Ontario jail guards vote to strike, will return to negotiations

Sick time is sick time, not "reward for perfect attendance" time.  I've never heard of any unionized workplace that only gets five sick days a year.  Hell, every place I've ever worked except for my current day job has had more than five sick days a year - usually anywhere between 10 and 15.  I get 15 here.  I'm in OPSEU too.

I am betting that the reason jail guards have so many more sick days is because they're more likely to get injured or need medical attention or more likely to catch whatever bugs are going around.  (Although working at a university is kind of like working at a day care centre or a prison too when it comes to catching every bug happening.)

Also: are they including stress leave in that average of sick days?  

Personally, I think any workplace that has employees who take ON AVERAGE 32.5 sick days per year needs to look at their workplace and see what the hell is making their employees either legitimately sick, or so stressed out and unhappy that they're calling in sick rather than coming to work.  I mean, that's just not normal. 

Yeah, you're probably right.  That's why I wonder why such a high absenteeism rate for sick days.  Usually that's a sign that something bad is happening, if ALL your employees are using that kind of sick time.  There has to be some sort of issue there, unless we believe that, somehow, that one sector attracts 80% malingerers while every other workplace only has a tiny percentage of them.

Partially true - but you move to 66 2/3% pay even if some or all of the four consecutive days of absence have been covered off by sick leave credits. In other words, as long as your bank wasn't previously emptied, you don't have to lose 4 days' pay to access the new STD plan. As per 4(f) on page 8:

Well, paragraph 8 on page 9 says:

Now, this appeal process may be separate from the standard grievance procedure (don't know, haven't got a copy of the full c.a.), but it does dilute somewhat the stark brutality of OPSEU's statement.

And what's wrong with an insurance carrier making the decision as to disability? Who makes it now... the employer's own medical service?

As Sineed says, I hope members inform themselves of all the facts before making decisions. If they understand all this and are still opposed, then as far as I'm concerned, their decision is sovereign and worthy of support. Those who have to suffer under the working conditions can alone decide when the deal is right.

The hypocrisy of elements of this thread on the part of those claiming to be trade unionists boggles the mind.

I will illustrate some of the underlying issues concerning sick leave for Corrections Officers, from a worker-friendly perspective if that is not too much of a stretch.

A friend of mine was a Corrections Officer – a great guy. One day he was running around a corner to provide assistance to a colleague, and he slipped where an inmate had pissed on the floor hoping to make him fall. Typical day on the job for a Corrections Officer in our crumbling, overcrowded, underfunded penitentiary system; except this time when he grabbed the cell bars to keep himself on his feet, he badly wrenched his back.

Worker’s compensation benefits were allowed for the initial acute period of the injury. This was over the objections of the employer. The ministry continued to fight his WSIB entitlement every step of the way, denying him suitable modified work, forcing him onto sick leave benefits – at a reduced rate of income – for lengthy periods while the union restored WSIB on appeal.

That aggressive claims management response is absolutely typical of this Schedule II employer, who unlike most employers, has to pay the costs of its WSIB claims dollar for dollar plus a hefty administration fee for the entire life of each claim. And as hard as it is at times to get WSIB benefits, it can be as hard or harder to secure ongoing entitlement through the sick leave carrier. In the result, in situations when there is no extended sick leave you have Corrections Officers going back to work hurt, where in addition to the demanding physical requirements of the job which can cause further injury, they may also become targets.

The Corrections bargaining team is aware of these dynamics, and others. This team was duly elected by Corrections members. 89% of members are upholding the bargaining team’s recommendations to reject this egregiously unfair offer.

These members know how to read their contract.

Note that this punitive sick leave plan would apply only to Corrections, not any other member of the OPS, who continue to be eligible for full sick leave provisions as previously – and only when they are sick.

Good point. Yes, they work 12-hour shifts.

Here is an Ontario Ministry of Labour Office of Adjudication decision that refers to that fact in context of a Corrections Officer's attempt to refuse unsafe work after an inmate stabbed her repeatedly in the eye with a pen. The same day the grievor had also been verbally threatened by two other inmates, one of whom was serving time for attempted murder of another inmate as well as an armed robbery conviction. The employer insisted on the grievor returning to work, alone and unarmed, on the same ward, stating that the concerns expressed by the union were hypothetical and that the worker's claim was only an attempt to subvert its policies on the placement of inmates. The Ministry of Labour Inspector declined to investigate her work refusal given the severe legal restrictions that existed then and which continue to exist around exercising this right for Corrections Officers.

