What do you think about sick leave and the Toronto city workers' strike?
June 29, 2009 - 2:31pm
Murray Dobbin gets this conversation started here:
"The city workers on strike in Toronto are taking a beating in the mainstream media over the sick leave provisions in their contract. Those provisions -- and I am relying on the media here to have it right -- provide for 18 days a year or a day and half a month."
Already being discussed here
I think payout of accumulated sick days is inequitable and a poor method of providing severance to long-service employees. If there is to be severance, it should be based on some non-discriminatory and uniform measure, typically some formula proportional to years of service.
That's the opinion I would present if the issue came up in my local union meeting in a debate over how to formulate contract demands.
My opinion for other workers (including public service workers) is that it's up to them and their employer - whatever they want to negotiate and mutually agree to. It's no one's business to interfere in that. If management wants to get rid of such a program, they should come to the table and make that demand, in free collective bargaining.
In the few situations (not including my own sector - we have STD insurance, not sick days) I know where such a new "benefit" has been proposed, the idea has been pitched by management - as a method of discouraging the casual use of sick days and thus improving efficient use of human resources and avoiding overtime replacement costs (or service delivery disasters).
I wonder, aloud, who first pitched this concept in various Ontario municipal governments, although I know it can be found in some other municipalities as well.
Just at random, here's an example of a community college in the U.S. which appears to have unilaterally introduced a sick-leave payout program (not negotiated with the union, not subject to the grievance or arbitration procedure). I'll bet they have a good reason for doing that.
Having said all that, once a benefit is entrenched, workers are reluctant to just "give it back". What is Toronto offering in exchange? Or is it just a contribution that employees are expected to make to the common good over and above the taxes they pay? To look at one issue in isolation in a bargaining context is invidious and counter-productive. Otherwise, the next article Murray Dobbin writes - and derrick tries to stir us up about - will deal with negotiated insurance coverage for chiropractic, massage therapy, and acupuncture. That's what one of the National Post "journalists" (euphemism for slavish sycophant) mentioned on yesterday's Cross Country Checkup. Once you start, it never ends.
That's why workers have to band together and rely on their own strength. If they look over their shoulder constantly, as Murray Dobbin recommends, and ask themselves, "but what would the taxpayers think?", then who needs the employer to bargain with them. They can do it to themselves. I would suggest to Murray Dobbin that perhaps municipal workers, in preparation for bargaining, should take bus tours of wealthy neighbourhoods and note down, "That mansion's owners can double their property tax without feeling a pinch - we should up our demands accordingly." Yeah, right, we're not allowed to think that way. It's subversive.
ETA: Refuge, I think the topic here is quite different from the other thread, or it could be. I think Dobbin, and derrick, want to discuss how workers (especially public service) should view their own benefits and demands in the light of potential public reaction. If I'm wrong, the mods will let us know very soon.
I think payout of accumulated sick days is inequitable and a poor method of providing severance to long-service employees. If there is to be severance, it should be based on some non-discriminatory and uniform measure, typically some formula proportional to years of service.
What is astonishing about the whole issue is the way it is framed. What is being said is that people are being rewarded for not being sick, when in fact what is happening is that people are being punished for being sick, by having their severance pay reduced for each sick day.
Dobbin is cracked, and fallen for the BS I guess.
The real problem with union public relations efforts is that they don't seem to be able to communicated with the community because the media is mediating. More effort needs to be put into educating the public on the issues directly before strikes happen, so the public is informed and aware of what is going on.
Unions should really start looking at organizing meet and greet sessions with the public by doing townhall meetings in the community, and so on. Resources are thin, but there should be some kind of national effort putting resources into public education. Perhaps that isn't the best idea, but unions have got to stop relying on a hostile media to get the word out.
Wouldn't (most) City employees qualify for statutory severance pay, given that the City must surely have a payroll > 2.5 million?
And doesn't the sick day payout take place even if work is not severered (eg: if an employee moves, and must quit)??
You mean the sick day penalty drawn against the serverance pay of the worker. Why should some workers be penalized for being sick? In anycase, I believe the severance pay only kicks in after a certain amount of time employed.
Unions should really start looking at organizing meet and greet sessions with the public by doing townhall meetings in the community, and so on. Resources are thin, but there should be some kind of national effort putting resources into public education. Perhaps that isn't the best idea, but unions have got to stop relying on a hostile media to get the word out.
As a member of a public sector union whose members the media always spins as "spoiled civil servants" when labour actions happen, I completely agree with you!
If you get a day and a half sick days per month, that is 1.5 days per 20 days worked, assuming 21.5 workdays per month and paid stat holidays. By my calculations, this is a 6.9% benefit on top of regular pay.
If you don't work for a week because you are on strike, you get no pay at all for that week, losing 2% of your annual income.
If the strike goes on for a bit more than three weeks, any benefit from the sick days has been wiped out. Not only that, but they have received no pay for 3 weeks.
All the City of Toronto has to do is keep the workers locked out for a few more weeks.
Whatever the union bargains for, it's a wash for the City.
Way to go CUPW!
That is the letter carriers union Uncle J. In anycase that demand was issued as a fait acompli before any negotiation on any other issues. So, its a wash for the union workers anyway, since they would be losing the severance pay package in total, just to start negotiations. Who knows what else the city would be cutting, after the union abjectly surrendered on that point.
Nevertheless I hear reports you like working for $10 an hour. Fine by me, just PM me a resume, and I am sure I can squeeze you in somewhere, hauling some shit or other somewhere.
CUPW? :D :D :D Damned posties, refusing to collect our garbage!
On the union's ability to communicate to the public: I sent CUPE 416 a perfectly polite letter on Tuesday, some six days ago, asking them their views on various ways I might get rid of my (or my neighbour's trash). (E.g., Would they consider it scabbling if I offered to take my neighbour's trash to the transfer station, or if I paid someone to take it?) I was willing to follow their views on the matter. I received no answer, and followed up on Thursday, emailing them from my university account rather than my hotmail account. (Unfortunately, this sometimes gets a quicker response.) Still no response.
This is in contrast to CUPE 3903 (at York University): I asked them some basic questions during their strike, and they answered within a day or two.
I agree that whatever benefits and salary, etc., workers receive is between the workers and their employer. But I am not sure that I agree it's between workers and management, and nobody else's business. You didn't put it that way, but you did slide from "employer" to "management". Consider two examples.
Example 1: In a publicly traded company, management represents the shareholders. Thus it seems that the management's position/strategy etc. is not only the business of the workers and the management, but also the business of the shareholders whom the management represents. Shareholders should feel free to express their views to the management, to remind the management that they work for the shareholders, etc.
Example 2: In a city-owned company, management represents city residents. Thus it seems that the management's position/strategy etc. is not only the business of the workers and the management, but also the business of the city residents whom the management represents. City residents should feel free to express their views to the management, to remind the management that they work for the city residents, etc.
