who speaks for a given organization is a "spokesperson", like the head of a board of an organization is the "chair" or "chairperson". Isn't that easier, and better?
Nope.
Using gender-indeterminate terms when you know the gender in question conveys less information, and is therefore undesirable. Why go out of your way to use special language designed solely to disguise someone's gender?
Anyone reading or hearing the gender-indeterminate word and wishing to write or speak about the matter ends up having to use (quite unnecessarily) gender-indeterminate pronouns to refer to them, in awkward syntax. For example:
News report: A spokesperson for Mr. Harper told me the Prime Minister was meeting with the ambassador at an undisclosed location.
Response: Why didn't the reporter ask him or her why he or she would not disclose the location?
How do we manage with terms that don't have a "_____man" and "_______woman" (or worse yet "______" and "________ess") construction? Like teacher, for example.
Spector - give it up. We gender-neutralized every single thing in our union bylaws and in our collective agreements decades ago. The cost in occasional circumlocution is far outweighed by the feeling of our female members that history and society no longer exclude them by default. I believe we should make a conscious effort to excise even genderized pronouns from our language (he, she, his, her) - there are many languages that do without them.
Or, if you feel strongly about it, why not add more terms - like "oldwhiteteacher" and "youngblackgarbagecollector"? After all, how the hell can you tell just from the word "teacher" what colour or age the person is?
Should we also ban the use of the pronounds "he" and "she" across the board and refer to everyone as "co" or "it"?
Sorry to interupt, but does anyone know anything about the deal that was struck?
edited for taste
edited for smell
Only at babble could the good news about Torontonians being able to once again ship thier garbage next to an Indian Reserve be derailed into a discussion about word usage.
Game on people! Get them lithium batteries down to Southwold Township!
Dancing in the streets.
We gender-neutralized every single thing in our union bylaws and in our collective agreements decades ago.
As well you should have, since those documents are not referring to specific known individuals. There is no reason in such cases to arbitrarily assign a gender-specific word to a position or office, thereby causing people to feel excluded from that position.
But if the person in charge of your bargaining committee happens to be a woman, there's no reason not to refer to her as the Chairwoman of that committee.
Pronouns are very useful in English and other languages. I would no sooner agree to speak and write without using them than I would agree to stop using words containing the letter e.
The person's age or colour has no bearing on what pronoun I would use to refer to him or her.
Just heard Toronto city counsellor Doug Holyday on about the clean-up post-settlement, and he feels it's important not to pay Toronto city workers overtime for clearing all that garbage out of the parks, hockey arenas, etc. He said the city should pay the regular staff to clean up during the day, but for overtime, the city should hire private contractors in order to not give the staff "incentive" to prolong the strike.
Just thought I'd share. I apologize for the thread drift. You guys carry on defending why flight attendants should be called stewardesses.
After all, if you're talking about someone's job, gender should be front and centre.
Pronouns are very useful in English and other languages. I would no sooner agree to speak and write without using them than I would agree to stop using words containing the letter e.
I said "genderized pronouns", as you are probably aware, not "pronouns". Genderized pronouns are utterly dispensable. All they do is force us to pick a sex for an individual that we're referring to, even where it doesn't matter or we don't know. It's actually a marker of division and inequality and serves no practical purpose beyond that.
No kidding - because English doesn't incorporate age or colour into its pronouns. It does incorporate sex, so you are forced to identify a person's sex whether you want to or not. All I did was make a "modest proposal" - expand pronouns so that when you talk about an individual, you are forced to also identify their age, colour, and why not, their looks, intelligence, religion, and income level.
I can't believe we are debating gender specific pronouns. Precisely why would recognize someone's gender when their gender was irrelevant?
Just thought I'd share. I apologize for the thread drift.
Touché. But the rule here is that thread drift is ok when it's started by a mod (see post #2). After that, only the mod can put an end to it.
As for Mr. Holyday, I think he has a good point. Workers love to go on strike and stay out as long as possible, on the off chance that they'll be able to make their lost thousands of dollars back by working overtime later.
