Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
we hope you enjoy the Steeldrum Newsletter send your comments to [email protected] .
News for members of Steelworkers Local 1998, University of Toronto April 2011, volume 10, no 2 www.usw1998.ca
STEELDRUM
argaining has yet to officially begin for the new USW collective agreement, but the University is already negotiating in
public over a key issue in the upcoming talks — pension contribution levels. On Feb 4th, the University released a short document entitled “Pension Plan Update: Ensuring a Sustainable Pension Plan for the University of Toronto” — laden communiqués from the University on the pension issue.
Perhaps a better title for this document would have been “Pension Plan Update: Employees — Bend Over and Smile.” We’re expected to take it like a frat-boy paddling on the behind: just bend over and say “Thank sir, may I have another? Despite being billed as an “update,” the document contains little new information. It is, rather, yet another rewording of the University’s much-publicized position on the pension issue – a position that the USW strongly opposes.
It would be easy to dismiss this document as the annoying barking of a small dog. But, the university is actually a large and clever beastie and some time and serious thought must be given to this attempt to dig deep into our pockets. Because, make no mistake, this is nothing more than neo-corporate pickpocketry.
The University hopes to use the pension’s current “solvency deficit” as a justification for increasing employee contributions to the plan. A solvency valuation determines if the pension fund would have enough money to cover all of its promised payments with its current funds. (Or, more simply, is there enough money in the fund right now to pay all promised pensions forever?) Solvency is, a “worst-case” scenario in the world of pensions: it assumes that the employer ceases
operation immediately. It is calculated doom and gloom as this, of course, will not happen at the University of Toronto.
But these calculations still need to be made by law. If there is not enough money in the fund at the current time, the plan is said to have a “solvency deficit.” The University’s memo states that its solvency deficit is currently almost one billion dollars. Under provincial law, the University must balance this deficit within five years. This would require special payments of about 200 million dollars per year over the next five years. The
University claims that these funds would have to be paid into the pension plan from elsewhere in its budget, which, in their view, places the quality of the institution and its level of service at risk. This is all pretty straightforward pre-negotiation blather which translates roughly as “the sky is falling, your jobs are at risk, we want to pay you less”. Because, again, make no mistake “increased employee contributions” translates into money right out of USW paychecks. (OK. Admittedly, right out of “PM and Confidentials” paychecks as well. So don’t expect them to be happy either.)
But now, here is the tricky bit. This is not, as it appears, a cunning plan by University HR to reduce new-hire retention to less than a two-months — so they may keep their jobs. Rather, last summer, the Ontario government announced the development of a solvency funding relief plan for pension plans in the broader public sector. Essentially, the government
will allow the University to pay off its solvency deficit over a longer period of
time (ten years instead of five). However, the government has made participation in this plan contingent on the University being able to convince its employees to increase their contributions to the pension plan. Not surprisingly, the University wants to qualify for this plan, and has therefore signaled that increased employee pension contributions will be a “key item for discussion” in the coming round of negotiations with USW 1998.
Pension Solvency Explained
B
Bargaining 2011
inde
x inde
x
Hamilton day of Action13
2 On the move, In Memoriam
4 University Reports
War on Unions14
3 President’s Message
OTTAWA—The federal budget looks more like an attempt to stay in power than a fiscal remedy for the real problems facing Canadians, says the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), an independent think tank.
The CCPA’s leading economists find this year’s federal budget obscures the true cost of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s plan to balance the books while favouring Harper’s pet projects over Canadians’ priorities.
“For every dollar the Harper budget allocates to Canadians’ priorities—such as helping seniors and cleaning up the environment—it devotes 7.5 dollars for Conservative priorities such as jails and corporate tax cuts,” says CCPA Alternative Federal Budget Coordinator David Macdonald.
“The needs of most Canadians are neglected due to reckless spending on Conservative pet projects,” Macdonald says. “Canadians should be warned: deep spending cuts that will affect the services they need are on the horizon. The government isn’t revealing where the pain is going to come.”
“This budget wastes our time and our money,” says CCPA Senior Economist Armine Yalnizyan. “The Harper government has yet again tabled a
fiscal plan that doesn’t deal with the tough issues of the day. How will we deal with aging infrastructure and high youth unemployment, a shrinking workforce and uncertain pensions? The government’s response seems to be that these are our problems, not theirs.”
“The ultimate test of a government budget is that it should make life better for Canadian citizens—on that measure, this budget represents a failed state,” Yalnizyan says.
“Mr. Harper needs to step out of the boutique tax cut store and start rubbing elbows with the Tim Hortons crowd,” says Macdonald. “The fact is an extra $50 dollars for arts classes doesn’t get you affordable child care, it doesn’t lower university tuition, and it doesn’t move the line any faster at the emergency room. The federal government can and should be tackling these big problems.”
The CCPA calls on the opposition parties to review its Alternative Federal Budget, which proposes solutions that connect with what matters to Canadians: post-recession job and household debt worries, pension concerns, income inequality and climate change.
Harper Budget Priorities: Bread. Canadians’ Priorities: Crumbs.
Continued on Page 3
The Story Behind the Developing Pension Issue
5-12
Movie Review: Made in Dagenham
15
Bosses from Hell16
the Steeldrum vol. 10, no. 3 April 2010.2
Steelworker, labour activist, organizer and politician Bob Mackenzie passed away on January 17, 2011 at the age of 82.
Affectionately called Ontario’s first Minister for Labour, Bob was a fierce and tireless fighter for working people and a devoted family man.
“As an organizer for our union, Bob was a member of the Steelworker family as much as he was a remarkable husband, father and grandfather,” said USW Canadian National Director, Ken Neumann.
“Bob Mackenzie was a Hamilton icon and an NDP giant,” said Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, who represents Hamilton Centre. “During his time as Minster of Labour, Ontario workers made great strides - on pay equity, on labour rights, on workplace standards. He was loved by fellow New Democrats, by the labour movement and by his constituents.”
Bob grew up in Ontario and Quebec and sailed with the Norwegian merchant navy in World War II at age 15. A committed socialist and trade unionist from a young age, Bob worked in paper mills and as an organizer for the United Auto Workers (UAW) in Windsor. He first ran provincially in Ontario for the CCF in the riding of Windsor-Walkerville in 1955. He moved to Hamilton in the 1960s when he began working as organizing staff for the newly formed New Democratic Party and continued his political and organizing
work as a staff representative with the United Steelworkers.
Bob was elected the Member of Provincial Parliament for Hamilton East in 1975 and held that seat for 20 years until his retirement in 1994. As the NDP’s labour critic, Bob
advocated for expanded labour rights, better health and safety and compensation laws, pay and employment equity. His work helped shape Ontario’s occupational health and safety law, introduced by Bill Davis’s minority Conservative government in 1978.
Bob became the first NDP Labour Minister when the NDP formed government in 1990, affectionately known within the labour movement as the first minister for
labour. He introduced pay equity improvements and gave union rights to agricultural workers.
The Hamilton Spectator writes, “For 20 years, Mackenzie’s fervent advocacy was un-ending - aggravating critics, enlivening the hopes of working people nationwide and earning him widespread all-party respect. He became labour minister in Bob Rae’s 1990 NDP government, and is revered by labour for bringing in Bill 40,”
legislation that banned the use of replacement workers during strikes.