I find it interesting that Mayor David Miller was so much against raising development fees just a few months ago, thereby expecting the Toronto taxpayer to pick up that tab, but now he's so gung ho about protecting the Toronto taxpayer from the avarice of civic employees.
What a fucking phoney this guy is.
I agree that whatever benefits and salary, etc., workers receive is between the workers and their employer. But I am not sure that I agree it's between workers and management, and nobody else's business. You didn't put it that way, but you did slide from "employer" to "management".
My use of "management" was imprecise - it comes from dealing with them daily as representatives of the employer.
I didn't say it was "nobody else's business". I said it was "no one's business to interfere in that". The employer (and you may include the shareholders) hire their bargaining team, give them a mandate, and send them to the table. If the negotiators aren't doing their job, they can be realigned, or replaced. Likewise on the union side - exactly parallel. But within that process, the parties must be free to bargain with each other. Each side's consituency (be it taxpayers or shareholders or union members) should coach and instruct and mandate its team and allow the teams to do their work. But third parties should keep their noses out, and in particular. any calls or moves toward subverting the bargaining process (e.g. through back to work legislation or imposed dispute resolution or hiring scabs etc.) must be opposed.
In my own case, while I have some pretty definite opinions about sick leave payout and I don't balk at expressing them, it is wrong for me to "interfere" by applying my opinions to the dynamic of what's happening between the parties. It is up to them to decide.
I'm curious. Suppose that you are in a strike, and that the negotiators hired by your union are not doing a good job. Suppose also that you and a number of your fellow union members are really getting irritated by this. What would you, as a union member, do? I realize, of course, that this might depend on the details. But I really do not know the dynamics of these negotiations.
My next-door neighbour is a CUPE striker. He tells me that the union would be glad to give up the sick-leave accumulation plan in exchange for a short-term disability plan. The City wouldn't give them the latter in previous contracts, so they had to settle for the former.
He also says the only reason the sick-leave plan is being made an issue by the City in this negotiation is that the City has for years carried on as if there was no additional cost to the sick-leave plan; workers get paid the same whether they are sick or healthy.
As a result the City has chronically failed to budget for the expense of the sick-leave payout on retirement. With massive impending layoffs and retirements the City is now facing a large payout liability that is completely unfunded. It's the city's own accounting practices that have created a funding crisis, and now they expect CUPE to eat it.
I'm curious. Suppose that you are in a strike, and that the negotiators hired by your union are not doing a good job. Suppose also that you and a number of your fellow union members are really getting irritated by this. What would you, as a union member, do? I realize, of course, that this might depend on the details. But I really do not know the dynamics of these negotiations.
Most unions don't "hire" negotiators. Let me speak for my own. Our bargaining team is composed of elected delegates, with or without some ex officio members of the local union executive. There may be a business agent or staffer who assists, even sometimes as spokesperson, but they don't get a vote on moves made in negotiations, or on whether a tentative deal is good enough to take back to the members for ratification.
From personal experience, strike or no strike, when members are unhappy at progress. we make it known - phone calls, emails, demands for membership meetings, online forums, sit-ins of the union office, pickets - I've seen it all and been behind a fair share of it. Unions combine some of the least democratic practices with some of the most startling outbreaks of direct and unmistakeable democracy. Lousy negotiators don't scare me - only a demoralized membership does.
Don't know if that helps with your question. Union constitutions do, of course, have provisions for more formal processes, like the laying of charges, like meetings to change mandates, like recall provisions of elected officers or bargaining reps - and, of course, the ultimate rebuffs, such as not voting in favour of a strike mandate (rare but loud and clear), or turning down a tentative agreement. Democracy - it's unpredictable - which is why we love it.
All this is very very different from what happens on the employer side, of course.
Thanks. I suppose that I'll have to ask someone else about what happens on the employer side....
My experience is somewhat dated, but typically what happens is that Corporate tells the plant negotiating team (usually a few people from Human Resources lead by the sociopath who heads that department) what "the package" is. It's the job of the union team to get as much of that as possible, and the job of the plant management negotiating team to preseve as much as that as possible.
It happens, but it's rare that a union can force the plant management team to go back and get corporate to enhance the original package. Usually, that's where things typically "go off the rails" and you end up on the street with picket signs.
Similarly, if the union bargaining committe doesn't have a good read of the plant floor membership sensibilities, things can go very badly indeed.
It's a complicated little dance, and after going through it, I'd be a liar if I said I didn't feel a kinship with anyone-- union or management-- that has been at a bargaining table.
That's the old way.
I'm sure it's changed.
In the public sector, another dynamic is introduced through the media and public opinion. The sick day issue is a good example. As Jim Stanford (funny how he seems to have more spunk now that Buzz is gone-- you notice that, Unionist?) pointed out last week on CBC radio, the city " cherry picked " this issue because of the play they knew it would have with the citizens of Toronto, who won't be exposed to too much media which takes the time to explain the issue in full.
Then there's the big boogey man always standing behind management at the bargaining table-- "back to work legislation". As we know, the legislature, which wasn't needed when the economic meltdown started to meltdown, can always be recalled at the drop of a hat to frog march public sector unions back to work.
I really don't know how public sector union negotiating teams do what they do without reaching across the table and punching someone.
Because we are civil employees.
Usually.
Development fees aren't used to pay for operational expenses. They're meant to pay for capital costs associated with development.
Here's the best explanation of the situation that I've read:
...the only reason the sick-leave plan is being made an issue by the City in this negotiation is that the City has for years carried on as if there was no additional cost to the sick-leave plan; workers get paid the same whether they are sick or healthy.
As a result the City has chronically failed to budget for the expense of the sick-leave payout on retirement. With massive impending layoffs and retirements the City is now facing a large payout liability that is completely unfunded. It's the city's own accounting practices that have created a funding crisis, and now they expect CUPE to eat it.
Too bad it isn't on the front page of the Toronto Star, the Globe & Mail, and the Toronto Sun.
Now that you mention it... yes! and he's not the only one.
To add insult to injury in the public sector, sometimes the ability to frog march them back to work isn't good enough - so (e.g.) the federal government bans access to binding arbitration for years at a time. They did it between 1996 and 2001, after several years of wage freezes in the early 90s, to ensure that federal civil servants couldn't catch up. With this year's Expenditure Restraint Act (basically an annual ceiling of 1.5% on total compensation increases of all kinds until 2012), arbitration is still available, but the arbitrators are also bound by the ceiling. I have no idea how anyone could bargain in such a framework.
I agree, LTJ. I've just shared it on Facebook. Excellent and succinct analysis.
There are a whole bunch of things in this strike that seem contradictory and make it hard to understand who is right or wrong:
1. The union says the city refuses to talk about anything unless they make concessions on bankable sick days. The city says that they have made all kinds of proposals and the union has not responded. Who is lying and who is telling the truth?