Ontario Public Service Employees' Union (Re) [1996] O.O.H.S.A.D. No. 42

Ummm, did you forget the part of this clawback where those last 992 hours or whatever it is, at the vastly reduced rate as you point out, are actually contingent on (a) perfect attendance in the month prior, as determined by the employer, and (b) after (up to) four days of sickness -- in many instances unpaid -- sick leave is now proposed to be at the discretion of a new insurance plan.

Ever had any dealings with an insurance company?

I figured that injuries, or at least some sort of fallout from workplace injuries, would have to account for some of that time.  Thanks for the insight, triciamarie.

I don't want to start from scratch, and I support the cause of these workers, but workplace injuries and "fallout" from workplace injuries are covered by WSIB, not sick leave. They clearly wouldn't be part of the 32.5 days average. There's a serious problem there, but it lies elsewhere.

P.S. I know you support the cause of workers, Unionist.  I don't want you to think I'm questioning that or stating otherwise.

Triciamarie, from your experience in dealing with WSIB claims, where do corrections officers place among the various sectors (e.g. mining, forestry, manufacturing, transportation, health care, hospitality, food service) with regard to work-related illness and injury? Are there any stats available?

I agree, which is why I asked about illness and injury, not fatalities. I checked the WSIB site, but can't find sectoral breakdowns.

You miss understood that section. Perfect attendance is not required the month prior to using STD. This refers to article 44 of the collective agreement. It states that a newly hired employee to the classified position has to work 20 consecutive days before becoming eligible for sick leave. The same article also states that once the STS benefits have been exhaust, the employee must again work 20 consecutive days in order to re-qualify for another 130 sick days.

That has always been in the contract. No change there.

The 4 unpaid days is new, but in comparison it is still more than what the autoworkers get with CAW. If the employee has sick credits, they will automatically be able to use them. In practice, the manager has no descretion to the withhold that.

All  workplace related injuries are covered by wsib, that includes everything from surviving a gunshot wound, to falling off your chair because you leaned back to far. The employer cannot prevent any employee from filing a wsib claim, they can only dispute claims and provide reasons why. The decision to allow or deny benefits is entirely with WSIB. The employer cannot force anybody injured at the workplace to use sick. It is only after WSIB denies benefits to an employee, that the employee is moved to the short term sickness program. And all attempts to provide accommodation are required to be made and offered to the employee by the employer.   

Unionist is absolutely correct when he said "workplace injuries and "fallout" from workplace injuries are covered by WSIB, not sick leave. They clearly wouldn't be part of the 32.5 days average. There's a serious problem there, but it lies elsewhere."

Tommy_Canuck: No, the proposed provisions are closer to the sick leave benefits for part-timers, so the union already knows how this is likely to be applied by the employer and that they get it wrong all the time. As far as WSIB coverage goes, it is profoundly incorrect to say that all work injuries are covered. You are also mistaken in your assumption that the employer has no say in whether or not WSIB claims are allowed. I am unaware of any contract provision that says STSL benefits are automatically extended while a WSIB claim is under adjudication. Accommodation often hinges on WSIB entitlement -- if you can get it, even then.

And none of this addresses the issue of why anyone outside of Corrections considers themselves to be in a position to pass judgement on the decision of an 89% majority of legally voting members -- a number, by the way, which also includes sherrifs and probation and parole officers, who fall under the same Collective Agreement and yet would be unaffected by the proposed changes. So on top of everything else, the proposal is for two-tier.

In Ontario, WISB has employer classifications. Schedule 1 and Schedule 2.

Schedule 1 employers pay premiums that can increase depending on claims.

Schedule 2 employers pay all costs. The Ontario Government is classified as a Schedule 2 employer. It has absolutely nothing to gain by having employees take sick instead of wsib.

However it can be argued that that it is easier to manage return-to-work protocols when wsib is involved, since the attendance manager now has the wsib adjudicator and nurse care manager available to assist in returning the employee back to work.
The Public Service Act, Collective Agreement, ASP, RTW, HIF policies make return-to-work protocols for sick usage incredibly difficult to manage when compared to those on wsib. This is a large part of the reason sick usage is so high.

