Ontario government transfers employees from one union to another with less than 2 wks' notice

33 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2008-12-20 21:35

Sineed

The ones being moved from AMAPCEO to OPSEU will have lower pay and worse benefits, in a move to "modernize" the Ontario Public Sector:

Quote:
The employer has notified affected AMAPCEO-represented employees that they will be transferred out of the AMAPCEO bargaining unit effective December 31st, 2008.

Just over 300 colleagues in Correctional Services, Children and Youth Services and HR Ontario are being transferred to either OPSEU or MCP-excluded positions and AMAPCEO members in the OPP are being transferred to the OPPA.

*snip*

We have also raised questions and concerns over the handling of member disputes after December 31st, 2008; the need to honour signed minutes of settlement for some employees upon transfer; the apparent lack of a written agreement with OPSEU to accept responsibility for the employees who are being transferred; and the increase in the numbers affected between September 10th and the announcement of implementation.

http://www.amapceo.on.ca/home/Modernization.html

A friend is being moved to OPSEU after more than 2 decades in AMAPCEO. The notice came on December 17th, notifying her that as of December 31st, she will be in OPSEU.

I didn't realize that labour law in Ontario allowed moving people from one bargaining unit to another without their knowledge or consent.

Sun, 2008-12-21 02:29

Ken Burch

I didn't know labour law allowed that kind of thing anywhere. Does anyone know if the AMAPCEO agreed to this?

And what is the motivation of the Ontario government in doing this? Are these people going to lose a ton of stuff by being unwillingly shifted from one union to a different union?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our Demands Most Moderate are/
We Only Want The World!
-James Connolly

Sun, 2008-12-21 09:09

Unionist

You beat me to it, triciamarie, and with much more intimate knowledge than I could ever have brought to bear. Thanks!

Sun, 2008-12-21 09:24

triciamarie

Cry me a river. Those hoseheads in AMAPCEO crossed OPSEU picket lines en masse through the two fierce lengthy strikes in the Mike Harris era that preserved what remains of the Ontario Public Service -- even benefitting directly from OPSEU's gains by their "me-too" contracts. They weren't even a union but an "association" until recently, and even now, I'd say they're an employer union more than anything. They continue to collude with the employer in poaching all the highest-paying jobs out of OPSEU units while hindering or preventing union control of their mutual workplace. OPSEU probably has a ton of inclusion grievances outstanding for what should rightfully be OPSEU work but I'm not sure how seriously they're pursuing bringing many of these scabs into the union.

The Ontario government's motivation for doing this is to mollify Corrections, the most militant OPSEU bargaining table by far. A few months back it had been intended to bring all the non-supervisory OPS staff into OPSEU but the AMAPCEO managers and staff cried and complained so loudly (ETA: god forbid they should actually have to compete with OPSEU seniority levels, in bidding for those plum jobs), that this is all that remains.

Similarly, policing is a huge line item in the Ontario budget and if the force can be appeased by bringing admin staff behind the "thin blue line", that will also add to the employer's bargaining capital.

We are now two weeks to the termination of the OPS contract.

Sun, 2008-12-21 09:38

Sineed

triciamarie wrote:

Cry me a river. Those hoseheads in AMAPCEO crossed OPSEU picket lines en masse through the two fierce lengthy strikes in the Mike Harris era that preserved what remains of the Ontario Public Service -- even benefitting directly from OPSEU's gains by their "me-too" contracts.

That's OPSEU propaganda. The Corrections unit was insisting that AMAPCEO members were scabs in the last strike even when AMAPCEO members were going out of their way not to do struck work.

I'm also an AMAPCEO member. During the last strike, I was told by management I would face disciplinary action if I didn't cross the picket line. But OPSEU people insisted I was a scab even though I only did my own job and refused repeated requests from management to "help out." And I know that my OPSEU coworkers didn't really believe I was a scab, because after the strike, we were all friends again.

This whole "AMAPCEO people are scabs" was a strike tactic. It's not reality.

And it was awesome, telling my boss he was going to have to take out the garbage.

Quote:
They weren't even a union but an "association" until recently

From AMAPCEO's website:

Quote:
The Association was established in 1992 as a grassroots organization to represent employees who, at that time, were excluded from collective bargaining. In 1993, AMAPCEO negotiated a Social Contract sectoral framework agreement with the provincial government on behalf of 12,000 excluded employees. When amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act were adopted extending collective bargaining rights to previously excluded employees, the Association signed up a sufficient number of members to achieve voluntary recognition as a bargaining agent in 1995. An interim agreement was negotiated in 1996 and a first full Collective Agreement was negotiated in 1998.