Although Mike Harris’s Conservative government quickly rolled back those anti-scab provisions after election in 1995, other achievements Bob made while minister survived the Harris cuts: minimum wage improvements, pay equity and wage protection reforms.
The Bob Mackenzie Bursary was created at McMaster University in 1996, to be granted to a labour studies student in financial need. The Lupina Foundation established a graduate scholarship in Bob Mackenzie’s name at the University of Toronto’s Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources.
A large part of Bob Mackenzie’s legacy is his children, another generation of men and women dedicated to the same values of shared prosperity and social justice. Bob Mackenzie is survived by his wife, Sylvia, his six children and five grandchildren.
moveon the move Local news for members of Steelworkers Local 1998
Newsletter CommitteeJohn AnkenmanP.C. Choo (Editor & Co-Chair)Allison DubarryKubra MirDonna Wheeler
Layout & ProductionMike Andrechuk
GraphicsMike Andrechuk
Steeldrum is published by USW Local 1998 (UofT) and is printed by Hamilton Web Printing. Steeldrum is a member of USPA and CALM.
t. 416.506.9090 f. 416.506.0640 [email protected] directory
embers of Steel-workers Local 1998 braved the snow, wind and bitter
cold over two days to elect a new Negotiating Committee for the Staff-Appointed Unit that will be helming the negotia-tions for a new Collective Agreement this summer. The current agreement expires June 30, 2011.
A total of thirteen candidates were in the running for the ten positions on the Negotiating Committee. The following were elected (in order of plurality):
Paul Tsang – OISE Lee Jeffrey – Woodsworth College Linda Wilding – Information & Technology Services Judy McLeod – Information & Technology Services
Patrick Boal – Information & Technology ServicesKaren Bowler – DentistrySandra Grant - MedicineHeather Bryans – ESL UnitPat McClellan - JEC Nik Redman – Grievance CommitteeArt from Mississauga campus
was acclaimed. There was no can-didate from Scarborough campus.
Allison Dubarry, President of Local 1998, is also a member of the committee and says that “it is clear that, given the current polit-ical climate in Ontario, we will soon be entering into a challenging set of negotiations with the University. Membership involvement is key to success as has been proven in past bargaining.”
— P. C. Choo Admissions & Awards
We are deeply saddened by the news that Allan
Lanteigne, a USW Local 1998 member and staff member in Financial Services, passed away tragically on March 3, 2011.
Allan was a valued member of the capital accounting section of Financial Services. He will always be remembered as a warm, friendly and kind-hearted person who loved to share his culinary delights with his many co-workers and friends throughout the university. He will be missed.
In his memory, a memorial visitation was held at the Rosar-Morrison Funeral Home and Chapel (467 Sherbourne Street) on Saturday, March 12 between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. U of T flags on all three campuses were lowered at half mast on March 11 in his memory.
“What the heart has once known, it shall never forget.” Author unknown
— Selina Law Ancillary & Capital Accounting Financial Services
New Negotiating Committee Elected
Front Row (left to right): Sandra Grant, Allison Dubarry, Nik Redman, Linda Wilding, Heather Bryans. Back Row (left to right): Paul Tsang, Lee Jeffrey, Patrick Boal, Karen Bowler, Judy McLeod. Not in picture: Art Birkensberg, Pat McClellan.
M
Bob Mackenzie (June 26, 1928 - January 17, 2011)
Ontario’s first Minister for LabourAllan Lanteigne (1961-2011)
I N M E M O R I A M
vol. 10, no. 3 April 2010. the Steeldrum 3.
...continued from page 1
But this is not a done deal.The University made the same proposal for
increased employee contributions in its negotiations with the Faculty Association last year, only to have this proposal rejected by an arbitrator. The arbitrator felt that this demand was, in essence, an attempt to reduce total compensation. After awarding a wage increase, the arbitrator did not feel it was appropriate to then increase employees’ pension contributions. “To take away with the left hand what was given with the right seems inconsistent,” he wrote.
The USW believes that is simply unfair to force its members to pay for the shortfalls in a pension plan which they have no control over. And this is a key point — the University — not the union or its members — administered the pension plan and made all of the decisions on how its substantial assets should be invested. Responsibility for the various financial and legal commitments under the pension plan therefore rest entirely with the employer. In a past round of arbitration, the administration acknowledged that “the University bears the risk of fulfilling that pension promise and must manage that risk prudently.”
Now, as an aside, in his successful personal
finance book (A Random Walk Down Wall Street), economist Burton Malkiel famously says that “a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a newspaper’s financial pages could select a portfolio that would do just as well as one carefully selected by experts.” One hesitates to link this statement in any way to the primates who ran the U of T’s pension fund or to those who chose them for the job. Because that would be wrong.
However, there have been serious accusations leveled at the University which suggest that its pension investments have been mismanaged over the past decade. Last year a blue-ribbon panel argued that a shift in the portfolio from Canadian equities to risky investments like hedge funds and private equities has dampened growth overall. The panel found that the rates of return on the University’s investments over the past decade were substantially behind the returns obtained by other Universities, in both good economic times and bad. If rates of return had been in line with those of other plans, the current solvency deficit would be dramatically less. The University has begun to act on the recommendations of this panel. It recently removed the external members of the board of directors and brought the governance of its
investments “in house.”These failed investment strategies and
decisions were not made by USW members. To demand that they pay for the consequences of courses of actions which were well beyond their control is simply unfair. There are many more equitable ways the University could amortize this deficit without relying on USW members to shoulder the burden.
Raising employee contributions as a solution to a short-term problem would also, in all likelihood, continually penalize workers over a much longer term. A change written into the collective agreement now would be difficult to remove in subsequent rounds of bargaining. Long after the University had eliminated its solvency issues, USW workers would continue to contribute as though the plan was still in deficit.
USW members have lived up to their side of the bargain on pensions. It is unfair for these workers to pay for decisions they did not make. With the University beginning to mount a public campaign over this issue, it is important that USW members understand their union’s position on this issue. The USW is known for standing up for pension plans everywhere, and we will continue to fight for our members at the bargaining table on this issue. Bend over? Not likely.
Pension Solvency Explained
owever, lately, public sector workers have become the scapegoats in an attempt to divert attention away from who really caused the recent economic meltdown. It
easier to target working people in the public sector instead of the corporations, who after a drop in 2008, are back making huge profits and giving large salary increases and bonuses to those in charge. Many of the same people advocating a cut to the public sector and shifting the work to the private sector through outsourcing are looking forward to the six billion dollar corporate tax cut that is headed their way. Attacking public sector workers diverts attention away from a discussion about what the real problem
is and it certainly is not the pay and pensions of non-management public sector workers. It also dodges the issue that the services that we all need and pay for are of lesser priority than ensuring that wealthy corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes.
While business people, some politicians and the media have gone after ordinary public sector workers and their compensation, the salaries of those in man-agement have grown at a rate far beyond the rest of us. At U of T, we have seen a dramatic increase since the mid 1990s in the senior management salaries while been told that we should tighten our belts. The list of those earning over $100,000 per year has grown
steadily with some people getting percentage increas-es that are far greater than what most of us get. Past lists at U of T showed a drop in the percentage increase in the year immediately preceding bargain-ing, with increases shooting up afterwards.