2. The union says that they agree that it would be better to have a short term disability plan rather than people relying on banked sick days and they cliam that the city just wants to take away the sick days and not substitute them for anything. The city claims that they are offering an STD plan. Who is lying and who is telling the truth?
3. The union claims that they only want to hold on the what they have and that they don't want any real increases in benefits or wages - just nothing to be taken away. The city claims that the union is insisting on a raise that is above the rate of inflation. Who is lying and who is telling the truth?
4. If in fact the strike is all about the city demanding concessions from the union - then why is there a strike at all??? Normally when it is the employer that is demanding concessions, the result is a LOCK-OUT, not a strike. Makes no sense.
Well, you've already made up your mind, Stockholm, so it's probably a waste of time bothering to answer anything in your post. But let me just say that a raise that is merely the rate of inflation MIGHT be "taking away" what they had before, if they were getting above-inflation yearly increases before.
Don't assume I've made up my mind. I've said from the start that I haven't decided whose side I'm on and I'm finding it frustrating that there is virtually no information available to the public that explains the issues in the strike so that we can make up our own minds as to who's position is more reaonable. I'm a citizen of Toronto and if the City is supposedly driving a hard bargain on my behalf, then i think I should have a right to know what the issues are.
People can debate whether or not the union is justified in asking for a raise that is beyond the rate of inflation - but I don't see anyway that you can claim that not getting a raise that is beyond the inflation rate constitutes a CUT in wages. It just means that you are neither getting a raise nor falling behind.
Not sure if Thomas Walkom's article has already been cited here - sorry if I'm duplicating:
Striking city workers a convenient target
Stockholm - are you listening?
Stockholm... hello?
Yeah... how does that happen? Especially with people who support the workers "95% of the time" (just never this particular time)!!??
Those without such perks didn't say to themselves: Maybe if we unionize, we'll be able to get the same deal.
Instead, the reaction was: Who do these guys think they are?
Yeah! Where's my pitchfork?
Toronto's sick-pay deal, for instance, benefited the city and its taxpayers for years. Instead of paying higher wages over that period, the city was able to defer this particular portion of its labour costs until employees retired.
Now, with the city's largely middle-aged workforce close to retirement, the bills are coming due. But instead of paying what it owes, the city wants to scrap the arrangement. No wonder the workers are miffed.
Not that any of this will stop
Stockholmthe public from fuming and the media from fulminating.Great article, as usual. Thank you, Thomas. Every sentence is gold.
I'm not sure who you are arguing with. I'm not taking sides here. I'm just pointing out that each side is giving us totally contradictory accounts of what the issues are. How can i or anyone else be expected to sympathize with one side or the other when there is no information whatsoever about the issues that have caused the strike??? or why it is a strike aat all and not a lock out. I would like to be able to read a detailed brief on exactly what the city's latest bargaining position is and what the union's latest bargaining position is and then i want to be able to weigh the two sides myself and make up my own mind as to which side seems to be in the right.
Is that too much to asK???
Sorry, where's the other Stockholm who was raving against healthy people getting rewarded for unused sick days?
Why not read Walkom's article and comment on that, if you've really decided to become neutral instead of just anti-union.
You saud yourself that you were also against healthy people getting rewarded for unused sick days. Being for or against one specific anachronistic benefit doesn't make a person pro- or anti-union. Its about judging a situation on its own merits. I may be against the principle of paying people a windfall for unused sick days - but for all I know i might agree with CUPE's position on every single other issue - but i have no way of knowing since there seems to be this conspiracy of silence as to what the other issues actually are.
LOL. I should have listened to Michelle.
I guess you don't know what the issues are either - and you expect people to just blindly take sides without knowing what the fight is all about. I find that very narrow minded.
After 3 threads of bashing the workers - he decides to ask what the issues are!!!
Ouch, my aching sides!! LOL!!!
If you call asking to know what the ISSUES are in the strike "bashing the workers" then i guess there is nothing more to say to you. You refuse to reason with anyone.
Development fees aren't used to pay for operational expenses. They're meant to pay for capital costs associated with development.
Well Doug, what happens when those fees don't cover the capital costs? Who do you think picks up the tab?
Looks like David Miller, when he's not busy locating Toronto's garbage dump adjacent to a Indian Reservation, (gee, what would Mike Harris have done differently there?) is expecting the ordinary taxpayer, and civic workers to pick up the difference.
dp
CUPE has a webpage devoted to support for the Toronto strikers.
It has a list of suggestions for how the public can support the strikers. Number 1 on the list? "Use the temporary garbage dumps."
That should put an end to all the speculation about whether hauling your own trash is scabbbing. I don't think CUPE gives a damn whether you are also hauling your neighbour's garbage, or even whether you are getting paid to do it. It's not going to make or break the strike. Certainly nothing they have said would indicate they are opposed to citizens hauling their own, either individually or collectively.
Scabbing only becomes a real issue if the city hires replacement workers or private contractors to do struck work.
Why we are on strike [from the CUPE local 79 website]
We are 24,000 people who work for you every day in child care, public health, emergency services, garbage & recycling, social services, planning, permits, building inspections, water and sewage treatment, parks and recreation, animal services, and so much more.
We do not want to be on strike, but our employer - the City of Toronto - gave us no choice.
The city says it wants fairness. There is no fairness in offering us so much less than the 2.4% increase for city councillors and 3% for other unionized city workers. There is no fairness in trying to take away collective agreement rights that were not touched in negotiations with police, fire, housing, parking authority and hydro.
The city says it wants affordability. The city's financial problems are not new. Taking away benefits from workers will not solve the problem. Cancelling advanced training for paramedics will not solve the problem. Refusing to provide CPR and first aid training to part-time parks and recreation staff - who must pay out of pocket for required training - will not solve the problem.
The city says it wants flexibility. The city wants to turn back the clock to an era of bitter labour relations without regard to earned seniority or other collective agreement rights. The city has rejected all of our proposals to improve efficiency, such as modified work for injured paramedics and other workers, increasing hours for part-timers or combining temporary seasonal jobs so workers do not have to turn to EI or social assistance (an additional cost for the city) for survival.
We tried for six months to reach a negotiated settlement, but the city dragged its feet. We set a deadline, but the city didn't care. Just hours before the deadline, the city gave us a proposal designed to provoke a strike. It is time for the city to move off its concession demands and negotiate to end this strike.
We want equal treatment now!
The facts on sick days
• Many of us have worked for decades on the understanding that we have a sick plan and would be paid for a portion of unused sick days when we retire. We believed the City's promise.
• The payout for accumulated sick days - which has stringent rules - is the only severance we receive when we retire from the City of Toronto, if we are eligible.
• Local 416 and Local 79 members can only get paid sick time after six months of employment.