The administration fee is certainly significant. There are reemployment obligations under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act which effectively compel the employer to keep an injured worker on the job and in accommodated work for at least two years, or risk the worker becoming eligible for expensive retraining, and quite possibly at least partial loss of earnings benefits up to age 65. If the worker is laid off while in active treatment, or even many years down the road when a significant permanent disability has been recognized, they may be entitled to a lengthy labour market re-entry program -- on top of the termination package in the CA -- as well as full wage loss benefits for the duration. Under WSIB, pain and suffering is also compensible with a lump sum payment that can amount to many thousands of dollars, on top of the wage loss benefits. For Schedule II employers, in WSIB there is usually no opportunity to reduce the costs of a claim in consideration of a prior non-compensable condition. You have outside adjudicators monitoring the file and telling the employer what to do. There is full disclosure to the worker, full appeal rights including an independent tripartite Appeals Tribunal, procedural fairness, published decision-making policies, published decisions etc.

On STSL, you're lucky if they give you two lines in your decision when they turn down your benefits. You can appeal but the process is inscrutible. There is no independent review that I am aware of. STSL is the first step on the ladder to LTIP at which point all costs are transferred to the insurer, and if the employer plays their cards right at that point they may never need to set eyes on the injured worker again.

Those are a few reasons off the top of my head. I don't work for employers so I'm sure I'm missing some.

Would someone kindly indulge me now with an answer to my question?

Yes, currently as far as I am aware CO's sick leave is paid out of days banked at the beginning of every year, up to about six months' duration. There is currently no outside (nor self-funded) STSL provider. That is the employer's proposal and one of the issues that the union is strongly objecting to. The difference between presumed entitlement -- not automatic, since as for every other ministry, the absence must be legitimate not 'culpable', and the annual total of sick days below the threshold for the structured intervention (usually 10 - 12 days / year I believe) -- versus the necessity as proposed to have to submit a claim to an insurance carrier, with all that entails, is in and of itself a substantial take-away and the union is justifiably objecting to it.

It is my strong impression that CO's do get hurt at work, a lot. I don't believe that the real incidence can be gauged by adding up the number of claims filed particularly given this employer's excessively hostile approach to WSIB. Also, as I mentioned, CO's are vulnerable to many other types of illnesses that are related to their job yet generally non-compensable under WSIB, and of course they also have non-work-related injuries and illnesses.

My question was this:

This is a legal strike vote, by a legal union. It has attracted 89% support among not only the CO's and youth workers who would be affected by the clawback but also many others under the same CA who would not be personally affected -- aside from the fact that this proposal could destroy their bargaining unit by introducing two-tier benefits into their contract.

Noting that the mandate of this forum and this board is to discuss labour issues from a pro-worker perspective, what I don't understand is how is it that anyone outside of the Corrections membership can consider themselves to be in a position to pass judgement on the decision that has been made by these workers?

89% of those that voted, voted to reject the offer.

The workers had no choice but to reject the offer. The vast majority that rejected the offer do not want to strike, but they realize a strong no vote is necessary to get an improved offer. 

I am not passing judgement on the vote, but I think it is important people understand why the government is making this proposal. 

Aren't anti-worker posts normally frowned upon or is it "ok" if you mostly support workers? 

Go enjoy yourself in another thread.

I haven't seen a single post that passed judgement on their decision. I personally support whatever decision they make (as I have said) and it is theirs alone to make. I'm just trying to understand the issue. Let me be a little more clear. I've seen workers (my own union) go on strike for a month - the underlying cause being that we didn't fully grasp a fairly complex pension issue, and let emotion take over. The blame for that lay squarely with our union leadership, and with us for not doing our own thinking. Support for someone's cause doesn't mean just saying "Right on".

"What's up"??

You call someone "anti-worker", it's like calling someone homophobic or anti-Semitic or racist. You should watch your language. And if you have something to say on the topic rather than smearing people that are trying to have a serious discussion, you should post a comment. That's what's up.

My apologies.  Thanks for the advice on choice of words.

I posted because I was having trouble figuring out why the workers are being analyzed so much.  I know that normally you would never let anyone question union's so hard, so I'm feeling there's something amiss.

Calling you on the carpet, so to speak.  Why doth you protesteth so much in this forum of all places?

Might not sound like it but it's out of respect.

One last thing, please don't try and belittle me nor conflate my posts to homophobia or anti-semtism or any type of oppression without evidence. 

What's your problem?

@Saga,

Go to page 3, Special adjustments. 6%

and Page 2- Salary 7.75% over 4 years.

Total 13.75%

Well, first of all, it's a 4-year deal, with increases of 1.75%, 2%, 2%, and 2%, which compounds to roughly 7.98% (call it 8%) by the end of the contract (2012).