So the fact that they're a new union makes them less legit?

Quote:
They continue to collude with the employer in poaching all the highest-paying jobs out of OPSEU units while hindering or preventing union control of their mutual workplace.

More OPSEU propaganda. AMAPCEO came along to represent those employees who previously did not enjoy the benefits of union membership. So then OPSEU comes along, finds AMAPCEO got there first and says, hey, they're stealing our jobs?? Where were they in the first place?

Quote:
The Ontario government's motivation for doing this is to mollify Corrections, the most militant OPSEU bargaining table by far.

Now, this is true.

Quote:
A few months back it had been intended to bring all the non-supervisory OPS staff into OPSEU but these AMAPCEO managers and staff cried and complained so loudly that this is all that remains.

So it's okay to poach members of another union on the grounds of rumours that they're all "scabs" anyway?

Quote:
We are now two weeks before the termination of the OPS contract.

It's going to be interesting.

Sun, 2008-12-21 09:51

triciamarie

You ever been on strike, Sineed?

'Nuff said.

Sun, 2008-12-21 10:55

Sineed

triciamarie wrote:

You ever been on strike, Sineed?

'Nuff said.

What's your point?

My point isn't really about garnering sympathy. OPSEU's top pay for somebody in my position is several dollars an hour below what I make in AMAPCEO. There's a shortage of pharmacists in Ontario. If I received a letter telling me I'm going over to OPSEU in ten days, I'd look for new employment in '09. And it's not like I'm so great, but in my job I'm a progressive person advocating on behalf of a vulnerable population (drug addicted people). And the employer wouldn't be able to fill my position, were it OPSEU. Among other things, the employer would be forced to pay retail pharmacy prices for methadone doses.

A friend who runs a pharmacy department in a psychiatric hospital hasn't been able to get staff for years because his pharmacists are in OPSEU. Basically, he's got some part-timers who do him a favour by working for him sometimes.

I can't speak about the other AMAPCEO positions, but I can speak about the pharmacists. Like I said, there's a shortage of pharmacists. For instance, the employer will not be able to get pharmacists for provincial jails (not that there are many to start with).

My point is, this decision was made at a high level between the top people in AMAPCEO, OPSEU, PEGO, OPPS, and the employer, for purely political reasons, without regard for the impact on services to some of the most vulnerable people in the province.

Regardless of what you believe about AMAPCEO, they represent people OPSEU originally did not want.

Why would I want to be in a union that doesn't understand my job, and disrespects me as being a tool of management? Just because I have a couple of university degrees doesn't mean I can't be as much a thorn in the side of management as a jail guard.

If this thread goes on, maybe I'll share some of the stories of the trouble-making I did during the last OPSEU strike on behalf of my OPSEU friends (even though their leaders were telling the media that me and my kind were scabs).

Sun, 2008-12-21 15:14

triciamarie

We'll take that as a no.

Okay, so you didn't strike the Harris government -- you supported the Harris government -- and ya still kept your job. Thank an OPSEU member for that.

Let's broaden the scope: what else has AMAPCEO ever done -- ever -- to substantiate its claim to be a real union? Affiliation? Not. Organizing? Not. Labour solidarity? Emphatically not (see above). Litigation? Not that I've ever seen. Political activism? You could knock me over with a feather if a campaign worker showed up from AMAPCEO. Community involvement? Ha! These are the folks who chortle about the work of taking out the garbage -- a proud OPSEU member's job. And that elitist, superior attitude is absolutely, definitively typical.

Okay -- what?

Wait, I know -- flying squads!!!

(That's a union joke, eh.)

Sun, 2008-12-21 17:16

Sineed

triciamarie wrote:

We'll take that as a no.

Okay, so you didn't strike the Harris government -- you supported the Harris government -- and ya still kept your job. Thank an OPSEU member for that.

How does the fact that we avoided (barely!) striking mean that we supported the government? That is just weird.

Speaking of supporting Mike Harris, who do you think voted for him in large numbers? Yup -- OPSEU members.