The list for 2010 has just come out and while some of the salaries have not grown for the first time in a few years, one entry stands out: William Moriarty, the President and Chief Executive Officer, University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation received $697,020 in 2010, up from $605,728 in 2009. Not a bad increase for managing a pension plan while saying that we should increase our contributions.
The message from members in the bargaining sur-vey is clear that members oppose any increase in contributions as it would amount to a cut in pay – a cut that no one can afford. All of the unions on cam-pus and the faculty association oppose an increase in contributions.
One of the comments from the bargaining survey clearly captures the sentiment of many on the pen-sion issue, “Do not under any circumstances allow them to increase our pension contribution. The U of T management mismanaged the pension plan and nobody has been made accountable. It is disgusting.”
Outsourcing:A recent study by David MacDonald from the
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that while federal government departments had financial restraints put in place and cuts in services that
resulted in job cuts, lots of money is spent on consul-tants doing work that was done by public sector workers. In fact, Stephen Harper’s government spends an astounding amount per year on contrac-tors – more than $1 billion!
David MacDonald writes that, “Since 2005–06, the cost of federal personnel outsourcing of tem-porary help, IT consultants and management con-sultants has ballooned by almost 80%, costing taxpayers nearly $5.5 billion over the past five years. Despite the capping of departmental bud-gets, personnel outsourcing costs have remained above $1 billion a year.” Makes you wonder if reducing the deficit and containing costs were really the priorities. Would they be shifting $5.5 billion to companies when it costs less to do the work in house?
Job Evaluation:We have been hard at work on completing the job evaluation plan and are working on the new pay structure and the implementation. More details will be sent out to members and members will vote on acceptance of the plan. A special meeting will be called to discuss the details. If you are not on the list-serve and would like to ensure that you do not miss any information about job evaluation or bargaining, please send an email to [email protected] to be added to the listserve.
The next few months will be very hectic as we start to bargain our fifth collective agreement. We have got a terrific team who will represent you well and they are working on evaluating what you said while developing new proposals. Your support is crucial and past agreements have demonstrated that visible membership support has resulted in good agree-ments. We have a special insert in this newsletter on bargaining and it is just the first of many updates on bargaining.
— Allison Dubarry President
President sM e s s a g e
Are You Overpaid?
“Are you overpaid?” I have asked this question at numerous membership meetings for the last year and still have not met anyone who answered “yes” to the question. The results of the recent bargaining survey also make it clear that wage increase is a top prior-ity for members. Studies have backed up what members feel about the level of their pay: public sector salaries have only just caught up to private sector salaries after years of lagging behind.
H
the Steeldrum vol. 10, no. 3 April 2010.4
t. Mike’s union representatives have been quite active during these past few months.
We are dealing with a new manage-ment team who has tried to implement a per-formance review process for our members, starting with the librarian staff. We see little merit in this process and feel that performance reviews are not good indicators of how well you are doing at work. Instead, they are subjec-tive reviews that measure how comfortable you are with your supervisor. Some of our mem-bers felt — justifiably so — that these subjective evaluations could be used against them and potentially lead to disciplinary actions, even termination, if they are not performing up to their supervisor’s standards. Performance reviews are not accurate and fair as it was clearly demonstrated by the librarians who decided amongst themselves that our members
will not get a rating higher than 3 out of 4, since they themselves do not received anything higher. We are closely monitoring this issue with the help of our staff representative.
At the March unit meeting, Steven Koschuk was acclaimed as the second member of our Negotiating Committee for the upcoming round of collective bargaining. In his current roles as our Unit Grievor and as member of our Joint Health and Safety Committee, Steven is well positioned to participate effectively in the upcoming contract negotiation. It will be the first negotiation for Steven and I, and we are grateful for the support of our U of T union friends and for the expertise that our friends at the Steelworkers International Union have shared.
— Monica Phonsavatdy SMC Unit President
University reports
St. Michael’s College
Victoria
Performance Reviews With A TwistOutcome Already Determined: No one to get a rating higher than 3 out of 4
alerie Ferrier, Lisa Newman, Grace Santos and I have been busy over the past couple of months assisting individual
members with their varied concerns. Coming out of these meetings we have worked towards facilitating solutions with their respective managers and Human Resources. Some of these situa-tions have been resolved while others are works in progress.
We have also have been meeting with Ray de Souza (Bursar) and Helen Zias (Human Resources) on a regular basis to address employment concerns raised by specific members and also general policy issues. These union/management meet-ings are an important forum to facilitate an open dialogue with the university administration. This is particularly important as we move closer to the start of negotiations for a new collective agreement.
On February 24, a Unit meeting was
held to take nominations for a salaried member on the Negotiating Committee for the Victoria University Unit. Coming out of this meeting, I am pleased to announce that Valerie Ferrier has been acclaimed as the salaried member on the Committee. I look forward to working with Valerie as we move into bargaining.
The first order of business for the Negotiating Committee will be to draft a survey and dis-tribute it to the Vic members to find out what your priorities are for the next contract. Please make sure you fill out and return your survey so that we can best represent your needs. We will also be scheduling unit meetings to dis-cuss with members what you want to see changed in our Collective Agreement.
Once Valerie and I have a good idea what VIC members want in the next Collective agreement, we will start the process of schedul-ing meetings with the Victoria University administration.
— John Ankenman Victoria University, Unit President
S
V
Despite an increasingly diverse population, a new report on Canada’s racial-ized income gap shows a
colour code is still at work in Cana-da’s labour market.
Canada’s Colour Coded Labour Market, co-produced by the Cana-dian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) and the Wellesley Institute, draws on 2006 Census data to com-pare work and income trends among racialized and non-racialized Cana-dians. It’s among the more compre-
hensive post-Census studies on this issue to date.
“We found that during the heyday of Canada’s pre-recession economic boom, racialized Canadians were more willing to work, but experi-enced higher levels of unemployment and earned less income than non-ra-cialized Canadians,” says co-author Grace-Edward Galabuzi, CCPA board member and Ryerson University pro-fessor. “The distribution of work tells a disturbing story: Equal access to opportunity eludes many racialized
Canadians.”Co-author Sheila
Block, Director of Eco-nomic Analysis at the Wellesley Institute, says racialized Canadian workers earned only 81.4 cents for every dollar paid to non-racialized Canadian workers –
reflecting barriers in Canada’s work-places.
“The work racialized Canadians are able to attain is more likely to be
insecure, temporary and low pay-ing,” Block says. “Despite an increas-ingly diverse population, a colour code is firmly in place.”
Colour Code is Still at Work in Canada’s Labour Market.
• In 2006, during the boom years, racialized Canadians had an unemployment rate of 8.6 per cent, as compared to 6.2 per cent for non-racialized Canadians.
• On average, non-racialized Cana-dian earnings grew marginally (2.7%) between 2000-2005 – tepid income gains considering the econ-omy grew by 13.1%. But the aver-age income of racialized Canadians declined by 0.2%.
• Racialized workers are over-rep-
resented in industries with precari-ous low-paid jobs; they are under-represented in public administra-tion, and more likely to work in the hard-hit light manufacturing sector.
• The colour code contributes to much higher poverty levels: In 2005, 19.8% of racialized families lived in poverty, compared to 6.4% of non-racialized families
The report and a video are avail-able at: www. policyalternatives.ca and www.wellesleyinstitute.com.