People like Holyday, who have never done an honest day's work nor ever rendered a useful service to the public, illustrate very well the general principle: You can judge people's character by the aims and motives that they attribute to others. A slimy little thief, for example (NB: I am NOT of course referring to Mr. Holyday!!!), views everyone else as being a slimy little thief.
"Just heard Toronto city counsellor Doug Holyday on about the clean-up post-settlement, and he feels it's important not to pay Toronto city workers overtime for clearing all that garbage out of the parks, hockey arenas, etc. He said the city should pay the regular staff to clean up during the day, but for overtime, the city should hire private contractors in order to not give the staff "incentive" to prolong the strike."
What a slimey asshat!
I love when non-Torontonians learn about the idiot conservative municipal politicians we have. Makes me all warm and fuzzy with cross-country solidarity.
For the record, Holyday is a fuckwad asshat.
Thanks for putting us back on track, Sineed.
P.S. Damn you for starting the drift Michelle! Please take the 30-year old conversation about gender and the English language elsewhere people!
Some bits and pieces of the deal have leaked out. It sounds like current workers can keep their accumulated sick days or cash them out right away at a lower rate - but there will be no more accumulation of sick days in the future and new hires won't be able to accumulate sick days - and there will be a short term disability plan. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me where everyone puts some water in their wine.
Seems like a reasonable compromise to me where everyone puts some water in their wine.
I never understood that expression. Personally, I'd rather have less wine than more watery wine. Unless it's a New Testament thing where you can put water in your wine, then get some dude to turn it into pure wine...
Any news on what happened to the wage settlement?
I don't think we need to have this debate in this thread,
Hi madmax. The drift is over. Let's please try to stay on topic.
Does anyone know when the ratification vote is?
I'll hang out on the 401/Highbury road interchange here in London. When the garbage scows come rolling through, I'll take that as a sign that the new contract was ratified, and let you guys know.
Where does your garbage go, Tommy?
It stays within the confines of London, at the Westminister site off Wellington road.
Maybe when it's full, we can just ship ours to Rosedale.
And what if almost three million people moved to London? Would you still have room in London for garbage?
You know.
This all seems pretty funny, or ought to, to those living outside Toronto. I remember when David Miller first took over as mayor. Back then the lefty ethic about the Toronto Garbage crisis was not to ship it elsewhere, that in terms of environmentally sound practices, municipalities shouldn't be exporting their garbage, but taking responsibility for it themselves.
Then lefty, progressive David Miller "solved" the problem by quietly approaching Green Lane in Southwold township, and viola! problem solved!
You know, left wing or right wing there's a certain breed of smarmy oily used condom recepticle that thinks "problem solving" includes making the problem someone else's. David Miller is this type. I know his kind. What's wrong with him is wrong all the way through him.
But, the juiciest bits here is how this gets a free pass from all the progressives in Toronto.
Just imagine if John Tory had won the mayoral election, and "solved" the Toronto garbage crisis by shipping it down the road and burying it next to Dingman creek, across which is located the Chippewa on the Thames Reserve.
You'd all be calling him a racist, and a smarmy oily used condom recepticle.
So, for a few weeks this summer Torontonians had to wallow in their own stink.
Looks good on ya.
And what if almost three million people moved to London? Would you still have room in London for garbage?
We'd have to keep it here. The province wouldn't allow London or anyone but Toronto to ship it outside.
I totally understand where you're coming from - I think we need to do more about our garbage situation too.
But what do you suggest we do? What are you doing in London that we're not doing? Are you magically making it disappear somehow? Or do you have room to dump that we don't have because you have vast tracts of empty land on the outskirts of your city that we don't have? (We have cities on our outskirts.)
What is London doing that we aren't doing here and should be?
Actually, don't answer that here. I'll start a new thread.
Here it is.
Moved to the new thread.
Here's some snippets of the new contract:
The deal for CUPE 79 members includes:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/673376
Here's some snippets of the new contract:
The deal for CUPE 79 members includes:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/673376
While these bullet points may well appear in some union summary addressed to its members, they are next-to-meaningless in an MSM article without context:
Really? No change for sick day banking for current employees? How much you wanna bet?