Quote:
Let's broaden the scope: what else has AMAPCEO ever done -- ever -- to substantiate its claim to be a real union? Affiliation? Not. Organizing? Not. Labour solidarity? Emphatically not (see above). Litigation? Not that I've ever seen. Political activism? You could knock me over with a feather if a campaign worker showed up from AMAPCEO. Community involvement? Ha! These are the folks who chortle about the work of taking out the garbage -- a proud OPSEU member's job. And that elitist, superior attitude is absolutely, definitively typical.

Okay -- what?

Wait, I know -- flying squads!!!

(That's a union joke, eh.)

You're really not getting it. While the government moves AMAPCEO jobs to OPSEU, and OPSEU members chortle over these people getting the supposed comeuppance they deserve, here's what these AMAPCEO members observe: the Corrections bargaining unit has consolidated its power in Ontario jails.

Here's how it works: former AMAPCEO members now in OPSEU will have to answer to jail guards for the level of health care they provide to inmates in the event of a labour disruption.

Former AMAPCEO members who advocated on behalf of inmates during the last strike, and were called scabs for it, will have less power to do this.

Know anybody with drug problems? If they wind up in jail during a strike and end up not getting methadone, or not being treated at all, be sure and chortle over how their puking and convulsing puts pressure on management to help OPSEU get the best deal possible. Oh, but maybe you won't be aware of this, because you'll be out on the picket line, sharing a laugh with the guards.

I know whereof I speak.

Mon, 2008-12-22 10:00

#10

triciamarie

Okay, I'll spell it out: the issue under discussion is the transfer of certain OPS positions, previously classed under AMAPCEO, to other bargaining units. The reason for this transfer, which you haven't mentioned, is that these employees perform work that falls outside of AMAPCEO's mandate. There are thousands of other such jobs which should also be transferred (were it not for the fact that there are known scabs doing the work -- at least currently). This is not raiding; furthermore, the point I have been making, which stands unrefuted, is that it couldn't be raiding, because AMAPCEO is not a real union.

It honest to god beggars belief for AMAPCEO to be claiming some kind of moral injury for losing these couple of hundred jobs. You guys should just continue to sit back and boast about your several dollars an hour sell-out premium that the employer is paying you above your OPSEU colleagues who perform the same work. Enjoy the show for OPS bargaining; if OPSEU walks again, you can look out on your striking coworkers, secure in your contentment that you are really trouble-makers at heart -- indeed a superior class of trouble-maker as you have been informing us. The AMAPCEO "bargaining team" will do its "negotiating" once OPSEU hammers out the prototype deal.

Mon, 2008-12-22 11:16

#11

Sineed

Quote:
Okay, I'll spell it out: the issue under discussion is the transfer of certain OPS positions, previously classed under AMAPCEO, to other bargaining units. The reason for this transfer, which you haven't mentioned, is that these employees perform work that falls outside of AMAPCEO's mandate.

The reason I haven't mentioned it is because it isn't true. What I've said is the real reason, that these transfers have occurred for political reasons and it will adversely affect services to Ontarians. Here's why:

Quote:
You guys should just continue to sit back and boast about your several dollars an hour sell-out premium that the employer is paying you above your OPSEU colleagues who perform the same work.

Although there are pharmacists in OPSEU, nobody in OPSEU is doing the same job as me -- I have extra responsibilities.

IMO, no health care professionals should be in OPSEU, as OPSEU has done a lousy job of representing them. I've already mentioned the lower pay of pharmacists. And nurses in OPSEU have a much worse deal than nurses in hospitals, and hospital nurses don't even have the right to strike! OPSEU members pay 35% higher dues and have crummier benefits than AMAPCEO -- not bad for an organization that's "not a real union," eh?

What would you do if you were told to take a five to six dollar an hour pay cut, and pay higher dues to a union that for all its militancy doesn't get as good a deal for its employees? Exactly what's going to happen -- people are going to quit and go work in the private sector. And at the new lower wages, the employer isn't going to be able to fill those jobs.

I mean, of course OPSEU has to keep up the lie that AMAPCEO members are sell-outs and boot lickers. How else can OPSEU justify its inferior performance as a union to its members?

Mon, 2008-12-22 12:19

#12

triciamarie

Still nothing put forward in support of the belief that AMAPCEO is a legitimate union, vs an employer-sponsored cancer on OPSEU.

Because there is nothing.