• In Local 79, only full-time city workers have a payout provision. Members in the city's homes for the aged have paid sick days with no payout.
• About 10,000 part-time child care, public health, hostel and recreation workers have no paid sick days at all. Local 79 has been trying for a decade to improve this situation. Now we are fighting just to hold on to what is already there for some members.
• You would have to work for 15 years without taking one sick day to earn the maximum payout after 25 years service. That means no illness, no having to stay home to take care of a sick child or an ailing parent for 15 years.
• Full-time workers in Local 79 and Local 416 must work 10 years before they are eligible for any payout. The percentage of banked sick days that will be paid and the maximum to which they will be paid grows with the number of years of service.
• The proposal made by the city to replace our current provisions is a substandard short-term disability plan.
Finally. Thank you, M. Spector.
Yes, but don't forget this: It also becomes an issue if the city allows/invites strikers to cross their own picket lines and return to work. That becomes a very big issue.
After reading through this thread and other articles supporting the pro-worker viewpoint, it was implied that the 18 bankable sick days a year are the only form of severance one receives upon retirement. There are also strict provisions in place that dictate how these days can be cashed out. I have also read that this bankable sick day agreement was intended to serve as an alternative to a short-term disability plan.
In regards to the retirement, I have read through the Collective Bargaining Agreement here:
http://www.cupelocal79.org/Agreements/FT%20CA%20WG%202005%202008%20FINAL...
On page 37, Article 13 talks about Pensions and Retirement - all full-time members are part of the OMERS plan. To imply that no benefits other than the bankable sick days are received by full-time CUPE 79 and 416 workers upon retirement is simply inaccurate.
In regards to the short-term disability plan, I have read through the Benefit Entitlement Principles of the Employment Insurance of Canada here:
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/digest/11_2_0.shtml#a11_2_1
As you can see in Article 11.2.1, sickness is completely covered under this plan.
Please correct my misunderstanding of the issues, if there are any, and let me know what other reasoning the union is using to justify keeping the bankable sick days.
I also do not understand why anyone who is not being resourced actioned or voluntarily accepting an offer for early retirement would receive "severance" upon retirement. Why is this a benefit at all?
EI sick benefits have nothing to do with collective bargaining short term disability benefits, so strike that from your line of reasoning.
You can also strike Section 13, as it is dealing with pensions, and not severence pay.
Please correct my misunderstanding of the issues, if there are any, and let me know what other reasoning the union is using to justify keeping the bankable sick days.
Sure.
First of all, no one implied there were "no other benefits on retirement". Of course they have a pension plan. What was stated is that their only form of severance on leaving is sick leave payout.
Severance on retirement is a rare provision in the private sector, but extremely common in the public service. For example, all federal public service employees, upon retirement, death, or layoff, receive a severance payment roughly equal to one week's pay per year of service, capped at a maximum of 30 weeks' pay. It's a form of deferred wages.
The argument that "it's the only form of severance we get" wouldn't score many points with me if the Toronto workers were looking for a new benefit, but it's a benefit they bargained ages ago and which was obviously the subject of tradeoffs, limiting other types of demands, etc. So you need to compare apples with apples. If the city wants to eliminate it, it's no different from asking for a wage cut. They're allowed to ask, but be prepared for a "no thanks" or "maybe, but what would you like to give us in exchange?"
Second, as for "keeping" their bankable sick days, same answer. It was freely granted by the employer long ago in the context of free collective bargaining. Again, federal public service workers all have bankable sick days (except they don't have the payout on retirement aspect).
Your reference to EI benefits is a bit odd. You say they're "completely covered" by EI sick benefits - which pays a maximum of $413 per week for a maximum of 15 weeks after a two-week waiting period when you get nothing but hungry. Is that what you meant by "completely covered"?
My advice to you is to stop doing research and just ask questions.
Development fees aren't used to pay for operational expenses. They're meant to pay for capital costs associated with development.
Well Doug, what happens when those fees don't cover the capital costs? Who do you think picks up the tab?
Looks like David Miller, when he's not busy locating Toronto's garbage dump adjacent to a Indian Reservation, (gee, what would Mike Harris have done differently there?) is expecting the ordinary taxpayer, and civic workers to pick up the difference.
So far, the City has saved 25,000 x $200 x 10 working days which is about $50,000,000.
They say they needed an extra $450,000,000 for the Thunder Bay stimulus program which will get Toronto a bunch of shiny new streetcars.
Thus if the strike goes on for 9 weeks, they will be able to pay for their previously unbudgeted share of the Thunder Bay stimulus.
Meanwhile, market forces are zeroing in on the Toronto garbage problem as neighborhoods and businesses hire private contractors to haul waste.
All Toronto has to do now is sell the social assistance program to the Province, and we may very well see these 25,000 workers locked out permanently.
Guess it was a good run while it lasted.
I appreciate the responses, and they were very helpful. Other than the last line which was a bit condescending in nature ;)
Sure.
First of all, no one implied there were "no other benefits on retirement". Of course they have a pension plan. What was stated is that their only form of severance on leaving is sick leave payout.
Severance on retirement is a rare provision in the private sector, but extremely common in the public service. For example, all federal public service employees, upon retirement, death, or layoff, receive a severance payment roughly equal to one week's pay per year of service, capped at a maximum of 30 weeks' pay. It's a form of deferred wages.
I guess this is my concern. I have never heard of this type of "perk". Severance, to me, implies payment provided by the employer to the employee when the relationship is prematurely ended by the employer. I now understand that severance has a different connotation in the public sector, and can be regarded as a significant benefit relative to private sector counterparts.
Do you have any more information about why you claim the practice is "extremely common" in the public service. I have read other unions that represent the city's firefighters, police force, and community housing employees have this "perk". Approximately what percentages of the city's unions have this benefit? Have there been recent negotiations to remove this benefit from other unions' CBAs?
The argument that "it's the only form of severance we get" wouldn't score many points with me if the Toronto workers were looking for a new benefit, but it's a benefit they bargained ages ago and which was obviously the subject of tradeoffs, limiting other types of demands, etc. So you need to compare apples with apples. If the city wants to eliminate it, it's no different from asking for a wage cut. They're allowed to ask, but be prepared for a "no thanks" or "maybe, but what would you like to give us in exchange?"
Wage cuts always happen, particularly in the case when the employer is under significant economic duress. For example, in the 90s IBM cut all employee wages by 5%. Several years during the 2000s saw absolutely no wage increases for employees. During these times, a significant number of employees lost their job. IBM, at the time, didn't have to give anything in exchange.
Now I understand the private sector is significantly different, and that I used a non-unionized example, but in the case where there is significant economic duress on the city, what options are available to it to reduce its largest cost on the P&L (labour)? I'm anxious to hear what recommendations union supporters have for how the city should reduce its labour costs if it doesn't affect either compensation or job security.