Ummm, is that worse or better than what they have now?? How much you wannt bet its worse?
Same question, and same bet.
If anyone knows the answers, I'd appreciate hearing them, even if I lose these bets.
Good questions, unionist. The banking of sick days is being phased out: no new employees will be able to do this, just current employees who are being grandfathered.
I don't know the answers to your other questions as yet.
Question: local 416 isn't voting yet due to a few disputes still being dealt with. For instance, they want an amnesty clause, and frankly, I totally disagree with this. In OPSEU, amnesty clauses have been used to get people off the hook for firing offenses, so basically, certain sociopathic individuals know that they get to abuse their coworkers with impunity during a strike. I get the idea behind them but in practice, amnesty clauses protect people who shouldn't be protected.
Good questions, unionist. The banking of sick days is being phased out: no new employees will be able to do this, just current employees who are being grandfathered.
My question was whether there is no change for current employees. I'll bet there is. "Grandfathers" come in many shapes and sizes. Still waiting for someone who actually knows the specifics, because the union hasn't released them yet.
Question: local 416 isn't voting yet due to a few disputes still being dealt with. For instance, they want an amnesty clause, and frankly, I totally disagree with this. In OPSEU, amnesty clauses have been used to get people off the hook for firing offenses, so basically, certain sociopathic individuals know that they get to abuse their coworkers with impunity during a strike. I get the idea behind them but in practice, amnesty clauses protect people who shouldn't be protected.
Sineed, "amnesty", like grandfathers, come in many shapes and sizes. We frequently bargain amnesty clauses for non-criminal matters. You can't bargain amnesty for assault, threats, sabotage, etc., because those are laid by the Crown. But what's wrong with amnesty for non-criminal strike-related activity? I can give lots of examples if you like.
I know you can't bargain for exemptions for behaviour that's covered by the Criminal Code. But what about where one member slags another by name on a publically-accessible website, questioning the person's integrity and competence, and when the aggressor was on the verge of being disciplined, it was specifically written into the new contract that this person was to be exempt from discipline?
http://www.opseu.org/ops/barg2008/tabletalk/COR_NoReprisal_090301.pdf
This I find completely unconscionable. The offending blog was taken down, but I read it beforehand, and the person being slagged was not a member of management.
If the person wasn't a member of management, obviously they have lots of civil recourse under the law which no one can "bargain away" on their behalf. All the amnesty arrangement does is to say that the Employer won't take measures. Nothing stops the person being slagged from exacting whatever the law provides. I'm not trying to justify your particular amnesty agreement - it merely confirms that amnesties, like grandfathers, come in many shapes and sizes.
We may have spoken too soon; turns out the outside workers, CUPE 416, have put off their ratification vote indefinitely due to "further issues." One of these issues regards clean-up: the city wants to use private contractors to clean up the heaps of trash.
To quibble about amnesty clauses further: if the union has to include them on behalf of people who behave badly, doesn't that end up taking away from something else the union could ask for that benefits all members? My experience is in the public sector, and the amnesty clause ends up benefiting abusive people who (surprise surprise) are not, in the normal course of things, the best workers, but instead, the nasty, passive-aggressive stupid ones, the stereotypical public service employees that people on the right believe are universal.
Maybe it's different in the private sector.
The mayor is being interviewed live right now - he's saying that the change to the sick bank could only have been achieved through negotiation, and if they'd been legislated back to work, an arbitrator would not have challenged that.
After a long and bitter strike, and usually after a wildcat, "amnesty" for things that happned on the picket line is negotiated before something is brought to the worker's for ratification, excepting, as Unionist pointed out, criminal charges which aren't within the perview of the employer or union. Same with other "back to work" work protocols. You get that done before you announce a tentative aggreement has been reached.
For the exact reasons we see happening here. All it takes is one vindictive politician, or city manager to derail a lot of hard work.
