cupe strike presentation

8/14/2019 CUPE Strike Presentation

1/114

1

Ward 4 Councillors Meeting

Councillor Ken Lewenza

Councillor Bill Marra

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Club Alouette

2418 Central Avenue


2/114

2

Can We Come Together to Build a Better City?

By Ken Lewenza Jr.

The hundred-day civic workers strike earlier this year was one of the

most difficult and divisive events in our citys history. And the

repercussion and recriminations from the strike continue even to this

day, living on in nasty he-said-she-said recriminations that mar our

deliberations at city council and other civic forums.

With the perspective that comes with a bit of distance, I want to revisit

some of the underlying issues both fiscal and social that lay at the

heart of the conflict. My goal is not to carry on old battles. My goal is

to consider what we can learn as a community from this destructive andunnecessary confrontation, and how to prevent similar debacles in the

future.


3/114

3

Because the hard truth is that public sector agencies in general are going to faceintense fiscal pressures in the next few years, a side-effect of the global financial crisisand resulting recession. Governments at all levels now face sizeable deficits. Wemust learn how to negotiate those fiscal challenges much better than we did inWindsor this year. The consequences, if we dont, will be measured in socialdivision, lost services and, perhaps surprisingly, higher costs.

Lets take it at face value that the hard-line stance (demanding elimination of post-retirement benefits, or PRBs, for new hires, along with other concessions) taken bythe Citys leadership was motivated by a desire to keep costs in line and reduce thefiscal burden on the City and its taxpayers. (Another possible interpretation of eventsis that getting tough with public sector workers is always a sure vote-getter duringtough economic times.)

The fundamental question I then ask is this: Was this an effective way to reach a cost-effective collective agreement with the CUPE bargaining unit? In retrospect, it clearlywasnt. In fact, by emphasizing confrontation over cooperation, not only did we sparka long, ugly work stoppage, and drive a wedge through the middle of a communitythat needs to come together right now. We also ended up with a collective agreementthat is clearly more expensive to the City, not less expensive.


4/114

4

That may seem like a surprising claim, but heres my logic. Weve heard noend of doom-and-gloom actuarial projections regarding the ultimate cost of

post-retirement health benefits for City workers. But in reality, the fiscalproblem associated with those benefits is not that the benefit itself is

inherently rich. In reality, the Citys own actuary confirms that the currentservice cost of CUPEs post-retirement benefits is $2.7 million per year which works out to a little more than $1 per hour for all the full-time workerswho get this benefit.

This seems very modest, compared to all the frightening headlines we saw

about the Citys $300 million accumulated PRB liability. Because Canadasaccounting rules have only recently changed , and now require cities to reportthese lump sum liabilities, many average citizens (and even those who shouldknow better, like politicians and reporters) misunderstand these numbers.Less than one-quarter of that $300 million liability is associated with theCUPE unit. The annual current service cost of that liability is quite modest.

And all of that cost is associated with existing employees not new hires.Yet PRBs for the current workforce werent even on the table. It was onlyfor new hires that the City wanted to snatch this benefit away.


5/114


6/114

6

Thats a simple way to address the cost-overhang resulting fromunfunded benefit promises. Instead of battling to the end to take themaway from workers in the future, we should fund them responsibly,sustainably and affordably.

Even better, by taking this constructive problem-solving approach(rather than going to war), we could have reduced the overall cost ofthe CUPE contract. Early in bargaining I had proposed a status-quoroll-over agreement for this group, and I believe that CUPE officialswere signalling that could be a face-saving solution to a very tough

round of contract talks. Instead we slipped into a hundred-day conflict,driven by overheated rhetoric about greedy unions, that wontproduce a penny of savings for at least thirty years to come. Yet toeventually get that deal, the City had to sweeten the offer with wageincreases that compound to more than 6 percent over four years. Thiscompares to many employers in Windsor who are presently negotiating

wage freezes (not surprising, given the current recession). The Citythrew in another $2.8 million in signing bonuses ($2000.00 for full-timers, $1000.00 for part-timers) to seal the deal.