Among the study’s findings:
vol. 10, no. 3 April 2010. the Steeldrum 5
The Bargaining Committee conducted an online survey of our members to determine the major issues for upcoming negotiations.
More than 1/3 of our members responded to the survey, many providing very helpful comments and suggestions
Staff Appointed
Bargaining Survey Results — 2011
1Salary IncreaSeThe need for our salaries to keep up with inflation was identified. With the HST and the influence of global inflation on the price of food and gas, we are facing a higher cost of living.
2PenSIonSCompared to the survey conducted in 2008, pensions have become a higher priority.A number of pension-related concerns were identified:• Rejecting an increase in employee contributions• Protecting the defined benefit plan• Keeping the bridge for early retirement• Getting back the early retirement window at age 55• Providing for a buy-back option
3Better HealtH care BenefItSConcerns related to both increasing and expanding health care coverage were identi-fied:• Increasing the bi-annual $250 coverage for the vision plan • Expanding the vision plan to cover laser vision correction• Increasing the annual $500 coverage for the combination of massage, chiropractic,
and physiotherapy• Expanding the extended health care plan to cover a variety of alternative forms of
health care• Improving the dental plan to increase coverage for crowns, bridges, implants, etc.
and to expand the plan to cover orthodontics• Improving the prescription drug plan to increase the allowable dispensing fee for
prescription drugs and to expand the plan to cover prescription drugs not current-ly covered, prescribed over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, and prescribed vitamins.
4Job SecurityWith an increase in organizational change and a move to contracting out, job security and better protection on layoff were highlighted.
5Job Evaluation/Pay Equity/ ReclassificationIssues related to inequitable and inadequate compen-sation continue to be a concern, with members want-ing the job evaluation process completed as soon as possible.
Top Priorities Identified by our Members 5And what they had to say
““
““
””
””
“ ”With food prices going up, house insur-ance and other things, we need a wage increase to keep pace with inflation.
Do not under any circumstances allow to increase our pension contribution. The U of T leadership mismanaged the pension plan and nobody!!! has been made accountable. It is disgusting.
I’d like an increase in the drug and glasses plan. The allowable dispensing fee is too low. As well, it’s hard to get glasses for $250.
Confronting departmental reorganizations as a means of getting rid of employees, including those on approved leaves.
Job evaluation process is related to workload — everyone I know is doing the work of more than one person.
the Steeldrum vol. 10, no. 3 April 2010.6
Negotiations• A formal intention to negotiate is delivered 90
working days before the end of a contract.• Parties exchange proposals.
What Happens When Agreement Is Not Reached?Conciliation:• Either the union or the employer may ask the Ministry
of Labour to appoint a conciliation officer, who will help them reach an agreement.
No Board Report• Either side may call for a
“no board” report at any time.
Legal Job Action Position• 17 days after the no board
report is issued, the union is in a legal job action position and the employer in a lock-out position.
Ratification• A tentative agreement is presented to the
membership for a vote.
New Collective Agreement
The Collective
Bargaining Process
The Bargaining Committee is preparing for negotiations for our new collective agreement. With each round of bargaining, we aim to make improvements to our
wages, benefits, and working conditions. This will be our 5th collective agreement. The collective bargaining process begins with the notice to bargain and continues
until ratification. The following outlines the stages involved in collective bargaining.
• Parties review each other’s proposals.• Both parties meet to discuss and negotiate the new
agreement.
• Conciliation is mandatory under the Labour Relations Act before a “no board” report can be issued.
• A “no board” report occurs when the conciliation officer informs the Ministry of Labour that the parties cannot reach agreement. The Minister can then appoint a conciliation board, but this rarely occurs. Instead, a notice is sent to both parties that a conciliation board will not be appointed (“no board” report).
• Job Action may include information pickets, study sessions, rotating walkout or a complete walkout.
• This does not mean that either one of these will happen, but simply that it is legal for it to happen. Negotiation may also continue.
• A majority of voting members in the bargaining unit ratify the agreement.
What Our
Members Had to Say
vol. 10, no. 3 April 2010. the Steeldrum 7
• Job Action may include information pickets, study sessions, rotating walkout or a complete walkout.
• This does not mean that either one of these will happen, but simply that it is legal for it to happen. Negotiation may also continue.
What Our Members Had to Say
“ ”Internal hiring should be made a priority and the process improved — right now I very much feel that internal hiring is just a formality.
“”
Prices are increasing rapidly in present situation, even 3% is not enough to cover gas electricity, water and cotton increases. The food and rent increase will follow very rapidly
“”
Salary increase - I’ve been at the top of my salary grid for years. The annual ATB increases don’t even come close to keeping up with cost of living increases.
“
”
Family Care — near and dear to my heart — some sort of time available if the family is in crisis (eg child needs major surgery and no vacation time left...an already stressful situation made worse by having to take an unpaid leave of absence. As a parent of a child that has needed multiple major surgeries over her short life, this is a major issue in our family, as I am the only source of income.)
“ ”Increase in pay to keep the same standard of living as everything seems to be rising in cost and the dollar does not go as far.
“ ”Health Care Benefits — not so much an improvement, but would like to have them at least stay at the same level.
“”
As for the Tuition Waiver and Pensions, I think we have good plans for both benefits, so I would just like to ensure they remain the same.
“”
Salary increase of a minimum 2.5 - 3.0%. Our salaries are really a disgrace for what we’re actually worth to the University.
“ ”Pay increase at least to inflation, if not better.
“ ”Higher salary, of course.
“ ”Salary increase to match inflation!
“ ”For benefits, I wish we were on more of a par with faculty when it comes to orthodontics, etc.
the Steeldrum vol. 10, no. 3 April 2010.8
OTTAWA—If the federal government wants to get serious about spending controls, it needs to look critically at its ballooning outsourcing costs, says a new study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).
According to the study, by CCPA Research Associate David Macdonald, the growing and concentrated nature of outsourcing has cre-ated a shadow public service that works along-side the real public service—but without the same hiring practices or transparency require-ments.
“Over the past five years, personnel out-sourcing costs have risen 79%. While federal departments have had their budgets capped, expenditures on outside consultants have not been touched and remain above $1 billion a year,” says Macdonald.“Outsourcing isn’t what it used to be. Contractors aren’t coming in for a
week to do some filing, they are now being hired on contract for years at a time to work beside regular employees, “ Macdonald says.
“This system of parallel HR is where govern-ment managers are turning after last year’s departmental caps.”
Four large departments—Public Works and Government Services Canada, National Defence and Canadian Forces, Human Resources and Skills Development, and Public Safety and Emer-gency Preparedness—make up half of all federal government outsourcing. Their payrolls increased by only 9% since 2005-06, but their personnel out-sourcing costs exploded, rising by 100%.
“Without prompt corrective action, outsourc-ing costs will continue to soar,” Macdonald says. “With the federal government running a significant deficit, it is more important than ever to examine measures that offer potential savings while maintaining services.”
The study makes specific recommendations to help curb rising costs and make better use of the resources the government already has.