Mon, 2008-12-22 12:21

#13

munroe

I'm surprised that this is a major issue. Maybe it's just in B.C., but there has been movement of numerous categories of employees from one unit to another here, particularly in healthcare.

Mon, 2008-12-22 12:36

#14

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Sineed wrote:
What would you do if you were told to take a five to six dollar an hour pay cut, and pay higher dues to a union that for all its militancy doesn't get as good a deal for its employees? Exactly what's going to happen -- people are going to quit and go work in the private sector.

I would imagine McGuinty & co. are depending on the economic downturn to prevent that.

Mon, 2008-12-22 16:10

#15

Gypsy

I hate unions.. there should be a clause when someone sets up a union that they could vote the union out.. When people are told when they could work or when they can't despite their opinion about it.. then it's wrong.. when an organization, any organization belittles a person for standing up for their rights, their want to work.. their responsibility in taking care of matters of their own live.. then you have tyranny..

When you can not fire bad employees because of a Union... like there are many teachers out there who are absolutely horrible around kids .. they should be fired... are protected by something called a union.. that's another bad thing about unions.. When you can't get a job because you don't want to be in a union.. that's bad.. Anytime something works against the best interest of sanity.. and unions are often there..it's bad business, bad governance, bad sense.. They have to much power, to much authority, to much influence.. In the beginning when people were working for 2 cents a day.. when children were used as slave labour.. it played a role in balancing out the needs of the worker against the greed of the employer.. what it evolved into is an organization that accounts to no one.. it often exists only to keep itself in business..

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Follow the dream you have in your heart and don't let someone else's fears stand in your way.....Gypsy

Mon, 2008-12-22 16:29

#16

munroe

Ahhh, Gypsy, wrong website. Try the Western Standard or Ann Coulter. They have the same sense of illiterate fantasies you just expressed.

Mon, 2008-12-22 17:01

#17

Sineed

munroe wrote:
I'm surprised that this is a major issue. Maybe it's just in B.C., but there has been movement of numerous categories of employees from one unit to another here, particularly in healthcare.

It wouldn't be a big deal if everything stayed the same. But these transferred employees will see pay cuts, in some cases, significant ones, and they'll have to pay larger union dues, because they're being moved to a union that is less efficient at getting good deals for its members.

And here's another example: in 2002, OPSEU took its members out on strike in the middle of a change in government. So there were five weeks where people were walking the picket line and not collecting their wages for no reason, because there was no government to negotiate with.

Considering that OPSEU members are less well-paid than AMAPCEO members, I can see how the government thinks that moving employees to the former would be more "efficient," and "modern." So the OPSEU executive explains this away by saying AMAPCEO are the "tools of management," whatever that means, and to some extent, OPSEU members buy it. During the last strike, OPSEU worked things up to such a fever pitch, AMAPCEO members were being threatened, their car tires were being slashed, and one person I know was physically attacked, because of this fiction that we are scabs.

Most OPSEU members are not morons, however; many of them have come to me and confidentially said that they hate their union and wish they were in mine. The sensible ones realize that the best situation would be if AMAPCEO took over OPSEU; where the executive actually has a clue and negotiates good deals for its members; where they don't have to waste time negotiating "amnesty clauses," to get employees off the hook for their bad behaviour during strikes (all the vandalism of government property, for instance).

And isn't all this militancy just a little silly? We're talking the public sector here, providing service to Ontarians. Our jobs can't be out-sourced to China, and it isn't as if management owns the means of production. Whether we're management or union, at the end of the day, we're all just a bunch of civil servants.

We were discussing the militancy of the Correctional division of OPSEU upthread. I wonder if they're trying to take the heat off themselves, ramping up the aggression early on in the negotiations, because of that auditor-general's report that showed how correctional officers take an average of 32 paid sick days a year. Considering the embarrassment that caused the employer, they're going to be gunning for that, so I can see how OPSEU would, strategically speaking, want to put the employer on the defensive.

We need to negotiate the best deal possible for ourselves, but OPSEU's rhetoric is way, way, way overblown.

Mon, 2008-12-22 17:14

#18

Gypsy

munroe wrote:
Ahhh, Gypsy, wrong website. Try the Western Standard or Ann Coulter. They have the same sense of illiterate fantasies you just expressed.

Just because it's over your head doesn't qualify it as illiterate or fantacy.