7/114


8/114

8

Needless to say, Windsor has been hit hard enough by the global financialcrisis and the manufacturing meltdown. Then, on top of tens of thousandsof jobs that have disappeared from the private sector, the City theneffectively eliminated another 1800 good jobs for over three months. How

many millions of dollars of personal income, and how many thousands ofspin-off jobs, were lost by this aggressive stance precisely when ourcommunity could least afford it? We shouldnt be glorifying the savings ofthat needless battle. Rather, we should be regretting its costs monetary,economic, and social.

As a city councillor , I am concerned both with treating our own employeesfairly, and managing our finances in a responsible, sustainable way. Therewere much better ways to achieve both goals, than through the now-infamous War of 2009.

Lets hope that as we grapple with fiscal challenges in future years, we find

better ways to solve our problems by working together instead of battlingeach other in epic confrontations that no-one can win.

Ken Lewenza Jr. is a member of Windsor City Council


9/114

9

Understanding the CUPE Strike

Just as in any major undertaking, a post-audit of what happened is important. Byhonestly looking at what took place, we can build on all of our positives and can learnfrom what we did not do so well so that we can improve in the future.

My purpose is not to point fingers but rather to let the public know my perspective ofthe 101-day labour dispute. I expect that people may look at the events of the disputefrom a fresh point-of- view after they have had the chance to consider what I have to

say.It is a different view from that which was provided by our local media, and in particular the Windsor Star, which coloured how Windsorites viewed the labourdispute.

Both sides did not handle the dispute well and mistakes compounded mistakes.

In fact, there were opportunities lost during the 101 days that would have allowedboth sides to have reached an agreement by which each side could hold their heads uphigh for achieving a positive result.


10/114

10

What I intend to help Windsorites understand:

s What was the strike all about?

s Was it really about wages and PRBs, OR was it a political strike?

s Did the City and Taxpayers get the best deal possible?

s Did the City achieve what they led citizens to believe relative to long

and short term cost savings?s Was elimination of PRBs the core issue for Citizens?

OR did the Citizens want us to get the best deal possible, if there was

one?

s Were we well served by our major news outlet,

The Windsor Star?

s Was the public given proper information about the role of arbitration?

s Were the consequences to you and the city worth a 101 day strike?


11/114

11

Why did the so called

hardlinerson Council fold in a

one hour span on

June 17, 2009

that caused such

an enormous shift in the

City's position?


12/114

12

s Did the City reduce its leverage to reach a negotiated solution with theremaining 70% of its workforce?

s Does anyone really know what the strike settlement was especially in

relation to PRBs for new hires?

s How do we avoid repeating this experience?

s Answer any questions you may have on this issue.


13/114

13

LEGEND

s RED text signifies Councillor Lewenza

comments/actions/opinions

s BLACK and/with ITALIC text signifies

Council Minutes and Motions

s PURPLE text signifies Windsor Star reporting


14/114

14

Some ask me:

"when do you think the strike with CUPE

could have been avoided?"

I think going back to 2006 provides a glimpse of the labour

relations atmosphere, opportunities lost, and is a signal of things

to come.

1. Council Minutes, Page 7 Windsor Ontario May 15th, 2006

2. Post Retirement Benefits - Consultation Process

3. John Miceli, President and Mike Stamp, CANUE4. Item 9 Post Retirement Benefits - Consultation Process


15/114

15

1. From the May 15, 2006 Minutes of City Council, Page7:

John Miceli, President And Mike Stamp, Civic Associationof Non - Union Employees (CANUE) request that item 9.1

being the report of the City Treasurer dated March 22,

2006 entitled "Post Retirement Benefits" - Non Union

Employees" and item 9.2 being the report of the City

Treasurer dated April 11, 2006 entitled "Post Retirement

Benefits - Consultation Process" be deferred to allow

CANUE membership and representatives from local 543

and 82 an opportunity to be in attendance since it wasCANUE 's understanding that report 9.1 had been

substituted with report 9.2.


16/114

16

2. Post Retirement Benefits Consultation Process

Moved by councillor Lewenza , seconded by Councillor Valentinis,

That the reports of City Treasurer dated March 22, 2006entitled "Post Retirement Benefits" - Non Union

Employeesand item 9.2 being the report of the CityTreasurer dated April 11, 2006 entitled "Post Retirement

Benefits Consultation Process" BE DEFERREDfor oneweek to allow CANUE membership and representatives from 543 and 82 to be in attendance.