Then, on the second page, it says: "Provide special wage adjustments of 6% over 4 years for Correctional Officers and Youth workers in addition to the general wage adjustment."

That's about 14% over 4 years.

I am looking at this issue from the perspective of work injury because that's what I do. Others might look at class, race, electoral politics -- whatever.

The central point is that it's not our analysis nor our decision to make. There is backstory here that outside pundits don't know about, and which the membership and bargaining team is taking into account in the decision they have made. In solidarity with these Corrections Officers, youth workers and all the other members of this bargaining unit who have voted down an offer they consider unfair, inadequate and divisive, is it too much of a stretch to accept that OPSEU union representatives do speak for their members, that they are acting here in the best interests of the membership and can be trusted to express their wishes? Why start out from the premise that these members are too stupid or incompetent to elect people who will properly represent them in bargaining?

And, I hope I'm wrong about this but I am concerned that an anti-public union bias is at play. I cannot imagine having this kind of a nitpicking discussion about a private sector union's legitimate bargaining efforts -- if such a thing were even possible given the minimal information that is usually made available, to members much less the general public.

Also noting that according to OPSEU, the specific reason why this proposal is now in the public eye is because the employer leaked it (or actually, an inaccurate version). So all this hemming and hawing and condescension to these union members is playing right into the employer's hand.

I thought Magna might come up here...

Magna was different. First of all, the whole structure and much of the content of the Orwellian 'Freedom of Fairness Agreement' was decided on in advance, in secret, in collusion with the employer. The CAW membership's only involvement -- by design -- was to provid an audience for the scripted propaganda and rubber-stamp the fait accompli. That cynical, tainted process gave rise to the loss of the grievance procedure, the loss of shop floor leadership, and the loss of any significant scope for collective bargaining -- including the right to strike -- all the elements of a union that empower rank and file members to try to make a difference in their own lives and the lives of other workers.

Secondly, this degraded scenario is intended to apply not to all CAW autoworkers, but only to Magna workers, mostly immigrants, who it is envisaged will live forever as second-class citizens in their own union, tithing dues to the privileged assembly workers whom their labour also supports.

It is a consolidation of power in the hands of the elite. I see it as the antithesis of democracy and an abandonment of the moral foundation of trade unions. The fallout affected the entire labour community in Canada.

Those things are what made CAW Magna fair game for public consumption.

I'm not seeing any of those issues with the OPSEU Corrections contract.

Well, all I can say is, that clears up a lot of things for me too, Unionist.

That's what you said, when I dared to compare the text of their settlement with the paraphrase of the publicity.

Yet when it comes to Magna workers, and CAW members, your respect for members' intelligence and independence of thought and action seems to diminish:

I don't divide the union movement into good vs. evil. Workers have to figure things out on their own.

I agree with you about the FFA and what it represents, as you must recall from our discussions last year. Such "principles" will invade my union and my sector of the economy over my lifeless cadaver.

But that's not what we're talking about here, now, is it? We're talking about workers figuring things out and making their own decisions.

As for the "fallout" in the labour community, the much-predicted offensive by employers to go for "no-strike" deals in other sectors has gone precisely nowhere. It never happened. The only "fallout" were rival union heads blasting Hargrove - including union heads that have trouble pronouncing the word "democracy" and who in some sectors have abandoned the right to strike for binding arbitration on a contract-to-contract basis.

What happens at Magna, and in the CAW, is everyone's business. We will never stop talking about it. But what gets decided at Magna and in the CAW is none of my business.

Likewise with OPSEU.

Howard Hampton toured the Toronto (Don) Jail on Friday, accompanied by Smokey Thomas and Peter Kormos.  Howard apparently took his time, asking lots of questions, chatting up the guards, who were generally impressed by his willingness to listen.

The rumour (told to me by a jail guard), is there may be a strike as of this Monday. 

Here are the highlights of the agreement.

http://opseu.org/ops/barg2008/tabletalk/table-talk-update-corrections-march1-2009.htm

Is this the part where you're going ouch?

Yeah; I was just thinking, what if I were sick on Monday, and had to work 16 hours on Friday because some of my coworkers caught my cold, and only got paid straight time.

I'm very surprised the union blinked.  And in light of what you've pointed out, I wonder if they're getting appropriate legal advice. 

The sick time bonuses based on overall averages as opposed to the individual averages was what teed off some of the guards I was talking to today.  One guard said, that's doing management's job for them.

Skillfully done.