In Windsor, the workers were probably going to ratify a few weeks before they did-- except managers showed up at the ratification meeting (!!! ???) with "back to work protocols".
If I was on the bargaining committee for the union in this case I'd be calling an emergency meeting with the city negotiators, and I'd get this all ironed out fast. And then I'd find the dork who started all this, and follow him into the washroom and clarify why this isn't the way business is done, in a way he'd never forget.
To quibble about amnesty clauses further: if the union has to include them on behalf of people who behave badly, doesn't that end up taking away from something else the union could ask for that benefits all members?
That's a huge generalization which simply doesn't work in real life. "Behave badly", where it's not criminal, covers a huge range of opinion, doesn't it?
If those persons are bad workers - abusive or non-productive - they should be investigated and disciplined in the normal course of things. A strike or lockout, with its attendant creation of all kinds of abnormal and exaggerated situations, should not be the pretext for determining whether someone's employment should be jeopardized or not.
I doubt it, though my experience is in the private sector.
I'm still waiting to hear what the actual change is. I simply can't believe that there is no change for current employees, but I stand to be corrected.
I think his name is Doug Holyday, Tommy; he's the one who was saying in the media the other day that private contractors should do the clean up (that's what you mean by "back to work" protocols, right?) The mayor needs to show a little more leadership, IMV, and stop trying to please everybody.
Right now the Ceeb is interviewing Denzel Minnen-Wong (another right-wing asshat), who is against this contract because they didn't take away the sick bank completely. Quote: "If counsellors will listen to their constituents, they will be responding with anger and fury because they endured a 5 week strike for absolutely no reason because the mayor caved."
I totally get everybody's rationale for amnesty clauses. But my direct, personal experience with these has not been happy.
"Negotiating" is a bit of a misnomer. It implies it's all about the art of persuasion or all about talking.
Most of negotiating is knowing when to keep your mouth shut.
Both the mayor and the union should be together, saying that Holyday is trying to derail ratification for political purposes, and call upon the media and the union members to ignore him.
And then I'd get together with the mayor, and make sure that Holyday's area is the very last to get garbage service back on line.
Right on, Tommy. It's never too late for Miller (and Ferguson) to learn some communications skills.
"And then I'd get together with the mayor, and make sure that Holyday's area is the very last to get garbage service back on line."
Holyday is from Etobicoke where they have had garbage collection all along because it was contracted out - bad idea.
On another note, I have to say that I think David Miller is now politically dead. I have voted for him twice and I would do so again if I had to choose between him and some rightwing loon, but quite frankly I'm starying to find him very cloying and tedious. I think that from a strategic perspective, he has mishandled a series of issues and files and this whole labour dispute has been the worst of both worlds. The right hates him for not taking a hard enough line with CUPE, the left hates him for trying to get some concessions from CUPE in the first place and the centre is pissed off at him for letting there be a strike and for doing such a poor job of communicating anything. On top of that the fiscal crisis is getting worse and worse and i think that people in Toronto are simply getting sick of him.
Miller should do us a favour and announce he won't run again in early 2010. If he runs, I think he is certain to lose to someone really bad. If he retires, there is a chance that someone relatively progressive who is not tainted by being the incumbent could win.
The right hates him for not taking a hard enough line with CUPE, the left hates him for trying to get some concessions from CUPE in the first place and the centre is pissed off at him for letting there be a strike and for doing such a poor job of communicating anything. On top of that the fiscal crisis is getting worse and worse and i think that people in Toronto are simply getting sick of him.
That's it, in a nutshell.
The mayor has been extensively interviewed on CBC today. First of all they had right-wing counsellor David Shiner, who stated that he will vote against this agreement because the banking of sick days still stands for people who currently have it. Then Miller came on and pointed out that David Shiner was part of Mel Lastman's administration, and through 2 terms of that national embarrassment, Shiner made no attempt, even as chair of the city's budget committee, to get rid of the banked sick days.
Miller said that a negotiated settlement was necessary in order to get the best deal for the city; that an arbitrated settlement would have left the sick days bank fully in place.
