of etiquette and union solidarity

Unions didn't so much bargain as put the city under siege -- and it backfired

The Vancouver Sun

Thursday, October 11, 2007

By Pete McMartin, Vancouver Sun columnist

Pardon my smile.

But the Vancouver civic strike is over.

Officially, it might drag on for a few more days, even weeks. The garbage might continue to ferment in the back alley, the weeds in the park might enjoy a few more days' reprieve.

But this fight is finished.

The unions lost everything while -- delicious irony, here -- they won almost everything they wanted.

The end came with the admission that anywhere between 50 to 65 per cent of outside civic workers had found jobs in the real world. Not only that, but those "striking" union members were making so much money in their new jobs that the majority of them, according to union spokesmen, were vowing never to return to city hall once a contract was ratified. Life was too good on the outside.

This was intended as a threat as much as a boast. It implied:

We don't need your stinking bargaining! We can last this out as long as we have to!

It backfired. Citizens -- and not a few of their union brothers and sisters enduring picket duty, I'll bet -- could only wonder at the hubris of it.

What of the etiquette of union solidarity? Do a majority of outside civic workers feel it is good form to take well-paying private sector jobs while their colleagues on the picket line survive on strike pay and doughnuts around a barrel fire?

What of citizens' sense that there could be no bargaining in good faith in so lopsided a situation? Outside civic workers can prolong negotiations indefinitely by taking outside work, but the public has no recourse to hiring replacement workers? How could there be anything but complete surrender to union demands? It wasn't bargaining the union was conducting: it was a siege.

When the union leadership tried to respond to criticisms of their members taking outside work, their response was that their members were only taking "vacant" jobs in the private sector. So they weren't, like, you know, reverse scabs displacing private-sector labourers out there looking for work. They were filling a need!

One, the excuse was fatuous and unprovable -- after all, all jobs are vacant at one time or another -- and two, it had the air of craven self-justification. It didn't wash.

Then came the biggest blow to the union's public relations. When once the union had the momentum by its clever, and unfair, campaign of painting this as "Sam's Strike" -- meant to force the image-sensitive Mayor Sullivan to cave -- that campaign and public goodwill evaporated when a minority of Local 1004 members forced the union to reject mediator Brian Foley's recommendations.

A majority of 57 per cent of city workers voted to accept Foley's contract offers (as did a majority of 58 per cent in the park board).

And in the normal course of democratic institutions, which unions insist they are paragons of, it would have been enough to get the garbage moving again.

Under its arcane constitution, Local 1004 insists that a plurality of 66 per cent is needed to ratify a contract, for reasons not quite clear, at least to me. The union at The Sun feels 51 per cent is enough to carry the day: most unions do. So one has to wonder where Local 1004 adopted its model of equitable representation. Perhaps the Chinese National Congress.

But there was an even greater irony at work here than the ones above, one more damning to the union cause than all of them. It was this:

Of all the combatants involved in the civic strike, those who most found merit in the world of privatized business were the striking union members themselves. They flocked to the private sector and found it good.

They have found it so good that even an offer of 17.5 per cent over five years, increased medical benefits and more vacation days convinced enough of them that this was an insult deserving rejection. The real reason for the rejection was job security, which Foley didn't recommend in absolute terms, though he did recommend everything short of holding union members' hands and tucking them in at night if contracting-out of civic services was being considered.

It wasn't enough to get 66 per cent of Local 1004 on board, though. The garbage stayed in the back alley.

Meanwhile, Local 1004's members were happily embracing their own brand of contracting-out, and demonstrating that there were not only efficiencies to be had in the private sector, but profits, too.

The citizens of Vancouver might take note of this, as have those in most of Metro Vancouver's suburbs. The contracting-out of garbage services has long been the norm there. Whatever their costs compared to the municipal model, uninterrupted service is insured. That counts for a whole lot.

In Vancouver, however, there have been civic outside worker strikes in 1964, 1966, 1969, 1972, 1981, 1997, 2000 and 2007. They ranged anywhere from one day to 13 weeks in duration. The present one is now 12 weeks and counting.

Question to Vancouverites:

Had enough of that garbage yet?

-30-


Common sense, maturity missing among some of the union leadership

The Vancouver Sun

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Section: Editorial

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You get what you need.

-- Jagger/Richards

Children learn early on that they can't have everything they ask for. By the time they reach kindergarten, the concepts of limits, trade-offs and compromise are well entrenched.

These principles are reinforced in adulthood when common sense comes with maturity. They are fundamental to social order, to family relationships and to employment contract negotiations.

Vancouver's inside city workers, members of CUPE Local 15, recognized that labour negotiations require give and take and voted 73 per cent in favour of accepting the terms of a contract proposed by mediator Brian Foley, which include a 17.5-per-cent wage hike over five years, a $1,000 signing bonus and amendments to provisions covering contracting out, harassment, whistleblowing and job reclassification.

CUPE Local 15 president Paul Faoro, who recommended his members approve the proposed deal, clearly understood those fundamental principles. He said the collective agreement "had been bettered," and that his members can go to work knowing it is the best deal they can get "under the circumstances."

No, the union didn't achieve everything it might have hoped for but it has improved the terms of employment for its members. That's its job. The settlement matches those of public servants in similar occupations in neighbouring municipalities. It's one they can live with until the next round of negotiations.

But the leadership of CUPE Local 1004, representing outside workers, and CUPE Local 391, representing library workers, told their members to reject Foley's recommendations. Library workers did so overwhelmingly -- 78.1 per cent voted against it -- even though nearly half would benefit from a job classification upgrade on top of the regular wage increase. "They'd would have had a wishy-washy committee that went nowhere," Foley said of the union's demands. "I gave them pay equity."

Most outside workers defied their union leaders, who had urged rejection of the proposals, and voted 58 per cent in favour. It's a rare event when the rank and file fails to heed the advice of its local executive. Nevertheless, the members' clearly stated intention to accept the deal, end the strike and return to work will be denied because of a union bylaw that requires a two-thirds majority to ratify a contract.

Foley said he had "poured his heart and soul" into finding a solution to the strike. But Dave Van Dyke, a Local 1004 bargaining committee representative, disparaged his efforts. "Foley's sold us down the river," he said.

Since a majority of outside workers don't share that opinion, Local 1004 leaders might want to tone down the rhetoric if they plan on being re-elected. Besides, CUPE locals agreed to have Foley mediate their contract dispute with the city. To suggest he was partisan and did not act in good faith is untrue and an insult that warrants an apology.

Like children who want it all now, some union leaders are demanding benefits and restrictive contract language (particularly as it relates to disciplinary measures and caps on deferred vacation) beyond what Foley has proposed. They are also beyond what the city is prepared to pay. Even so-called non-monetary issues carry a cost, whether they're sick leave, vacation entitlements, extended health insurance or contracting out. Such measures make it more expensive to run the city.

City finances are not infinite. Municipal funding comes from taxpayers -- indirectly from the province and directly through property taxes and fees. Vancouver residents already face a property tax hike of eight per cent and aren't likely to welcome further increases to pay for richer wages and benefits for city workers than they receive for their own labours.

Foley's proposals meet the test of a good compromise -- they don't make everyone happy, but set reasonable terms that provide all at least some of what they need.

-30-

-30-