At the end of the day, a new CBA has to be established. In this environment, the CBA needs to reflect the far more significant economic challenges facing the city relative to the last time it was negotiated... and yes, that involves cut backs to compensation or job loss.
It is the payout on retirement aspect that makes "bankable sick days" a retirement benefit, not a worker protection against sickness. I consider it part of the compensation package that was offered to the employee. Much like salaries reflect market conditions, the new CBA should reflect market conditions.
Your reference to EI benefits is a bit odd. You say they're "completely covered" by EI sick benefits - which pays a maximum of $413 per week for a maximum of 15 weeks after a two-week waiting period when you get nothing but hungry. Is that what you meant by "completely covered"?
I was incorrect in stating complete coverage of EI. I think if protection against short-term illness is what is being sought, insurance is a far more cost-efficient way of providing such coverage; however, as stated above, the bankability of sick days and the ability to cash it out upon retirement is a compensation benefit, not a protection issue.
Do you have any more information about why you claim the practice is "extremely common" in the public service.
I would have thought that telling you hundreds of thousands of federal public service employees have this severance benefit would have been sufficient to establish that it was "extremely common". Now you want me to do a survey of all the provinces, territories, and municipalities!?
Stop asking so many questions and do some research.
How should I know? Are you a Torontonian? If so, contact your city councillor (who is elected to represent your interests) and demand to know exactly what they are doing with this issue. If you're not a Torontonian, see my previous paragraph.
Nonsense. Wage cuts for unionized employees are unheard of. Even in the face of bankruptcy, government blackmail, and bondholder pressure, for example, GM and Chrysler auto workers did not agree to wage cuts - in fact, they weren't even requested by the employers. I've seen wage freezes, but no one with an ounce of self-respect would ever agree to a wage cut.
As for non-unionized employees, they are at the pure mercy of their employers. They have no recourse except to pack up their miserable locker contents and leave. I'm surprised those employers don't ask for the privilege of the first night as well. You see, workers need to organize, for self-respect. If they choose not to, that's really their tough luck.
I'm anxious to hear what recommendations union supporters have for how the city should reduce its labour costs if it doesn't affect either compensation or job security.
They should reduce their labour costs by firing all unnecessary managers and other non-unionized pencil-pushers. Another suggestion would be to stop paying for outsourced labour.
If you don't like those suggestions, perhaps you can tell me how they will reduce their non-labour costs? For example, I'll bet Toronto buys lots of 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of paper, in packages of 500. I suggest they go to their supplier, explain patiently that they're short of cash, and tell them that until they reduce the price by 10%, they will lock them out. They should then go see the oil companies and tell them to drop the price of gas and diesel significantly or else f*** off. Then, they should go see the province and the feds and tell them that unless they get HUGE subsidies (e.g. $400 million for new streetcars), they will stop doing business with them. Good suggestions, eh? Or wait a sec - maybe employees can reduce their cost, but nobody else can??
"CBA" is a U.S. term. Where are you anyway? In Canada, it's called a "collective agreement". As for cutbacks to compensation or job loss, if the city doesn't need all those workers, I'm quite sure they're free to lay them off. I would find it very hard to believe that the collective agreement (not collective "bargaining" agreement - capisce??) prohibits layoffs. But if the price of keeping one's job is getting on one's knees, licking the boots and kissing the arse of the boss and begging to "please keep me on, I've a spouse and kids, I don't care what you pay me" - then any worker of integrity will tell that boss to go fuck himself sideways. That's a Canadian labour relations term, by the way, look it up.
I can't find the term "fuck himself sideways" in any Canadian labour law, do you have a link for that?
I can't find the term "fuck himself sideways" in any Canadian labour law, do you have a link for that?
I have one reference, in a Chinese labour law textbook. In order to decipher, you may have to rotate your head to the right (the same direction Chinese society has headed):
OK. I decided to just PHONE the union to see what their view was of (1) taking your own garbage to the dump, (2) taking your neighbour's garbage to the dump for free, and (3) using a service that will take your garbage to the dump.
Regarding (1): "Oh no, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that."
Regarding (2): "I think that you're just helping your neighbour out there. That's my personal opinion. I don't think anyone would have too much of a problem with it."
Regarding (3): "If a person's charging money for it, that's more like they're taking advantage of the situation. I think you find the union probably would have a problem with that. I think you would find it scabbing. The union is not looking at it favourably."
These are not exact quotations, since I was trying to transcribe a quick phone conversation while I was talking.
As far as I could tell, these were just the personal opinions of the guy answering the phone: it didn't seem as if the union itself has a policy on these questions. But at least he's got his finger closer to the pulse of these things than I do.
Well done, TP, and thanks for doing the right thing. Sorry you didn't get your answer earlier - or in more official form - but if my experience is anything to go by, sometimes when you're on strike, you don't cover all the bases. Workers need to learn from those experiences and improve how they deal with the public, and with each other. As in other life activities (parenting springs to mind), there are no reliable manuals.
I can't find the term "fuck himself sideways" in any Canadian labour law, do you have a link for that?
I have one reference, in a Chinese labour law textbook. In order to decipher, you may have to rotate your head to the right (the same direction Chinese society has headed):
I am surprised that no one finds this T-shirt offensive and rude.
万岁工人加拿大！
加拿大，摆脱阿富汗！
阿富汗人民将胜利！
Alrighty then
Remind, I beleive this is the rough translation:
Long live worker Canada! Canada, gets rid of Afghanistan! The Afghan people will win.
Which is funny considering the billions of dollars of war material made by union members for the war in Afghanistan.
Which is funny considering the billions of dollars of war material made by union members for the war in Afghanistan.
We deliberately produce shoddy material for the war.The Afghan people will win!
And so will the municipal workers of Toronto.
Long live worker Canada! Canada, gets rid of Afghanistan! The Afghan people will win.
Which is funny considering the billions of dollars of war material made by union members for the war in Afghanistan.
Funny, perhaps you could slap up a link or 2 showing what Canadian unionized companies make "war materials" for Afghanistan, as it seems to me that it has for the most part been bought from China, and other countries.
Here is short list of unions that are making war material or other services to be used against the Afghan people.
http://www.caw112.on.ca/
http://cawlondon2.homestead.com/
http://cmcfa-apcmc.ca/index_e.html
http://unionmadeclothing.ca/
The list can go on and on however, I do not have the time to list every union making items or providing services to the military. It is interesting to finding out who makes what for who.
Ok, here's a list of Canadians who contribute cash toward the mission:
Income tax and GST donors
You know, Webgear, you have really put your finger on the essence of the Toronto municipal workers' strike:
Our boys and girls are dying in 'Stan for the freedom to scab and enact strike-breaking legislation here at home.
But we're losing, because of those high-tech invisible Incredible Explosive Devices of Mass Destruction.
So, bring the troops home - stop the bloodshed - and use them to pick up garbage in Toronto!!!