The Motion is put and it is LOST

Aye Votes: Councillors Lewenza and Valentinis.Nay votes: Councillors Cassivi, Brister, Gignac, and Halberstadt.

Other councillors in conflict or absent


17/114

17

3. Item 9.1 from the May 16, 2006 Minutes of City Council:

John Miceli, President, and Mike Stamp, Civic Association of Non-Union

Employees (CANUE) appear before Council to express concern that only

CANUE and none of the other employee bargaining groups were includedin the initiative which will adversely affect the future of non union

employees and asks for a fair consultive process recognizing the benefit

costs are of concern and that CANUE welcomes the opportunity to meet

with Senior Administration to discuss creative ways to reduce the current

and future obligations through a consultative process.

This says it all!

What must not be lost in the discussion is the word "current" as this one

word represents opportunities lost as a partial solution in dealing with theissues related to post retirement benefits.


18/114

18

4. Item 9.2 Post Retirement Benefits Consultation Process

John Miceli, President, and Mike Stamp, Civic Association of Non-UnionEmployees (CANUE) appear before Council stating that CANUE believes there

is no further need to speak on this matter as it was CANUE's understanding thatthe report on "Post Retirement Benefits - Consultation Process" (Item (.2) was toreplace Item 9.1 and that since CANUE is not a bargaining unit it cannotnegotiate any benefits with the corporation and will deal with any administrativematter at a future date.

CR252/2006

Moved by Councillor Brister, seconded by Councillor Cassivi

Whereas, City Council recognizes the importance of dealing with the escalatingcosts of providing Post Retirement Benefits to the retirees of the Corporation,

and the need to develop strategies for limiting the financial and budgetaryimplications to the Corporation of continuing to provide these benefits to newemployees: and further, given that City Council recognizes that post retirementbenefits are subject to negotiations with the various employee bargaining units: itis therefore resolved that in order to lead this process that;


19/114

19

1. All new employees hired by the corporation within the Non Unionemployee group, with a signed offer of employment dated on or after May 16,2006 would be limited in post retirement benefit coverage to age 65.

2. All New employees hired by the corporation with a signed offer ofemployment dated on or after May 16, 2006 and transferring at some timethereafter into the Non union employee group, would be limited in postretirement benefit coverage to age 65.

Carried

Aye votes Councillors Brister, Cassivi, Halberstadt, Valentinis, and GignacNay Votes; Councillors Lewenza, and Postma

I did not support this strategy, as this approach was predicated on

confrontation not cooperation, and it ignored any possibility of a

negotiated settlement that addressed both parties concerns!


20/114


21/114

21

THE STRIKE CHRONOLOGY

I was the one who introduced the Motion at Council to make the in

Camera Council Minutes available to the public so Windsorites could

judge what happened with all of the information in front of them.

However, the minutes themselves do not demonstrate the dynamics that

were going on around them. For that, let me give an analysis of them

from my perspective.

The best way to do so is to follow the minutes chronologically with

comments added in. My Intention when I first started to put this

brief together was to walk you through chronological order that

provided some insight to as to what was happening behind closed

doors?


22/114

22

I also wanted to incorporate submissions by the Windsor Star todemonstrate the role they played during the strike.

What positions were they taking, what information did they choose toprovide, and how through opinion pieces, editorial cartoons, and dailynews did they attempt to influence public opinion?

The intent would have been to show that they were not objective,balanced, or fair, and that they very much contributed to prolonging thestrike.

I decided I did not have to do this once I came across the blog by ChrisVander Doelen so my remarks will be limited from what I intended.

Chris Vander Doelen Blog

Kevin and Nicole Cabana

Dear Kevin, or Nicole: Quit being a cry baby, If you want to go back towork, go back already. I'm not stopping anyone from working.

As for prolonging the strike, I think that might be true, and it's acompliment to the Windsor Star for representing the interests of itsreaders. If the Mayor and council didn't know public opinion was sostrongly behind them they'd throw in the towel and cave in like previous

councils did. We are doing our job well, I'd say.