________________________________________________________________________________________ Follow the dream you have in your heart and don't let someone else's fears stand in your way.....Gypsy

Mon, 2008-12-22 17:37

#19

munroe

The apparent libertarian quality to your comments, coupled with the overblown anti-union rhetoric suggests to me that you are at the wrong website. I didn't miss anything; I've just heard the nonsense before from those with little real life experience.

Mon, 2008-12-22 17:50

#20

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Gypsy - Why do you make excuses for management incompetence? If "bad" employees are not being dealt with, this is a management issue, rather than a problem with unions.

Sorry for the thread drift, all. Gypsy, if you wish to reply, I'd suggest you start a new thread, rather than continuing to disrupt the discussion here.

Tue, 2008-12-23 03:49

#21

triciamarie

Gypsy is obviously taking a cue from Sineed's own anti-union commentary.

Tue, 2008-12-23 03:58

#22

triciamarie

munroe wrote:
I'm surprised that this is a major issue. Maybe it's just in B.C., but there has been movement of numerous categories of employees from one unit to another here, particularly in healthcare.

munroe, in BC how is collective bargaining handled between units, do you know?

Tue, 2008-12-23 12:17

#23

munroe

Tricia, I'm not certain whether I appreciate your question 100%, but let me take a stab at it. For direct government hires there is a statute that establishes three bargaining units, nurses, professionals and a general unit. There are actually four unions; two for nurses, the Professional Employees' Association and the BCGEU. Each bargaining separately with an agency of the Province but I think it is fair to say that the bargaining with the BCGEU is the key set of negotiations. The GEU bargains a Master agreement for its members and also "component" agreements specific to various groupings (corrections is an example).

I am not aware there has been much friction amongst the various unions. Certainly in the past, the two nursing units have had sparks but that seems to have calmed. The line between professionals and the general unit is pretty well defined (the Act was passed in 1975) and self-regulating professionals are mostly in one and everyone else in the other.

The thrust to privatise has led to some differences. For example the Oil and Gas Commission was "spun off" under Gordo and the issue as to whether the handful of professionals should remain in a second union was tested (the LRB prefers larger units). The LRB left the separate contracts in place. On the other hand, there was recent organising at the Law Society (non-government) and the GEU stepped aside and let the PEA organise the lawyers as they wanted a special status the GEU was unwilling to give.

Where there has been conflict in multi-union environments has been in health and community services where there are many unions in relatively few bargaining units. I could write a book on these issues so suffice to say that when the sectoral arrangements were first set, there was a "shoe-horning" of existing bargaining relationships into the new structure. This was not intended, but required by a decision of the courts that preserved the rights of the small players.

In Health, there has been many flashpoints as health care delivery itself has been reorganised several times with groups of workers moving between and amongst "employers". This has led to anomolous circumstances where one day a para-professional will be in a BCGEU unit and the next in a unit represented by the HSA. The most common fact pattern is conflict created by movement between the HEU and the GEU. From time to time, this has meant movement also between two separate collective agreements in two "sub-sectors", facilities and community. Wages can vary between similiar occupations but there has normally been a period of transition. We just successfully settled one case of this sort where an employer tried to simply declare itself non-union by changing its level of care.

Community Social Services has been a dog's breakfast as it is a newer and ill-defined system. Unlike the major health reorganisation which took place under the NDP, this took place under Gordo. The motivation differed as the Liberals were both clueless in labour relations and motivated by other issues. The conflict has been mostly between the GEU and HEU as the HEU wants to carve out more territory. There is also a CLAC presence (although this is the subject to a challenge to be heard in February). The conflict does not affect the collective agreement which is bargaining unit (provincial) wide.

In the sectoral agreements the dominant union in the sector or sub-sector holds much of the authority.

I hope this helps. It is but a "thumbnail" I fear, but there are so many exceptions and anomolies it is tough to be general.

Tue, 2008-12-23 13:25

#24

beibhnn

There is every evidence that AMAPCEO is a "real union", starting with the fact that the Ontario Labour Relations Board has recognized it has that status. There's plenty of arbitral caselaw showing that AMAPCEO has brought cases to the GSB on behalf of its members, and I've met AMAPCEO members released to work on political campaigns. You don't have to strike to be a "real union" - strikes are to be avoided where possible. And if they're not on strike, employees, including AMAPCEO members, are legally required to still report to work. If they don't, they can face discipline or termination. What employees can do is refuse to do the work of the employees on strike.