Word of caution: They should drive those garbage trucks verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry carefully!
How many Strykers do the Canadians have in Afghanistan webgear?
CAW actually in your first link webgear, states that they want the government to start utilizing Canadian companies to outfit the military in Canada.
You are not seriously suggesting that the faculty staff at Military colleges are teaching classes in how to oppress Afghans and steal their resources are you?
The UNITE union workers clothing companies manufacture all types of uniforms, not just those specific to the military and they were doing it long before our advent in Afghanistan. And I saw nothing to suggest that is where the soldiers in Afghanistan got their military uniforms from in the first place. In fact, I remember reading that they had to get them out of the USA.
Moreover, to suggest that union workers have to and are supporting the destruction of Afghanistan because they work in a place that may provide services/gear/equipment to the Canadian military is beyond belief. They would be still providing said things, to the military without our being in Afghanistan, just as they were before.
It would be like saying that union workers who work in industries that have negative environmental impacts, do not, and cannot care, about the environment, if they want job security, which is a load of BS.
QUESTION:
Tell me, in the anarchist society that you envisage, where all men will be fee, where no one will ever be in a position to impose his will upon his fellow man, where "doing your own thing" will be the norm rather than the exception, where creative leisure - as opposed to material success - will disappear and economic controls will exist on a purely voluntary basis, who will pick up the garbage?
ANSWER:
The garbageman.
Juan Butler " The Garbageman"
I would have thought that telling you hundreds of thousands of federal public service employees have this severance benefit would have been sufficient to establish that it was "extremely common". Now you want me to do a survey of all the provinces, territories, and municipalities!?
Stop asking so many questions and do some research.
You're the one who implied you were the source of all answers, so I asked the questions. I'm willing to accept that this is common practice in public service based on a quick skim through some articles - it's also common practice in the States.
How should I know? Are you a Torontonian? If so, contact your city councillor (who is elected to represent your interests) and demand to know exactly what they are doing with this issue. If you're not a Torontonian, see my previous paragraph.
Again, I ask because you implied you had the answers. Given your highly opinionated posting in this thread, it would be a fair assumption to think that you would understand the context of this issue. I now understand that you don't, and think you should acknowledge that these recent agreements have an impact on the issue at hand.
Nonsense. Wage cuts for unionized employees are unheard of. Even in the face of bankruptcy, government blackmail, and bondholder pressure, for example, GM and Chrysler auto workers did not agree to wage cuts - in fact, they weren't even requested by the employers. I've seen wage freezes, but no one with an ounce of self-respect would ever agree to a wage cut.
As for non-unionized employees, they are at the pure mercy of their employers. They have no recourse except to pack up their miserable locker contents and leave. I'm surprised those employers don't ask for the privilege of the first night as well. You see, workers need to organize, for self-respect. If they choose not to, that's really their tough luck.
First of all, you're wrong: http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/article1003751.ece
Look at the Toronto Star's GTA section frontpage. You're just so wrong.
Second of all, I simply disagree. Your complete mental separation of employer and employee is out of touch with reality - the two share the objective of increasing company/agency performance. It's mentalities such as yours that have resulted in such confrontational relationships between management and unions.
They should reduce their labour costs by firing all unnecessary managers and other non-unionized pencil-pushers. Another suggestion would be to stop paying for outsourced labour.
If you don't like those suggestions, perhaps you can tell me how they will reduce their non-labour costs? For example, I'll bet Toronto buys lots of 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of paper, in packages of 500. I suggest they go to their supplier, explain patiently that they're short of cash, and tell them that until they reduce the price by 10%, they will lock them out. They should then go see the oil companies and tell them to drop the price of gas and diesel significantly or else f*** off. Then, they should go see the province and the feds and tell them that unless they get HUGE subsidies (e.g. $400 million for new streetcars), they will stop doing business with them. Good suggestions, eh? Or wait a sec - maybe employees can reduce their cost, but nobody else can??
Financial management is obviously not your area of expertise. As I mentioned, the largest cost centre of the city is labour. When determining financial efficiencies, large cost centres are the first area of opportunity. For example, when reducing the labour force, management overhead automatically gets reduced if ratios are maintained. Likewise, you have already stated above that non-unionized workers bear significantly higher "risks", and therefore that risk requires a premium.
Outsourced labour is by far cheaper, without a doubt, if externalities are not quantified and included in the calculation.
Paper supplies, relative to labour costs, make little to no different in the massive shortcoming the city faces... and what a horrid assumption to make that the city does not actively engage in vendor/supplier management to constantly optimize their suppliers.
"CBA" is a U.S. term. Where are you anyway? In Canada, it's called a "collective agreement". As for cutbacks to compensation or job loss, if the city doesn't need all those workers, I'm quite sure they're free to lay them off. I would find it very hard to believe that the collective agreement (not collective "bargaining" agreement - capisce??) prohibits layoffs. But if the price of keeping one's job is getting on one's knees, licking the boots and kissing the arse of the boss and begging to "please keep me on, I've a spouse and kids, I don't care what you pay me" - then any worker of integrity will tell that boss to go fuck himself sideways. That's a Canadian labour relations term, by the way, look it up.
Really, you're that anal on terminology - try to focus on content....
I sincerely doubt that you are in the majority when you suggest job security is less important than receiving all the benefits you demand... In a time where thousands of people are losing their jobs, that's an ignorant and arrogant comment to make.
Slaman is an interesting sort:
1. S/he quotes lies from the Tampa Bay Times about the CAW agreeing to wage cuts.
2. S/he uses the U.S. terminology "CBA" - a dead giveaway any day of the week. (That's a 7-day week in metric, slaman.)
3. I make a rather exaggerated claim that unionized workers don't agree to wage cuts - and "genius" here can't even come up with one single counter-example (other than the asshole from Tampa Bay, who can't read or write).
4. S/he thinks I'm "ignorant and arrogant" when I say that unionized workers do not get on their knees, kiss their bosses' arse (that's Canuck for "ass", slaman) and beg to keep their job at all costs. Workers lose jobs and find other jobs - a revolutionary concept, slaman, but we here in Canada are a little more radical that way. Come and visit, it ain't all that bad.
5. Finally, my favourite quote:
THANK GOD FOR THAT!
Now, WTF are you doing in a labour-friendly board and forum? Cloudy today in Tampa Bay?
Hey ari, Canada is not the USA.
Slaman is an interesting sort:
1. S/he quotes lies from the Tampa Bay Times about the CAW agreeing to wage cuts.
2. S/he uses the U.S. terminology "CBA" - a dead giveaway any day of the week. (That's a 7-day week in metric, slaman.)
3. I make a rather exaggerated claim that unionized workers don't agree to wage cuts - and "genius" here can't even come up with one single counter-example (other than the asshole from Tampa Bay, who can't read or write).