23/114


24/114

24

What the Windsor Star selectively fails to report, is that at the end of

this motion I comment "that in no way does this motion suggest that I

support the removal of PRBs." What they also ignore is my position in

the 2006 and where I consistently supported a new pre-funded PRB

plan that addressed both parties concerns through negotiations.

Pre-funding would be similar to funding a pension plan so that when

an employee retires, money would be immediately available from the

fund and NOT be a burden on taxpayers at the time. Right now PRBs

are paid out as part of the City's Operating Budget on a pay as you go

basis.


25/114

25

s Net Zero was NOT unique in these negotiations but was a starting pointand part of a strategy used at Windsor Police and with the WindsorUtilities Commission.

s The intent of this motion was to signal to the unions that it's "not businessas usual"

s Of course, in neither the Windsor Police nor WUC was this finalresolution. No one ever expected it to be. In both cases local economiccircumstances were recognized by both sides.

s WUC settled at 1.75% each year of a three year collective agreement.

Lowest settlement in the Province in this sector!

s Offsetting these increases were productivity improvements.

s And it was resolved with out a strike maintaining a healthy labour

relations environment.


26/114

26

Examples

s Little to no lost time claims

s Absenteeism is a non issue

s Little to no Grievances

s A good working relationship

s Increased Productivity

Let the truth be told I was mocked by two of my council colleagues

for the deal being too high and they were critical of me for talking to

the union.


27/114

27

December 15, 2008:

Moved by Councillor Gignac, seconded by Councillor Lewenza:

THATAdministrationBE DIRECTED to file for

conciliation with respect to the current collective

bargaining process being undertaken with CUPE

locals 82 and 543.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


28/114

28

Tough Talk. In hindsight, it may have been a mistake since more time

should have been taken to explore options. There were no work slow downs

that would cause the city concern, thus providing no rush to bring this to a

head.

January 9 2009, The Star reports that the city has opted to file for

conciliation after only four negotiating sessions.

Again, in hindsight, it may have been a mistake.

This is hardly the way to demonstrate to a Union that the City wants to talk

to avoid a labour dispute. In fact, the opposite message is being given.


29/114

29

February 9, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Gignac, seconded by Councillor Valentinis

THATthe verbal update report from the General

Manager of Corporate Services and the Executive

Director of Human Resources regarding labournegotiationsBE RECEIVEDfor information.



30/114

30

March 24th 2009 - Conciliation talks break down, setting the stage for

a work stoppage in mid April. Mayor Eddie Francis says services will

still be delivered in the event of a strike as city managers were

preparing "perhaps one of the most comprehensive plans this

corporation has ever seen in terms of contingency planning."

Again, this was also a significant revelation as it indicates the City is

fully expecting a work disruption and perhaps can be interpreted as

putting more effort into a contingency plan instead of focusing on an

agreement!


31/114

31

April 6, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Marra:

THATAdministrationREQUESTan actuarial report

with respect to the effect of capping Post

Retirement Benefits at the age of 65 for all new

employees hired after January 1, 2009 for Local 543 andLocal 82 and to report back to Council.

CARRIED.

Councillors Halberstadt, Gignac,Valentinis and Mayor Francis voting

nay. Councillor Lewenza was absent for the vote.

CUPE achieved Post Retirement Benefits to the age of 65


32/114

32

Moved by Councillor Brister, seconded by Councillor Gignac,

THATthe verbal update report from the General

Manager of Corporate Services and the Executive

Director of Human Resources regarding labour

negotiationsBE RECEIVED for information.



33/114

33

April 12 2009 Doug Schmidt

Citing tough economic times, Windsor wants its unionized

workers to

accept a four-year wage freeze and agree to a lower set of

benefits for all newer hires, says Canadian Union of PublicEmployees, representing about 1800 municipal workers.

Lots of Rhetoric!