Federal Outsourcing Costs Untouched Despite Budget Caps: Study
Compensation
Last March,
the Liberal government announced it wanted a two-year wage freeze for public sector workers. Without legislation to back up the plan, this freeze could not be imposed upon unionized University of Toronto workers. While USW members received their 3% salary increase in July 1, 2010, U of T froze the wages for many non-unionized staff. Given the current political and economic
climate, we expect a tough round of negotiations. Our recent Bargaining survey shows a wage increase is the number one concern of our members — so the Bargaining Committee will be going in looking for a fair salary increase in our next contract.
This past summer saw the Liberal government offering Ontario universities a program to address pension solvency deficits as long as the university is willing to take certain steps – one of the options is
increased pension contributions by members. The University has indicated that they will be looking for USW members to increase pension contributions by half at the bargaining table.
Much has been written about the U of T pension fund’s losses during the recent economic downturn. Some say losses were part of a global economic event, lower interest rates are decreasing the fund’s performance, and some are of the view that
university’s questionable investment strategies and pension contribution holidays made the situation much worse. Regardless of which view you hold, at the U of T it is the Employer — and NOT pension plan members — who is solely responsible for making special payments with respect to any solvency deficit in the pension fund. We have heard loud and clear that members do not want to see in increase in their pension contributions without any additional benefits.
Ontario’s Public Sector Wage Freeze & Pension Funding Relief for the University Sector: What Does This Mean for Bargaining?
Name 2010 Salary 2009 Salary Increase in 2010
William Moriarty, President and Chief Executive Officer, University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation $697,020.00 $605,728.11 $91,291.89
Daren Smith, Director, Hedge Funds, University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation $232,500.00 $183,773.96 $48,726.04
Gillian Morrison, Assistant Vice-President, Divisional Relations & Campaigns $220,750.03 $188,433.34 $32,316.69
Michael Edmunds, Director of Information Commons $204,081.65 $148,992.48 $55,089.17
Heather Fraser, Director, Business Design Initiatives $191,666.68 $112,499.96 $79,166.72
Paul Donoghue, Chief Administrative Officer, University of Toronto Mississauga $191,168.52 $157,500.00 $33,668.52
Kyle Winters, Executive Director, Corporate & Foundation Relations $160,195.32 $135,069.48 $25,125.84
Elizabeth Didonato, Executive Director, Research Oversight & Compliance $158,088.49 $117,185.49 $40,903.00
Benjamin Abramov, Vice-President, Private Markets, University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation $152,257.96 $110,360.96 $41,897.00
Compensation Freeze? Look at who got a nice salary bump in 2010
vol. 10, no. 3 April 2010. the Steeldrum 9
A defined benefit pension is a plan in which an employer promises a specified pension amount at retirement. The plan is prede-
termined by a formula based on contributions such as employee earnings, length of service and age, and usually the employer contributes to the plan as well. The monies in the plan may be invested and whether the investments do well or not, the employer is legally obligated to provide the pension benefit amount as outlined in the for-
mula as specified in the plan. The risk in this plan is on the employer side.
In a defined contribution plan the amount the employer and/or the employee contribute to a retirement plan is specified. Individual accounts are set up for participants and benefits are based on the employee and employer contri-butions plus earning from investments. How-ever, none of the contributions to the plan are guaranteed. If the investments do not do well
and the plan goes into deficit, at retirement the worker would only be paid what is in their account, plus or minus investments and expens-es which could amount to zero. The individual takes the risk in this plan.
The University of Toronto has a defined ben-efit pension plan, which was the norm in post war years. Today pension have shifted to defined contribution plans, which transfers the risk from employers to the employee.
Canada is at a crossroads, just like it was forty years ago when it was time to do something about our health care system.
Today, we need to do something about retirement income, and we need to do it soon.
It’s time to change some thingsThe problem with Canada’s retirement income
system has become so obvious that even bank economists have started to admit the RRSP approach has failed. There’s too much risk and not enough security to ensure that, after a lifetime of work, people can retire and live out their last years in dignity.
The federal and provincial governments must:• Phase in a doubling of payouts from the Canada Pen-
sion Plan (CPP) and the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP).
• Immediately increase Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) for all retirees.
Our governments must also:• Create a national pension insurance fund to
ensure that workers’ defined benefit pensions aren’t at risk when employers go under or specu-lative bubbles go bust. The United States has a pension guarantee fund covering up to about $50,000 of pension income.
• Regulate financial products to ensure that risks are reasonable and clear to all inves-tors, and to ensure that rating agencies are truly independent.
• Regulate pension fund investments in risky financial instruments and prosecute any
cases of fraud.• Regulate pension funds for solvency in order
to secure promised pension benefits.• Provide any temporary solvency funding
relief to employers in serious financial trou-ble on a case-by-case basis only. Applica-tions must be approved by the workplace bargaining agent (the union) or a majority of pension beneficiaries (in a non-union work-place).Whether retirement is just around the corner
or something that’s decades into the future, Labour’s plan for Retirement Security has clear benefits for everyone - no matter where you work.
—Canadian Labour Congress
The Canadian Labour Congress has filed an Access to Information
request to find out who lob-bied the federal finance minister against proposals to enhance the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans.
“Last summer Jim Fla-herty said that improving the CPP was the best way to ensure the retirement secu-rity of Canadians,” says CLC president Ken Geor-getti, “but the minister has changed his mind and now favours vastly inferior pri-vate sector plans. We want to know who got to the gov-ernment and we hope this Access to Information request will provide that
information.”Georgetti says two access
requests were filed in late December 2010.
“Our sources tell us that the financial services sector was lobbying hard prior to the finance ministers meet-ing in Kananaskis in December,” Georgetti says.
“The banks and insurance companies want control over the retirement savings of Canadian workers and that’s a shame because they charge obscenely high man-agement fees for investing those savings. That can reduce your pension nest egg by more than 50 per cent. The CPP is a far better option.”
Pension Plans: Defined Benefit VS Defined Contribution — What is the Difference?
Retirement Security is for Everyone!
Pension 101
In public statements, the University has indicated that it wants us to accept increased employee contributions
to the pension plan with no increase in benefits.
Pension “contributions” are the wages we have earned but will take when we retire as part of our pension
wage. They are deferred wages, our wages, deferred until we take our pension.
The pension is part of our total com-pensation, including wages and health benefits, negotiated and improved upon by the Union in each round of bargaining. We can think of our total compensation
as a pie cut up into different pieces: wages, health benefits, and pension. By agreeing to contribute a certain amount towards our pension, we forego receiving that amount as wages now in order to receive our pension later.
If we increased our pension contribu-tions, we would be reducing our current wages while gaining no increase in pension benefits.
What are employee pension “contributions”?
Why would we agree to such a deal?
Employee pension contributions are determined by a specific formula. We have met our obligations accord-
ing to this formula. The University, in turn, must meet its obligations to fund the bal-ance of the pension promise.
Who Lobbied Against Improving CPP?
BARGAINING 2011
vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010. the Steeldrumthe Steeldrum vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010.10 11
““ ““ “
“”
””
” ”
”
Keep our pension plan the way it is and do not back down on the amount we pay - U of T had a pension holiday, now they should be paying for it, not us. We didn’t ask for a holiday - they should have been contributing all along.
Thank you for indicating that our local will not bend on pension contribution during this round of negotiations — indeed, IT WAS NOT OUR FAULT!!!