4. S/he thinks I'm "ignorant and arrogant" when I say that unionized workers do not get on their knees, kiss their bosses' arse (that's Canuck for "ass", slaman) and beg to keep their job at all costs. Workers lose jobs and find other jobs - a revolutionary concept, slaman, but we here in Canada are a little more radical that way. Come and visit, it ain't all that bad.
5. Finally, my favourite quote:
THANK GOD FOR THAT!
Now, WTF are you doing in a labour-friendly board and forum? Cloudy today in Tampa Bay?
I was born, raised, and live in Canada, but you obviously don't have intelligent responses to my points, so no point in further engaging. Anytime you want to discuss the issue instead of posting ad hominem attacks, let me know.
I didn't realize that "labour-friendly" people were never allowed to question the intentions and actions of unions.
Ok. I'm sorry. Let's start simple.
Why did you quote some character from the St. Petersburg Times saying this:
That's a lie. Ken Lewenza never said that. And it never happened. So what's your explanation for that?
Furthermore, you cited that lie in order to tell me "you're just wrong" - "so wrong" - when I said that unionized workers don't negotiate lower wage rates.
How about an apology? Or do I have to take you by the hand and show you that the wage rates at GM before and after the latest round of bargaining are the same?
Awaiting your thoughts on this issue of substance.
Not all Full Time Members of Local 79 receive the 18 sick days. If you were full time prior to amalgamation, you are on the sick plan of your former municipality.
If we are ONE CITY, we should have ONE SICK PLAN that treats all members fairly and equitably.
I DO NOT get the 18 cumulative sick days.....I get 4 occurrences, lose 'em if I don't use 'em. It should be the same. It is not fair that others in my job classification are entitled to a payout while I get nothing. (And I do not think I have ever used my 4 occurrences in a year).
The media is hyping up the sick plan....there are other issues.
Remind
The Stryker is the American version of the LAV III, they are for the most part the same identical vehicle. All these vehicles are made in London, Ontario. I would hazard a guess and say there are around 200 in Afghanistan right now, several hundred more to follow this summer with the troop surge.
I am not suggesting military and public colleges/universities are teaching classes in how to oppress Afghans and steal their resources. These colleges and universities are teaching about warfare, they are teaching leaders how to fight in Afghanistan. These teachers are part of the unions.
Our uniforms are Canadian made, I believe there are several companies making Canadian uniforms some for southern Ontario and British Columbia. The Americans copied our uniform designed for Iraq.
The CAW was quiet upset when they did not receive the heavy logistics truck contract a few months ago, a vehicle which was to be used in Afghanistan. There are many CAW locals that are building weapons of destruction for places like Afghanistan and Haiti.
Unionist
I said nothing about Afghanistan until after you did. Look at post #52 and 54. My original post was about how I found your post and image very offensive and racist.
Lets try this angle then:
Moreover, to suggest that defence workers (military and civilian) are supporting the destruction of Afghanistan because they work in a place that may provide services/gear/equipment to the Canadian military is beyond belief. They would be still providing said things, to the military without our being in Afghanistan, just as they were before. It would be like saying defence workers who work in industries that have nagative environmental impacts, do not, and cannot care, about the environment, if they want job security.
I can spell BS too. Or do you prefer the unabbreviated version?
I do not think defense personal, are providing actual defense of Canada by their being in Afghanistan. And apparently the teachers in the military colleges, are failing dismally in their job position of teaching Officers how to fight in Afghanistan. Thank God.
At face value, with the overall context considered, some might call it appropriation.
I'm not talking about people in Afghanistan. I am talking about the thousands of defence workers, civilian and uniformed, across Canada who materially support the mission in their day to day routine activities. But you knew that didn't you. How are they different from unionized workers who support the defence establishment in their day to day activities. How are they different from the thousands of CUPE and PSAC defence workers inside the department. You said Webgear's suggestion that the workers in the links he provided were contributing towards the war effort, which you describe as the destruction of that country, was beyond belief. How do you seperate unionized employees who perform that type of work from those who work directly for the defence department in Canada, either unionized or not?
You may have just uncovered an intentional underground plot among the academics within the Defence learning establishments to sabotage the entire effort.
Unionist
I said nothing about Afghanistan until after you did. Look at post #52 and 54. My original post was about how I found your post and image very offensive and racist.
I raised Afghanistan because you support the mission. I was teasing you. You found my post and image "racist"? I made a joke with a T-shirt, and you support the subjugation and slaughter of the Afghan people by Western imperialism? I will let others judge what is "racist".
"I made a joke with a T-shirt, and you support the subjugation and slaughter of the Afghan people by Western imperialism? I will let others judge what is "racist".
zinggggggggggggggggg!
Slumberjack it seems to me, they are not jonesing to go over and kill brown people to fill their pockets. And most, most likely had their jobs before the corporate fascists took us further down this evil path. That they are fighting against the occupation says much. That the military personal isn't says even more.
Remind
Who said anything about failing or professional misconduct at the public and military universities?
Unionist
I feel what you posted was racist, that is my view. You have made fun at a whole society, and have appeared to have gotten away with it.
You have made fun at a whole society, and have appeared to have gotten away with it.
Did you know that the inability to distinguish between right and wrong is a legal defence when accused of crimes?
Mind you, it didn't work that well at Nuremburg.
Remind
Unions like the CAW have been providing arms and war materials for decades. Every piece of military weaponary and equipment since the 1950s has been made a union member somewhere in Canada.
1950s? Pshaw! inform yourself, my friend. During World War II, vast sections of Canadian unionized industry were converted to the war effort - including lend lease equipment. CPR's Angus Shops in Montréal produced hundreds of Valentine tanks, besides other war matériel. Its Ogden Shops in Calgary converted the locomotive works completely to war production, turning out naval guns and mounts for anti-aircraft artillery - a total of $30 million worth of production by war's end. CN's Pointe-St-Charles shops in Montréal (the largest in Canada, with thousands of skilled trades workers) was also transformed for war production.
And that's just the railway industry.
So don't give me that "1950s" stuff. Canadian war production by unionized workers long predates the Cold War, and it carries on to this day. The problem is not the production. It is your masters, who direct that the products be used against the sovereignty and freedom of the people of the world.
Here you go:
Source.
Now, back to sick leave and the Toronto city workers' strike...
Ohh I see now, we can not blame the worker, only the political masters. It is all clear now, we can not blame the deaths of innocent Afghans on the people that build the equipment just the government who purchased the equipment.
Wow, you must have a clear conscious with that logic.
Ohh I see now, we can not blame the worker, only the political masters. It is all clear now, we can not blame the deaths of innocent Afghans on the people that build the equipment just the government who purchased the equipment.
How about all those who pay income tax and GST, Webgear? They all to blame too?