34/114

34

April 14 2009 Windsor Star

"The two sides are negotiating down to a deadline at the end of the

week that spokespeople say will end in either a strike or a lockout for

the 1,776 members of CUPE Local 543 and 82"

s There is going to be a work disruption!

s I was very surprised and disappointed that CUPE went on strike.

s City held hostage by not one side, but because of the inability to find asolution.

Both Wood, representing almost 400 outside workers, and CUPE

Local 543 president Jean Fox, Representing 1,400 inside workers, said

recent conciliation talks broke down in part because city negotiationswere offering nothing but contract cuts.


35/114


36/114

36

s This April 15th motion signals a compromise that could have provided awin-win for both sides. The issue of PRBs for new hires was NOT animmediate concern since the City will probably not be hiring new employeesfor years. Staff will be reduced by attrition and probably not be replaced.

s It is my firm belief that with all the enormous cost estimates thrown around

the issue of PRBs, even though CUPE's share was only 30% of them, becamethe lightning rod for the strike. I am certain that the public really did notknow how to understand the issue or put those numbers in perspective. Thesame could even be said for some Councillors.

s It could have opened the door to many possible scenarios to be negotiated onwhat a possible PRB plan could look like and how it could be funded.

s Through out negotiations CUPE offered many scenarios which were deniedas non negotiable. Example - 50/50 split, Benefits to age 71, etc.

s This hard line stance ignored the possibility of finding immediate savings tothe City as oppose to waiting 30 - 35yrs before savings started to materializefor the Corporation and Taxpayers.


37/114

37

s Example - Savings could have been found in the current benefit plans ofexisting workers and retirees, similar to what was done in the big three.And what was suggested by CANUE in 2006.

s

Benefit plans could be capped, with future adjustments to be made inbargaining that is relative to present day environment and ability to pay.Thus avoiding over inflated actuarial projections and legacy costs ofemployees yet to be hired.

s Moreover, there was an impact on other non - CUPE union workers.

s By avoiding any chance of finding a negotiated settlement that addresses

the needs of both sides, the City's leverage in trying to mirror thosechanges, that may be seen as an acceptable compromise, with the other70% of our workforce was limited considerably.

s It is my very strong opinion the no arbitrator will take PRBs from Police orFire merely because CUPE workers lost them, as these benefits havebecome common throughout the province from which they are compared.

s The cost of this failed approach cannot be quantified, but must beconsidered in the final agreement which I will speak to at the end!


38/114

38

What has not been reported is that CUPE achieved the intent of this

motion during this set of negotiations as the City agreed to administer a

Pre-funded, self funded, post retirementt benefit plan for new employees.

This point is interesting and again I will touch on this in the end of the

presentation.


39/114

39

2.Moved by Councillor Marra, seconded by Councillor Dilkens:

THATthe Citys negotiation teamBE DIRECTED to

return to the table and offer the following to CUPE

Local 82:

Stronger language in the guarantee being

given to protect the post retirementbenefits of current employees; and Post

Retirement Benefits for new hires hired

after January 1, 2009 to the age of 65.

CARRIED.

Councillors Postma, Lewenza and Jones voting nay.


40/114


41/114

41

4. Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by Councillor Lewenza:

THATthe Citys negotiating team BE GIVEN AUTHORITY

to offer job security to local 82 for each year of the term ofthe contract to be negotiated.

CARRIED.

Councillors Gignac and Valentinis voting nay.

Side note as strike begins

Regardless of what side youre on in Collective bargaining one of the

primary goals is to achieve the best agreement possible with the least

amount of pain!


42/114

42

April 18th 2009 by Monica Wolfson

Local 82 staff were seeking the same $500.00 per employee lump sum

payment and wage increases . The deal would have cost the city

$720,000 and amounted to a 4% pay hike over the two-year contract.


43/114

43

Cost to Citizens: What is CUPE's asking for?

s signing bonus $900.000 one time payment of $8.00 perhousehold

s 2% in 2009 = $10.00 per house hold

s 2% in 2010 = $10.00 per house hold

s No solution to PRBs

Even though I think this offer is inflated as their is no solution to

PRBs in sight. It does provide a glimpse of What CUPE is looking for.