Early retirement options should be made available for USW employees. The same benefits for ‘renewal’ (replacing newer staff at lower cost), can be achieved amongst USW employees with significant savings to University if reasonable offers/options were made available.
We definitely do not want to pay anymore than 25% share of our university pension. The financial market is improving and when good time comes again, the university will never go back to paying 75% of the pension if we make any changes now.
Through bad investments, the University lost Pension money. I don’t feel they should be asking the contributors to put more in to make up shortfalls.
No huge dramatic immediate increases in the amount we have to contribute each month to the pension plan. Many of us simply can’t afford the drop in net income. The corporate tone around this conversation at large lately is that it has somehow become unreasonable for retiring workers to expect to have a decent standard of living from a pension to which they contributed for 35 years!
Pension
What Our Members Had to Say
With Labour’s PlanA worker who is 28 years old and works full time until the age of retirement at age 65 (37 years of expanded contributions) would earn a monthly CPP payment of about $1,772.*
Without labour’s plan, the same worker’s monthly CPP payment would only be about $886.
A worker who is 38 years old and works full-time from now until retirement at age 65 (27 years of expanded contributions) would earn a monthly CPP payment of about $1,293.*
Without labour’s plan, the same worker’s monthly CPP payment would only be about $646.
A worker who is 48 years old and works full time until the age of retirement at age 65 (17 years of expanded contributions) would earn a monthly CPP payment of about $814.*
Without labour’s plan, the same worker’s monthly CPP payment would only be about $407.
www.canadianlabour.ca/action-center/retirement-security-everyone/calculate-labours-plan-retirement
Increased workload in past three years
Increase in Workload 71.6%
No increase 28.4%
Yes No
Trend of increasing workload continues.
A
Light1%
Moderately2%
Just Right33%
Heavy50%
Extremely Heavy14%
Light
Moderately
Just Right
Heavy
Extremely Heavy
Light1%
Moderately2%
Just Right33%
Heavy50%
Extremely Heavy14%
Light
Moderately
Just Right
Heavy
Extremely Heavy
Workload Rating: Rated on a scale of ‘1’ through ‘5’, with 1 being “light” and 5 being “extremely heavy”
vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010. the Steeldrumthe Steeldrum vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010.10 11
• fear of job loss• fear of layoff in an uncertain economy• increased overtime
• staff cutbacks leading to increased workload
• pressure to perform.
is an important concern in the workplace today.Stress can show itself in reduced efficiency, lack of job satisfaction, injury,
absenteeism, turnover, illness, indifference and lack of creativity. In an environment where employees are encouraged to compete with one another or
judge another’s work performance, it can create a toxic work environment.
MENTAL DISTRESS
The Canadian Mental Health Association lists common sources of workplace stress as:
““ ”
”
There used to be 4 people on our team, now it’s only me. “ ”
My supervisor has been on Research Leave for the last 10 months. I am now frequently responsible for work that he had been responsible for Complexity and amount of work has increased.
Flexible working hours, eg coming in late, or leaving early some days. Or working core hours here and some hours from home, if/as possible.
“ ”I do not want to pay a greater contribution than faculty or other employees do. If there’s an increase in contributions, it has to be the same for everyone.
“ ”I find workload unmanageable for a 8:45-5pm workload. Often there is ‘implied’ pressure and expectation to work later and not be awarded overtime for it.
“ ”Management takes the view that these workload issues are not their concern, it is the staff members problem to solve how to fit more work in the same amount of time.
“ ”New initiatives are implemented without consideration for the workload it generates.
Workload and Stress
vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010. the Steeldrumthe Steeldrum vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010.12 13
Air Quality Asbestos Bullying/Harassment Ergonomics/Repetitive Strain
Other (please specify in # 7 below)
Series1 60.6% 17.5% 20.3% 51.9% 16.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Number reporting bullying/harassment as a concern has gone up – was16% in 2008. Over 200 people reported this as an issue in this survey.
What are the main Health and Safety Concerns in your Area?
“”
The Civility Guidelines have no teeth. There is no way to hold management accountable (especially when HR condones the bullying). Can we try to get stronger language in the next contract?
“”
Virtually impossible to get time away from desk. The university talks about work life balance, but if I actually want to use the gym we are encouraged to, how can I get my work done? Everyone eats at their desk—the workload is strenuous.
“
”
Working environment: from President of the University to custodian, all employees should understand that there should be equal respect. One should not be treated any better than the other because of ranking within the University. Placement, wage, gender, education, personal situation (status, health , etc.) should not be an indicator of just how polite or how respectful we should be treating each other.
“”
Ergonomics at U of T is basically non existent. They cover themselves by saying everything is in place for someone that gets injured. What they mean is we do the bare minimum by law. What they need is an ergonomist to check every single persons workstation to start with. Then they need to have good training on proper work posture/ exercises and so on to ensure employees do not get injured.
Health and Safety
% of respondents who indicate areas of concern
Air Quality Asbestos Bullying/HarrassmentErgonomics
Repitative strain Other
n Saturday, January 29th, 2011, thousands of Steelworkers and other trade unionists gathered in Hamilton for Hamilton Day of
Action, a rally in support of locked out members of Steelworkers Local 1005. It was a breathtaking sight on a cold, snowy Saturday to see flags and banners representing so many different unions and other organizations. Unions and union leaders were represented from across the country, as well as community groups and student groups.
As of January 29th, the approximately 900 members of Local 1005 had been on the picket line for eleven weeks. The employer, US Steel, locked them out when the bargaining committee rejected an offer that would have included major cuts to the pension plan which would affect not only members’ pensions, but also those of retirees. The proposal would have discontinued indexing of pension, leaving retirees with no defence against increases in the cost of living.
It was not simply the negotiations between the company and the union at issue, but that when the Canadian government allowed US Steel, an American company, to buy the former Stelco Hilton plant, it was on the condition that jobs be maintained. So far, since the takeover, 2200 jobs have been lost, and the proposed pension cuts would affect another 9000 workers.
Speakers at the rally included Sid Ryan, President of the Ontario Federation of Labour; Leo Gerard, International President of the Steelworkers; Ken Newman, National Director of the Steelworkers; Jack Layton, Leader of the federal NDP;
Andrea Horvath, Ontario Leader of the NDP; and Ken Georgetti, President of the Canadian Federation of Labour. They called on the government to protect Canadian manufacturing jobs and to enforce agreements regarding sales of companies to foreign ownership.
At the time of writing, members of USW Local 1005 remain locked out, with no settlement in sight.
— Alex Thomson Victoria University
Labour Solidarity
Hamilton Day of Action
O
orkers at Hudson’s Bay Corporation’s warehouse/logistics cen-tre in Brampton have voted to join the United Steelworkers (USW).
In a vote Wednesday, administered by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the workers voted by a 55% margin to join the USW. About 200 workers in the HBC warehouse supply products to Zellers, The Bay, Home Outfitters and Fields stores across Canada.
“These working women and men made a strong choice in favour of our union and we are honoured by that choice,” said Ken Neumann, the USW’s National Director for Canada.
“Our union is growing quickly in the logistics/warehousing sector in Canada, with over 2,500 members already employed at similar workplac-es,” Neumann said.
“The HBC workers want good union service and an effective approach to worker representation and that’s what they’ll get in the Steelworkers,” said Wayne Fraser, USW Director for Ontario and Atlantic Canada.