Blame is based on what stand a person takes. I, like a majority of Canadians, oppose Canada's occupation of Afghanistan. You support it. That means you are to blame. We also are to blame, until such time as we secure the defeat, or the retreat, of your comrades from that country.
ETA: While we're at it, Webgear, how about an apology for forgetting the heroic contribution of Canadian labour and the unions to the defeat of Hitler? Or did the world for you start with the Cold War??
I though you did not believe in polls? Or was it only polls that fit your cause, I forget?
The same unions still build weapons and munitions that killed innocent people across Europe, Africa and Asia.
I though you did not believe in polls? Or was it only polls that fit your cause, I forget?
Only the ones that fit my cause.
I told you already - we deliberately do a shoddy job now. Drive safely!
I was referring to the war material made by unions in WW2.
Shoddy jobs and unions, I would never believe that.
I was referring to the war material made by unions in WW2.
War is hell, my friend. Innocent people get killed. That's why it's important to ensure that you're waging a just war. You do know the difference, don't you? It's like the Toronto city workers' strike. There's collateral damage.
So innocent civilian deaths are ok if the war is just? Do you also execute POWs for the hell of it also?
wow, some people here like to argue late..
what were some of the original q's?
this thread was focussed on sick leave, the earlier thread and the PEf blog on the q of why other workers and the gen'l public bash unions.
on the latter q:
There are different kinds of people;
1) there are only so many good unionized jobs around. others have to make do with other kinds of work. these people then see what unionized workers make and get jealous.
2) professional or small business types think they are smarter than unionized workers, often work longer hours, and these people often think therefore should make more money than unionized workers.
The above kinds of people either they don't want to do unionized work, or can't. Either way, the differences in pay lead to self-examination. In our society, pay is often conceived as a reflection of worth. Therefore, if someone else is making more money, or has more reasonable working conditions, they must be more 'valuable'. Their question, "Why do I not make a good salary with reasonable hours and conditions of work" at a subconscious level is answered by "maybe I'm not as good". which of course is silly, but this is how it plays out. these unaknowledged reflections set up all kinds of grief and anger, directed at those who do make decent money with decent working conditions. so this is one reason why we get union bashing.
Another factor is that the real culprits of economic misery - the private financiers and policitians who do their will- seem to be difficult to get reins on. Its simply easier to bash unionists.
And of course, professionals and small business people are also almost always invested in the stock market, because they have no defined benefits pensions. (i'll bypass the q of unionized pensions invested in stocks for now.) These busy people don't have time to really understand what happened with the crash. They want to be aligned with rich people (another social problem of self-esteem and lack of real community as well as the 'problem of extremes'- if you're not relatively well-off these days, you're dirt poor ), and in aligning with the rich, there's a hope that the rich will somehow come out of this crash on top of things.
When you don't understand how the crash happened, or the structures that allow it to deepen, you drift along with tide until you're totally beached.
anyway, those are some of the dimensions.
on the sick leave backpay issue, and all the other kinds of things employers and corps are trying to roll back, including public services in general, obviously its important to make sure that we as a society keep at least some jobs with decent pay/conditions, to help raise the bar for all. the sick backpay specifically is just a matter of fairness. people who get sick need to get sick leave, and those who don't get sick shouldn't be penalized because they're healthy. the sick backpay is simply a practical solution.
Wouldn't (most) City employees qualify for statutory severance pay, given that the City must surely have a payroll > 2.5 million?
And doesn't the sick day payout take place even if work is not severered (eg: if an employee moves, and must quit)??
My understanding of statutory severance pay (under Ontario's Employment Standards Act) is that it only kicks in when an employee is laid-off and not when they resign/retire.
As for the provisions in the CUPE collective agreement(s), I don't know if they kick in in the event of resignation.
I once was under a collective agreement (under federal labour law) where we received severance pay in the event of resignation...but we had to have worked there ten years in order to receive it...and IIRC we got one week per year of service.
I'm currently in a workplace that is too small to be covered by the severance provisions of the Ontario Employment Standards Act.
Mind you we do have severance pay in our collective agreement, but it's less than what we would receive if we were covered under the act.
So, over the years what my union has tried to do is to gradually increase the level of severance pay up to the level we would receive if we were under Ontario's ESA. In fact at one time some years ago we came close to going on strike over the issue.
I agree that having a sick leave payout isn't the "best" way to provide for a pre-retirement allowance or severance pay but it is the system that's in place and has been in place for a very long time. So if the City of Toronto wants to change it, they must come up with an alternative system that's fair and equitable. It's not fair to long service employees to simply say "sorry folks...but you're not getting anything".
And we probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if the public pension system was enough for folks to live on comfortably in retirement.
Instead what we have is a public pension system that keeps people imporverished in their senior years, supplemented by a patchwork of mainly employer-based pension systems.
"And we probably wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if the public pension system was enough for folks to live on comfortably in retirement."
A good public pension system would be the best, for everyone.
Military personnel are prevented by law from doing so, openly or otherwise. The same doesn't apply to organized labour. They express their opinion in other ways, causing the organization to react with signing bonuses, which were unheard of until recent years. They borrowed yet another idea from the US military.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/584493
From Slumberjack's link:
"The CF does not actively recruit laid-off workers," said DND spokesperson Megan MacLean.
What it will continue to do is aggressively hunt down new soldiers.
I thought that was the Taliban's job...
Indeed. But getting back to yours and Reminds point, just to clarify, because there seems to be some hesitation, or at least confusion as to what it involved when unionized workers lend their efforts towards material support for military adventures abroad. The same applies of course to non-unionized workers, inside and outside DND, as I see that it serves no purpose to seperate people into categories in this regard, but I've found definitions to be helpful in determining the essential elements. Take this one for instance, particularly the third reference:
Collaborate
Now this it not to say that it lessens anyone's individual responsibility, or the responsibility of the organization as a whole who are more directly involved. The immorality of war has far reaching implications for a nation involved with it. It soils the hands of so many people who would not normally be involved in any way with projecting hegemony in the world. This is why strategic planners in countries with nuclear weapons focus on the cities of the enemy, where the workers tend to dwell.
This is a fascinating discussion. I guess the enlisted soldiers of the Wehrmacht and the industrial workers of the Ruhr valley ought to have been charged with war crimes after WWII, eh? How did we miss such a large group of crooks? (The foregoing is irony, intended to ridicule the notion that those not in charge or personally involved are to blame for war crimes.)
So if I understand correctly, this thread drift is aimed at legislating Toronto city workers back to work and recruiting them for the defence industry??? Just trying to keep track here.
Well, this has been lovely.
To thanks: thanks for trying to get the thread back on track. To no avail.
As for the issue of the racist t-shirt, and supporting a war, "the t-shirt is racist" and "the war in Afghanistan is wrong" are both true statements.
Closing for too much drift. If another is opened on the topic of the municipal workers in Toronto, please stay on topic.