If I was one of the employees being transferred, though, I would have some concerns about why my union agreed to me being transferred to another union as part of an MOA without first determining issues such as seniority, pay, and pensions. I've seen a couple of union mergers where such issues were not determined in advance, with the weaker union's members' rights, particularly wrt seniority and pensions, being abysmally abused. That AMAPCEO signed "reluctantly" without sorting these issues out in advance does not exactly speak highly of their negotiating team.

Tue, 2008-12-23 13:32

#25

Sineed

Beibhnn, an HR person gave me the heads up about this:

Quote:
ARTICLE 48 - RECLASSIFICATION TO ANOTHER BARGAINING UNIT

No position or person in the bargaining unit, will be reclassified, nor will any other

action be taken with respect to such position or person that is tantamount to

reclassification, which reclassification or action tantamount to reclassification would

have the effect of moving the position or the person from the AMAPCEO bargaining

unit to another bargaining unit.

This is from AMAPCEO's Memorandum of Understanding. I don't understand why AMAPCEO signed off on this when it's in violation of their own collective agreement.

Tue, 2008-12-23 13:36

#26

beibhnn

Me neither!

Tue, 2008-12-23 13:46

#27

munroe

Hmmm, above I made reference to periods of transition when workers moved between units (and collective agreements). This period has traditionally been employed to address issues of wages and issues such as seniority. In my experience this has most often meant red or blue circling and dovetailing of seniority.

The onus has been on the former union to protect these rights (as the new union may be conflicted). Looks like in this case AMAPCEO may have had the right starting point. If they walked backwards from these responsibilities it would certainly raise questions in my mind as to AMAPCEO's worth as a union, but I can't say I'm well enough informed to really comment.

Tue, 2008-12-23 16:07

#28

Sunday Hat

It's kind of sad that government employees are represented by two unions who engage in these turf wars which - sorry - seem to have more to do with partisan allegiance than any sort of worker's agenda.

It seems like it's always been thus. When OPS management were given the right to unionize (thanks Bob Mackenzie!) OPSEU wanted them in the fold but insisted that exisitng OPSEU members would have seniority over the "new" members. Not surprisingly these prospective new members balked and formed their own union.

At least that's the story told here. Anyone have a different version?

Sun, 2008-12-28 20:52

#29

triciamarie

Thanks Brother, I really appreciate that detailed response.

I sense there are some differences between the Ontario situation and BC. For one thing, here it’s not just the regulated professions in AMAPCEO – there are tons of admin jobs too, and in fact, many professions are banned from union membership in Ontario. So that probably makes for more of an inherently volatile situation than the cut-and-dry distinction between the two major public service unions that you describe out there. Secondly, with the prolonged history of divided ranks in this province, plus the fact that so many AMAPCEO “union” members exercise supervisory and management functions, I would say that their prevailing culture is one of blind identification with the employer’s interests. I’m not sure if that’s the case in BC but this ongoing hypocrisy from your fellow workers is tough to swallow, and OPSEU always ends up doing all the heavy lifting in the workplace, even outside of collective bargaining. Third, during the two OPSEU strikes, OPSEU essential service workers kept records of who was doing what in the workplace, and it is an established fact that AMAPCEO members did not hesitate to cooperate with the employer in carrying out scab work -- just as the organization has no qualms about encroaching on OPSEU work at all other times.

So that may help to explain some of the antagonism that erupts particularly during late OPSEU bargaining.

Anyway, as it turns out, late on December 24th OPSEU reached a tentative contract for the Central and Unified tables, so it’s just Corrections now that is without a deal. So for this time, AMAPCEO will reap the benefit of OPSEU bargaining, for the most part without the inconvenience of having to avoid the eyes of striking coworkers on their way into work. The issue for Corrections is that the employer wants to make them ineligible for OPS sick leave benefits. The employer’s position -- put forward so enthusiastically by Sineed above -- is that Corrections workers take too much sick time, and therefore a new punitive sick leave plan has been designed especially for them. Corrections staff say that the fact that they get sick and injured more often is a reflection of the deteriorating, dangerous, physically demanding and stressful conditions that they work in.

It would be nice to think that Corrections would receive some support from their colleagues in the penitentiary and parole system, but for the reasons described, this is unlikely.