“We look forward to a positive relationship with HBC management and to helping these employees achieve a new collective agreement,” Fraser said.
he United Steelworkers (USW) welcomed the release from jail today of Juan Linares Montufar, a union leader of the National Mexican Mine and Metal Workers Union -
also called Los Mineros - who had been unjustly imprisoned since December 3, 2008.
Linares’s unconditional release follows a week of union protests at Mexican embassies and con-sulates in more than 40 countries, including 17 cit-ies in the U.S. and Canada.
“This is a tremendous victory for international
trade union solidarity,” said USW President Leo W. Gerard. Steelworkers in the U.S. and Canada have lobbied for Linares’s release and provided support to his family.
“The unlawful detention of Juan Linares is a gross human rights violation that has brought shame and disgrace on the Mexican government,” Gerard said. “We hope that Juan’s release means that the Calderón administration will now drop all charges against the union’s leader, Napoleón Gómez, and end its campaign of persecution
against Los Mineros, the mine and metalworkers union.”
Mexican prosecutors dropped bank fraud charges against Linares, the President of the union’s Justice and Oversight Commission, after the former union members who originally made the fraud accusation withdrew it. Germán Larrea, the owner of the Grupo Mexico mining company - which has waged a five-year assault on the min-eworkers union - had been ordered to appear as a witness March 2 in Linares’s case.
USW Welcomes Juan Linares’ Unconditional Release in Mexico
HBC Employees Join United Steelworkers
vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010. the Steeldrumthe Steeldrum vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010.12 13
W
T
he Steelworkers Humanity Fund is contributing $20,000 toward emergency aid and reconstruction efforts following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan,” said Ken Neumann, USW National Director for Canada.
The Steelworkers Humanity Fund contribution is in response to requests from Japanese trade unions. The Steelworkers’ contribution will be channeled through the ICEM (International Chemical Energy and Mining Unions Federa-tion) affiliates in Japan, and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). The CLC Japan Disaster Relief Fund will transfer funds to the Japanese Trade Union Con-federation (JTUC-RENGO).
“Japan is a relatively rich economy and we are confident that Japanese commu-nities will have the ability and resources to mount a successful rebuilding effort.
Nevertheless thousands individual union members and their families in Japan have been devastated and the sheer magnitude of the rebuilding effort is enor-mous,” Neumann said.
“The contribution of the Steelworkers Humanity Fund means that Japanese unions will have additional resources to be able to alleviate hardship and speed recovery for their members.”
The disaster left over 18,000 dead, inflicted extensive damage and led to sig-nificant accidents at two major nuclear power stations.
Founded in 1985, the Steelworkers Humanity Fund is a registered charitable organization. Steelworkers members contribute to the Fund through clauses negotiated into collective agreements. In some cases matching contributions come from employers.
THumanity Fund Contributes to Japanese Earthquake Relief
While the world is focused on the democratic uprisings in Tunisia,
Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and Iran, a similar uprising in Madison, Wisconsin, has major implica-tions on the future of unions in the United States and Canada.
Faced with a budget deficit, Wisconsin Republi-can Governor Scott Walker has decided that the only way to balance the budget is to strip the state employees’ union of its collective bargaining rights.
State employees, their families, students and labour activists and supporters responded by gath-ering around and in the Wisconsin State Capital building to rally against the attack on worker rights. Governor Walker has so far refused to meet with the union to negotiate contract concessions. “This (bill) is to break the unions and to destroy the mid-dle class,” said USW District 2 Director Mike Bol-ton, “so that the rich can get richer and the corpora-tions can have more power.”
As Ryan Witt wrote in The Examiner, “What hap-pens to union workers impacts every worker. His-tory is easily forgotten, but before the unions came to power in America the average worker was basi-cally powerless to negotiate higher wages and bet-ter working conditions. The 40-hour work week in America is standard because the labor movement made it standard. Safe working conditions were fought for and won by unions, and then quickly became standard for all workers through legisla-tion. A decent living wage and a strong middle class did not come about in America until the unions came into power.”
Obama Stands Up For Public Servants In Wisconsin
In an interview with a Milwaukee television on February 24, President Barack Obama made it clear where he stands with regard to the labour unrest in Wisconsin. “Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where they’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions. I think everybody has got to make some adjustments, but I think it is also important to recognize that public employ-ees make enormous contributions to our states and our citizens.”
“But let me also say this: it does no one any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon. We need to attract the best and the brightest to pub-lic service. These are times that demand it. We’re not going to attract the best teachers for our kids, for example, if they only make a frac-tion of what other professionals make. We’re not going to convince the bravest Americans to put their lives on the line as police officers or firefighters if we don’t properly reward that bravery. So yes, we need a conversation about pensions and Medicare and Medicaid and other promises we’ve made as a nation. But as we make decisions about our budgets going for-ward, I believe everyone should be at the table, and the concept of shared sacrifice should pre-vail. If all the pain is borne by one group – whether it is workers, or seniors, or the poor –
while the wealthiest among us keep getting tax cuts, we’re not doing the right thing. I think that’s something Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on.”
From Cairo to Madison: We Stand With You As You stood With Us
The role of labor unions in the Cairo demonstra-tions was one of the most underreported stories about the pro-democracy movement in Egypt. Many were protesting against neoliberal right-wing economic policies just as much as they were pro-testing against the Mubarak dictatorship.
During the uprising in that country, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka praised the role of orga-nized labor, saying, “The people’s movement for democracy in Egypt and the role unions are play-ing for freedom and worker rights inspires us and will not be forgotten.”
Now, as tens of thousands of union members and other Wisconsin residents are taking to the streets to protest against Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) attempt to abolish collective bargaining rights for most public workers, a leader of Egypt’s largest umbrella group of independent labor unions is praising the Wiscon-sin movement.
In a videotaped statement, Kamal Abbas, the General Coordinator of the Centre for Trade Unions and Workers Services, tells the Wisconsin protest-ers, “We stand with you as you stood with us.” He says “no one believed” that the revolution against the Mubarak regime would succeed, yet they were able to bring the dictator down within 18 days.”
vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010. the Steeldrumthe Steeldrum vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010.14 15
The War on UnionsRepublicanWhile
cott Walker over played his hand. With Republican majorities in the state Assembly and Senate, the
recently elected governor of Wisconsin thought he could crush the state’s public sector unions with punitive new laws that he inbedded in the 2011 state budget. When the Assembly passed the budget, Walker must have thought his attack on the workers of Wisconsin was well on its way to victory. The thing is, the fourteen Democratic state senators (regularly referred to as the “Fab 14”) and, more importantly, hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites, led by students, were not ready to admit defeat.
While students protested in large numbers against the attack on their teachers and the Democratic senators headed out of state to prevent quorum being met, both public and private sector unions swung into action. For several days and nights protesters occupied the state capital building. The fight back against Walker, the Republican Party and their billionaire cronies was on.
When I arrived in Madison on March 8th, the first occupation of the state building was over, but hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of protesters arrived every day to express their anger against Walker’s efforts to strip away almost all the collective bargaining and dues collecting rights of Wisconsin’s public sector unions.