But the fact remains that Miller tried to appease everybody, and ended up pleasing nobody. (Anybody seen him recently? He looks like crap, like he hasn't slept in a month.)
I'm still puzzled by the assertions here and elsewhere that Miller set back labour relations. He allowed the negotiations to take place, making no effort to interfere by going to the province to get back to work legislation, as many were pressuring him to do.
I'm still puzzled by the assertions here and elsewhere that Miller set back labour relations. He allowed the negotiations to take place, making no effort to interfere by going to the province to get back to work legislation, as many were pressuring him to do.
I agree with you - but who here (with any credibility) said that he had set back labour relations?
Good questions, unionist. The banking of sick days is being phased out: no new employees will be able to do this, just current employees who are being grandfathered.
I don't know the answers to your other questions as yet.
I appreciate that the details haven't been published yet, but it looks as if far from all "current employees" have been grandparented:
New hires will not get the old sick-days plan, which gives workers 18 sick days per year. They can bank unused ones and collect up to six month's pay upon retirement.
That option is gone for new hires. People with more than 10 years service can keep that option or accept a buyout and move to a short-term disability plan. Those with fewer than 10 yeas of service will get 18 sick days per year but won't be able to continue banking them. There will be an optional buyout.
Source.
So it would appear that (probably) several thousand current employees will no longer be able to bank sick days in the future. That's a pretty huge concession on what was presented as the poster-child of this dispute. But the anti-Miller frenzy is such that he won't even be able to take credit for extracting it!
I'm still puzzled by the assertions here and elsewhere that Miller set back labour relations. He allowed the negotiations to take place, making no effort to interfere by going to the province to get back to work legislation, as many were pressuring him to do.
I agree with you - but who here (with any credibility) said that he had set back labour relations?
I have trouble with links, but anyway, in this thread, http://www.rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/question-about-scabs-and-truth-reporting
The number of purported scabs was never determined, and no reason to think the mayor had anything to do with it, (however true it was).
It's unbelievable. I don't know what I'm going to do in the next municipal election.
I think the mayor made enough mistakes without piling on him for uncorroborated rumours. And he allowed the negotiations to continue despite enormous pressure to get back-to-work legislation at the very least (or fire them all and privatize, at the most).
Considering both management and the union didn't get everything they wanted and nobody is totally happy, it's probably a reasonable compromise.
I don't know that anyone here said this, but Ann Dembinski said it.
"Labour relations have been set back decades. It will not be the same for years to come," she said.
Yeah, overall, I'd agree with you Sineed. Of all employers and governments to deal with, Miller was very far from the worst. I'm not just talking about the results, but about his behaviour through a tough time.
That's nice, Ms. Dembinski thinks that the strike has set back labour relations by DECADES. In other words 50 years from now in the year 2059 - when she is long gone - there will still be emotional scars in Toronto from this strike. I wonder how many DECADES labour relations were set back during the last strike that was 5 years ago?
I agree with you, Polunatic, but do you know if any was actually allowed to work during the strike? That was discussed here and there was no corroboration offered.
Well, there's this acknowledgement in the article that I posted from:
“Normally a back to work protocol means amnesty for both sides. The City agrees not to fire workers and in exchange the union won't punish the people who crossed our lines, the scabs,” Mr. Steele told the National Post.
Unionist, I know that the union workers were cut off from their benefits during the strike. Is this normal?
In the absence of Unionist, yes, that's normal. However, in our case at least, the CAW will take out group insurance policies to cover things like prescriptions.
I was watching the debate a bit on CP 24. Apparently there's 12 on council who have already said they'd vote against it. They need five more votes (two from council are unable to vote, being in conflict of interest) to turn the contract down.
The earliest they can start voting, as I understand, is 7:30pm.
Strike's over! Just announced about 2 minutes ago, city counsel passed the deal 21 for, 17 against (whew!)
Too close for comfort, that.
Re: conflict of interest - what a load of crap!
Two counsellors asked for the vote to be split into 2: one for CUPE 79, the other for CUPE 416, because they had family members in one or the other, and couldn't in good conscience vote against the deal their family members voted for because it was a "conflict of interest."