Mon, 2008-12-29 19:56

#30

Sineed

http://www.amapceo.on.ca/archives/news2008/jan/jan23/index.html

Quote:
In a communication dated January 9th, the President of the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union, Warren Thomas, announced the launch of OPSEU’s “Protecting Jobs, Building Power” campaign, the purpose of which is to challenge jobs that have been “wrongly assigned to the AMAPCEO bargaining unit”.

While AMAPCEO cannot control what other bargaining agents tell their members, we take pride in our integrity and are committed to telling our members the truth. We also believe that we need to respond to misleading and inaccurate information in the OPSEU communication, which we learned about only after it had been posted on the OPSEU website.

First, OPSEU accuses AMAPCEO of “poaching” OPSEU jobs. This is just irresponsible rhetoric.

Quote:
It is also worth noting that, where we have come across positions that should not be classified in the AMAPCEO bargaining unit, we have not claimed them for AMAPCEO. In a telephone conversation in December, AMAPCEO President Gary Gannage said as much to OPSEU President Thomas, who neglected to mention that he was about to launch a campaign against us.

The other major reason for the growth in AMAPCEO membership has been our successful challenges to management-excluded and “Bill 7” positions, many of which have been converted to positions in the AMAPCEO bargaining unit. We have achieved this through a combination of negotiations with the employer and arbitration. In this regard, we have been motivated by a principled belief that employees have a right to representation. We have not focused on employees who already have representation, such as OPSEU members, but on those who do not, such as our colleagues who have been improperly excluded from any bargaining unit.

Quote:
OPSEU, on the other hand, seems determined to spend its members' funds on a useless crusade. In particular, OPSEU has filed numerous grievances concerning AMAPCEO relating to job postings going back to 2004, but has absolutely nothing to show for it. Continuing in this vein, in its latest communication, OPSEU calls on rank and file members to help identify job postings that have been “wrongly assigned” to the AMAPCEO bargaining unit so they can file “potentially hundreds of inclusion claims at the Grievance Settlement Board”. In our opinion, bargaining agents should be devoting their time and resources to advancing their members’ realinterests and fighting the employer where necessary, not spending their members’ dues to fight each other.

OPSEU members pay 35% higher dues and have worse benefits than AMAPCEO members. As this thread demonstrates, justifying this requires propaganda, pointless aggression, and personal insults.

Anyway, I can't rebut further without getting into privileged information.

Cheers.

Wed, 2008-12-31 07:41

#31

triciamarie

Again with this odd emphasis on dues. Obviously this comes straight from the AMAPCEO KoolAid linked to above. As far as I know however, not that AMAPCEO would tell you this, but the dues rate is fairly standard across all legitimate unions. So if AMAPCEO dues are significantly lower, that is probably not something to gloat about but rather it is yet another sign (as if more are needed) that AMAPCEO is not a real union.

I also have no idea what is meant by this repeated reference to AMAPCEO 'benefits'. The benefits of belonging to a union include things like the ability to rely on the union to independently promote the interests of its members; evidently, not AMAPCEO's strong suit, as per the topic of this thread. AMAPCEO relies on its cozy, sold-out relationship with the employer to take whatever handouts it can get without rocking the boat, and nothing more.

That is only a personal insult if you are personally involved with that organization -- a circumstance that I myself have deliberately avoided.

Thu, 2009-01-01 19:41

#32

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

My wife has belonged to both unions at different points in her career. She is now in AMAPCEO, and happy for it.

She is a union supporter, but feels OPSEU's leadership is rather incompetent and spends much time tilting at windmills. In particular, she resents having been taken out on strike years ago by OPSEU with an election in the offing - when no settlement was possible.

Thu, 2009-01-01 20:55

#33

Sineed

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

My wife has belonged to both unions at different points in her career. She is now in AMAPCEO, and happy for it.

She is a union supporter, but feels OPSEU's leadership is rather incompetent and spends much time tilting at windmills. In particular, she resents having been taken out on strike years ago by OPSEU with an election in the offing - when no settlement was possible.

Yes, that was the strike of 2002, when they went out on March 13th, well after Mike Harris had announced his resignation, knowing full well that the PCs were picking a new leader March 26th. Ernie Eves wasn't sworn in until mid April, leaving OPSEU members stranded on the picket lines for nearly three weeks, as there was no government with which to negotiate.

At my workplace, after everybody came back to work, a number of OPSEU members applied for, and got, management jobs, where many of them are today.