Then, on March 10th, Walker got cute. In an end run around the Democratic senators, he split out the anti-union provisions from the budget bill and had the Republican senators pass them as a separate bill that did not require quorum. If Walker thought that blow would deflate the fight back, he was sorely mistaken. Not only were Wisconsin workers, students and their allies not deflated, there was a significant increase in their determination to fight on. That night
ten thousand people circled the state building, unified in their anger and readiness to take action. Walker, in defiance of a court ruling, had ordered the state buiding to be closed to the public, but some resourceful protesters slipped through a couple of windows and eventually got a door opened long enough for the crowd outside to overwhelm the state capital police and gain entry for everyone who wanted
into the Building. So there we were, filling the main
floor rotunda space and the two levels above, chanting, drumming and talking to each other. At one point ten or so off duty police, wearing their “Cops for Labor” shirts, were walking towards me. A woman thanked them for being with the protesters. One of the police responded, “We know where the real criminals work.” That was in keeping with the fact that the
police and firefighters, whose unions had been exempted from Walker’s ant-union attack because they had contributed to his election campaign, had been from the start fully supportive of the fight back and loudly vocal against Scott Walker.
On Friday I went to the state building at about 3:00 pm. I was struck by how few protesters were marching around the building. It turned out the
building was open and inside there were hundreds of junior high and high school students standing and sitting in a circle, fully engaged in listening and reacting to each other taking turns at a microphone to talk about politics. They had signs that read, “I love my teacher”, “Scott Walker is destroying education”, “This is what democracy looks like” and “Recall Walker”. There was a student who spoke about how he has autism and how many of Walker’s
budget cuts would hurt people with disabilities particularly hard. It was clear that the students were all there on their own accord - no adults had organized them.
Saturday March 12th was the day one hundred and fifty thousand people were expected to show up at the state building for a worker solidarity rally. By early Saturday afternoon the crowd was at least two hundred thousand strong. There were farmers, police, firefighers, anti-war activists, Republcans ashamed of their party, members of private sector unions, teachers, students, state administrative employees and non-unionized workers. There were people from all parts of Wisconsin, as well as supporters from out of state. Many people carried placards that referred to class struggle and the need for a general strike, although the most prominent actions called for were the election of a Democrat state Supreme Court judge to replace the Republican incumbent, and the recall of Walker and eight eligible Republican senators.
The Wisconsin workers’ fight back is inspiring and important to people all over the United States, Canada and beyond. State governments in Ohio, Florida and Indiana, for example, are also trying to crush the ability of public sector workers to protect their livelihoods.
If the Wisconsin fight back fails, attacks on workers will almost certainly escalate across the U.S. and Canada. Conversely, if the Wisconsin fight back succeeds, we could very well see an upswing in the strength of organized labour and the confidence of all workers to beat back the efforts of those who would have us shoulder the full burden of the recent economic crisis that was created by Wall Street bankers and their allies.
— John Ankenman USW Local 1998, Victoria University
SThe Battle for Wisconsin
On Saturday, April 9, 2011, rally at Dundas Square (Yonge & Dundas)
and march to Toronto City Hall to defend our communities, public services and good jobs. Together, we
can stop cuts, closures, user fees and privatization that will hurt every person and every neighbourhood in Toronto. Let’s speak up before it spreads to every city and town in Ontario.
vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010. the Steeldrumthe Steeldrum vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010.14 15
R A L LY FOR R E SPE C TOur COMMUNITIES, Public SERVICES, Good JOBS!
Community Day of Action in Toronto1 p.m. Saturday, April 9, 2011
Rally at Dundas Square, followed by a march to Toronto City Hall
What’s at Stake?
vol. 10, no. 2 April 2010.16 the Steeldrum
executive membersexecutive membersusw local 1998 Standing committees
cont
act
info
e t w
general infoYou can find us at:
Steelworkers Local 199825 Cecil Street, Third Floor Toronto, ON M5T 1N1e [email protected] t 416. 506. 9090
w www.usw1998.ca
Allison Dubarry, President
416.506.9090 x224
Paul Tsang, Vice President
416.978.0500
Colleen Burke, Recording Secretary
416.506.9090 x230
Linda Wilding, Financial Secretary
416.506.9090 x229
Art Birkenbergs, Treasurer
905.828.5254
Donna Wheeler, Trustee
416.978.4064
Sandra Grant, Guide
416.506.9090 x.238
Alex Thomson, Guard
416.585.4565 x3212
Kristy Bard, Guard
416.946.3318
Philip Murton, Trustee
416.978. 5271
John Ankenman,
Unit Chairperson Victoria University
416.506.9090 x227
Grievance
Nik Redman ([email protected])
Paul Tsang ([email protected])
Health and Safety
Lee Jeffrey ([email protected])
Jennifer Blackett
Human Rights
Ruby Barker ([email protected])
Job Evaluation
Mary Bird, Jan Eichmanis, Sandra Grant, Pat
McClellan, Kim Walker ([email protected])
Newsletter
P.C. Choo ([email protected])
Political Action
John Ankenman ([email protected])
Christine Beckermann
Women of Steel
Colleen Burke
Sandra Grant ([email protected])
he old adage that people don’t leave jobs, they leave bosses, got a boost from a recent human resources (HR) survey with three-quarters of participants agreeing bad managers are a “big” or “huge” problem in Canada.
In January, the Toronto Star reported this finding from a survey of Human Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) members, the majority of whom say dealing with “bosses from hell” takes up a lot of their time.
In fact, more than half of the 793 HR respondents admitted having “difficult conversations” with problem managers each month.
This widespread finding surprised HRPA director Claude Balthazard, who says he expected bad managers to represent one employee in 50 or 100, but the results were more like one in 10. “We (HR) have to clean up the messes.”
Participants in the survey say problem areas include making inappropriate comments (e.g., racial overtones), favouritism, unwillingness to follow due process, disrespect, and bullying or intimidation.
Unfortunately for workers, fewer than 20 per cent (16.6) of HR professionals said they were effective “most of the time” in dealing with a bad boss.
“There’s a kind of motif of the manager that’s tough, berates employees and flies off the handle,” Balthazard says. The underlying catalyst, he points out, is that some managers believe acting aggressive or intimidating is how you get things done.
While survey respondents admit simply pointing out the bad behaviour sometimes works, other times they agree reform requires a radical culture
change throughout the company.The survey revealed that more than a third of companies (35.2 per cent) “will
tolerate just about anything” in their rotten managers if he or she delivers results. Unfortunately, Balthazard says, by ignoring the problem manager, companies
are often left with high turnover as good employees leave. “They have options,” he
points out, while the underperforming employees stay, leaving the firm or institution with poor performers. This latter group needs the job and doesn’t tend to complain about being treated badly, but Balthazard warns, “When it blows, it blows up big.”
Another problem for companies ignoring problem bosses, Balthazard says, is that with the emergence of social media, former employees are spreading the word and “getting back” at companies that don’t deal with terrible managers. “It’s not as easily containable as it used to be,” he says.
To deal with this, Balthazard says that companies need to change the ingrained, problematic culture that is enabling these kinds of bad bosses. His
suggestions include providing better role models, telling positive and empowering stories inside, and supporting executives or high profile managers who are more professional. “A CEO leading by example is very powerful.”
Balthazard also suggests companies put in place a system where workers can, for example, report being bullied or mistreated, without repercussions.
— Kathleen O’Brien Faculty of Information
T
Bosses from Hell
a Huge Problem in Canada