So if it isn't good for their family members to vote against the deal, surely it isn't good for anybody else's family members.
Neo con pukes.
Unionist, I know that the union workers were cut off from their benefits during the strike. Is this normal?
Further to Tommy's answer, yes, it's normal for the employer to stop all benefits.
However, the law generally requires that the employer accept an offer from the union to continue benefits during a strike or lockout, provided the union agrees to cover all costs (generally the insurance plan premiums).
A typical example (in convoluted language) is found in Section 94(3) of the Canada Labour Code:
No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall [...]
(d.1) where the requirements of paragraphs 89(1)(a) to (d) have been met, cancel or threaten to cancel a medical, dental, disability, life or other insurance plan, whether administered by the employer or otherwise, that benefits employees, so long as the bargaining agent tenders or attempts to tender to the employer payments or premiums sufficient to continue the plan.
It's nice to hear that the CAW pays such premiums as a matter of course (I had heard that before actually). Not all unions have the resources to do so.
Hmm. So much for Cable Pulse 24-- they couldn't even get the numbers right for the vote.
Anyway. So much garbage to get around to. I wonder what areas of the city will occupy the last 17 positions on the priority list.
To see exactly who voted for what, go to http://torontocitycouncil.blogspot.com/
The two no-voting cousellors who abstained from voting for one of the contracts were Peter Milczyn, who didn't vote in the CUPE 79 poll (inside workers), and David Shiner, who abstained from the CUPE 416 poll (outside workers).
Not sure what happened - sometime between 4 and 4:30, David Shiner advanced a motion to split the vote into the two bargaining units. This motion was defeated (it doesn't say on the Toronto city counsel blog, but my husband heard that Shiner and Milczyk stormed out of counsel chambers). Then when the vote was reported just before 7, it was split into 2.
Even though the strike wasn't officially over until counsel passed on the contract, crews were out cleaning up from about 9 this morning, and the major streets are done in the downtown.
Humorous misconception:one of the counsellors who voted no (I think it was Denzel Minnen-Wong, but it could have been David Shiner) said that if city counsel voted against the contract, the city workers could continue to clean up the city while the counsellors dismantled the contract they spent 6 weeks out to get. LOL!
The only personal confirmation that I got was from someone I know who believed that one person had crossed the line to return to work at her office.
Thanks for the info, Polunatic - oh and have I mentioned that it's great to see you back in these parts - come by more often!
I saw the video of one of the councellors "storming out". He got up, unfastened the velvet rope, turned and refastened the velvet rope, and walked out of camera view with stuff tucked under his arm, looking straight ahead.
OH THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sineed, the media is so fucked.
I think if I was a CUPE leader, and ended up doing the clean up only to find out I was back out on strike tonight, I'd be furious enough to do violence to a member or members of council.
Hats off to the CUPE negotiating team. Bargaining is tough enough, but adding 40 craven politicians to a pot being stirred by a media that wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass is above and beyond the call of duty.
Hip hip, Hazzah.
Yeah, what Tommy said. What incredible endurance shown by a group of workers, and their representatives, seeking nothing but to hold the line against an economic and fiscal crisis not of their making. Well done, CUPE!
The two no-voting cousellors who abstained from voting for one of the contracts were Peter Milczyn, who didn't vote in the CUPE 79 poll (inside workers), and David Shiner, who abstained from the CUPE 416 poll (outside workers).
Not sure what happened - sometime between 4 and 4:30, David Shiner advanced a motion to split the vote into the two bargaining units. This motion was defeated (it doesn't say on the Toronto city counsel blog, but my husband heard that Shiner and Milczyk stormed out of counsel chambers).
What happened was those councillors couldn't vote on the deal if it was in one piece, because they each have a relative that's a member of one of the union locals. Still lame of them to have a big hissy fit when they didn't get their way right away.
Anyone have the vote breakdown? I'm surprised that it was so close. It's hard to believe that the Gang of 17 really wanted the strike to resume; I think they voted against it simply to say that they voted against it -- without having to worry about wearing the logical consequence of their vote (because they knew that it would pass anyway).
Probably. Most of them just want to go back to their constituents and say they tried to get a better deal for the city but those horrible socialists wouldn't let them.
Anyone have the vote breakdown?
Here! It's about what you would expect.
YES VOTES
Maria Augimeri (York Centre) - Yes
Sandra Bussin (Beaches-East York) - Yes
Shelley Carroll (Don Valley East) — Yes
Raymond Cho (Scarborough-Rouge River) — Yes
Janet Davis (Beaches-East York) — Yes
Glenn de Baeremaeker (Scarborough Centre) — Yes
Frank Di Giorgio (York South-Weston) — Yes
Paula Fletcher (Toronto-Danforth) — Yes
Adam Giambrone (Davenport) — Yes
Mark Grimes (Etobicoke Lakeshore) — Yes
Suzan Hall (Etobicoke North) — Yes
A.A. Heaps (Scarborough Southwest) — Yes
Doug Holyday (Etobicoke Centre) — Yes
Pam McConnell (Toronto Centre-Rosedale) — Yes
Joe Mihevc (St. Paul's) — Yes
David Miller (Mayor) - Yes
Joe Pantalone (Trinity-Spadina) — Yes
Gord Perks (Parkdale-High Park) — Yes
Anthony Perruzza (York West) — Yes
Bill Saundercook (Parkdale-High Park) — Yes
Adam Vaughan (Trinity-Spadina) — Yes
NO VOTES
Paul Ainslie (Scarborough East) - No
Brian Ashton (Scarborough Southwest) — No
Mike Del Grande (Scarborough-Agincourt) — No
Mike Feldman (York Centre) - No
Rob Ford (Etobicoke North) — No
Cliff Jenkins (Don Valley West) — No
Norm Kelly (Scarborough-Agincourt) — No
Chin Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) — No
Peter Milczyn (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) — No* (Only pertains to vote on Local 416 agreement)
Denzil Minnan-Wong (Don Valley East) — No
Ron Moeser (Scarborough East) - No
Frances Nunziata (York South-Weston) — No
Case Ootes (Toronto-Danforth) — No
John Parker (Don Valley West) — No
David Shiner (Willowdale) — No * (Only pertains to vote on Local 79 agreement)
Karen Stintz (Eglinton-Lawrence) — No
Michael Thompson (Scarborough Centre) — No
Michael Walker (St. Paul's) — No
What happened was those councillors couldn't vote on the deal if it was in one piece, because they each have a relative that's a member of one of the union locals. Still lame of them to have a big hissy fit when they didn't get their way right away.
I know that's what they said, but that doesn't make it any less a big load of crapola. This is regional politics; it's nepotistic as hell. All sorts of brothers and sisters and spouses and cousins, etc work for the city. The NO vote was all about "Standing On Principle," and saying they couldn't vote because they had a relative in a bargaining unit was just one more way of drawing attention to themselves.
In municipal politics, if everybody recused themselves because of personal connections, nothing would ever get done.
It is actually illegal to vote if you have a conflict of interest. Howard Moscoe (who would have been a definite YES vote) also could not vote because his daughter is a member of one of the CUPE locals.
What if a councillor is a taxpayer? Her taxes could be impacted by the settlement. Her garbage might need collecting. Would those gross conflicts prohibit her from voting?
ETA: Why did Doug Holyday vote "YES"?
ETA: Why did Doug Holyday vote "YES"?
Personally, I was gobsmacked. Maybe some behind-the-scenes deal-making? (I can't think what...)
Re: conflict of interest: I work in the Ontario public sector, which contains the 100,000 + members of OPSEU, and a gajillion bargaining units. So during the last OPSEU strike, why didn't they divide up all the various bargaining units to avoid the inevitable conflicts of interest that must have been rampant? All sorts of managers are related to union members.
If these counsellors really felt it was morally incumbent on them to abstain, they could just abstain, like Howard Moscoe. No need to make a scene in counsel chambers.