44/114

44

Fox said negotiations took a bizarre turn Friday night

when the city proposed the union give up the fight on post-

retirement benefits for new hires and then the city would

reveal wage demands for employees.

s Not a way to bargain. Limits opportunity to find a solution

that both sides might be able to accept within the over all

package. What's concerning is who delivered thismessage?

s As City Council gave no direction to discuss any move

away from net zero.


45/114


46/114

46

April 18, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Dilkens, seconded by Councillor Postma:

THATCity CouncilREAFFIRMSits support for theCitys negotiation team.


Doug Schmidt and Monica Wolfson April 20, 2009:

Jim Wood, president of CUPE local 82 representing almost 400outside workers, said "if the city doesn't change its position oncapping retirement benefits for new hires, "were going to be out here

in August."

f l ik hi h l


47/114

47

Consequences of a long Strike which I also

predicted weeks before!

s 1,800 jobs affectively eliminated for 101 days

s How many millions of dollars of personal income and how many

thousands of spin off jobs were lost during this time

s Citizen's being inconvenienced by lack of Municipal Services

s Employee Moral

s Poor labour relations moving forward

s Image of City

s Community Division

s City's reputations Costs can't be measured!

April 20 2009:


48/114

48

April 20, 2009:

Open Motion. Moved by Councillor Brister, seconded by Councillor Marra:

a) THATCity CouncilREQUESTSthat:

a) Sid Ryan, President of CUPE Ontario, meet with thenegotiating teams for CUPE Locals 82 and 543, and thatCity Council will meet in closed session immediately after itsregular public meeting on Monday, April 20, 2009, todiscuss the current labour negotiations with CUPE Locals 82

and 543; andb) THATsubsequent to the above noted meetings, Mayor Francis

and Mr. RyanMEETin order to discuss the current labournegotiations between the Corporation of the City of Windsorand CUPE Locals 82 and 543.

CARRIED. Councillor Valentinis and Jones voting nay.

Moved by Councillor Marra, Seconded by Councillor Dilkens:


49/114

49

THATthe report of the City Clerk dated April 20, 2009 regarding Councildirection regarding labour negotiations BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION;and

THAT COUNCIL CONFIRM and RATIFY its decision TO CONFIRM that alldirections given to the negotiating team by Windsor City Council at its in camerameeting held Wednesday, April 15, 2009 respecting Local 82 negotiations alsoapply to Local 543 negotiations, including specifically:

i) The direction regarding extending post retirement benefits to age 65;

ii) Flexibility in offering a 2-year contract term;

Offering job security for employees hired in 1992 and 1993;The AuthorityTO OFFER a lump sum payment which would

be packaged with the post retirement benefits issue.

AND THAT the amount of the lump sum be brought before Council for

ratification, via email poll if necessary, before a final agreement is made.CARRIED. Councillors Lewenza and Gignac voting nay.

Moved by Councillor Marra seconded by Councillor Dilkens:


50/114

50

Moved by Councillor Marra, seconded by Councillor Dilkens:

THATthe report of the City Clerk dated April 20, 2009 regardingCouncil direction regarding labour negotiations BE RECEIVED

for information; and

THAT Council CONFIRM andRATIFY its decision TOCONFIRM its previous directions of April 15, 2009 and

April 17, 2009 regarding offering no wage increase to CUPE Locals 82 and 543 respectively and its further direction to thenegotiating team to offer a lump sum payment to be packagedwith the issue of elimination of post retirement benefits

past the age of 65 for new employees hired on or after January 1,2009, provided that the amount of the lump sum be broughtbefore Council for ratification, via email poll if necessary,

before a final agreement is made.CARRIED.

A il 24 2009


51/114

51

April 24, 2009:Moved by Councillor Lewenza, seconded by Councillor Jones:

THATthe Citys negotiating Committee BE DIRECTEDto:

remove the issue of ending post retirement benefits past the age of

65 for new employees in the negotiations with CUPE Locals 82and 543, and; offer the Union negotiating committees the commitmentto form a future Committee comprised of Union andManagement representatives which Committee will investigate theconcept of new employees funding their own post retirementbenefits past the age of 65, and maintain the Citys position on all other

issues being negotiated.MOTION DOES NOT CARRY.

Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield, Marra and Jones voting aye.

Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Valentinis, Dilkens and Mayor Francisvoting nay.

By Doug Schmidt The Windsor Star ***** 29 2009


52/114

52

By Doug Schmidt, The Windsor Star ***** 29, 2009

Lewenza argued that revealing how councillors voted on various

positions taken during the bitter strike would show how opportunities

were missed early on in the process. And he railed Monday nightagainst media reporting during the divisive strike, saying "the votes

reveal a different story."

But Francis said the only thing the closed-door motions reveal was

how consistent council remained in sticking to its core demand of

getting rid of post-retirement benefits for new employees. He said they

also prove that what was communicated to the union and residents

during the strike was "clearly" the same as what council was deciding

behind closed doors


53/114

53

s I supported this motion because it provided an opportunity to move towards amore cooperative approach.

s It was an opportunity to avoid a strike and all the negative consequences that along dispute would bring.

s It is expected that the city is not going to hire at any significant level in the nextfive years. No Hurry to find a solution to a 50yr dilemma, other than maybe ashort term political one.

s Finding a solution to post retirement benefits issue is a lot easier than all the

exaggeration and rhetoric that we were hearing.

s City employees were already indicating that they would be prepared to makecompromise's that would address the City's concerns.

s And once again this motion was predicated on maintaining the city's position onall other issues. Namely Net Zero.


54/114

54

By Doug Schmidt, The Windsor Star September 29, 2009

Mayor Eddie Francis "Ken Lewenza is absolutely right, had I

decided to cave and ignore the wishes of the residents ofWindsor," said Francis. "But you don't go into a strike saying

this is your core issue and then cave after a week," he added,

pointing to council's strengthening resolve on the issue as the

strike dragged on.

Lewenza has said the mayor could have shown leadership and

ended the strike earlier, but Francis said that the longer the

strike lasted, the more council "heard from the public very

loudly and very clearly" not to give in.


55/114

55

Moved by Councillor Brister, seconded by Councillor Gignac:

THAT City Council RE-AFFIRMS its previous

direction given to the Citys negotiating team.

CARRIED.

Councillors Postma, Lewenza and Jones voting nay.


56/114

56

s

Very early on in negotiations I told City Council, If you believe youcan achieve removing Post Retirement Benefits from new employeesand maintain a net zero, than good for you.

s But if at the end of a four month strike if you put money on the table

than shame on you, as this money can be used as a key to unlockingthe solution to the Post Retirement Benefit issue."

s This quote can be validated by our CEO and others in the room whohave a good memory.


57/114

57

April 27, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Postma, seconded by Councillor

Valentinis:

THATthe verbal update report from the GeneralManager of Corporate Services and the

Executive Director of Human Resources regarding

labour negotiationsBE RECEIVEDfor information.



58/114

Thi i th k th t h ld h b h i i 2006


59/114

59

This is the work that should have been happening in 2006

We are hearing figures that report each retiree costs

$100,000 per and the Citys liability is $300,000,000.00

and escalating. What they do not explain is this figure is predicated on

every person retiring at 55 and living to 96.

That our PRB Costs are escalating.

What they do not say is the largest cost driver is due to the40% of our employees who will be eligible to retire in the

next 5 yrs.

s Going after new hires is a shell game and does not address

the issue of City ignoring these unfunded liabilities for thelast 60 years.


60/114

60

May 11, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Postma:

THATthe Citys negotiating teamREMOVEfrom thebargaining table the issue of ending employer paid postretirement benefits past the age of 65 for new employees

hired on or after January 1, 2009 in the current negotiationswith CUPE Local 82.

MOTION DOES NOT CARRY.

Councillors Jones, Lewenza and Postma voting aye.Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Hatfield, Marra, Valentinis, Dilkens

voting nay.

Mo ed b Co ncillor Le en a No Seconder as


61/114

61

Moved by Councillor Lewenza, No Seconder asa result the motion was never on the floor forconsideration and is included here only for sake of

completeness:THATCUPE Locals 82 and 543BE PROVIDED

the option of retaining employer paid postretirement benefits for new employees hired on or

after January 1, 2009 if they will agree to no wageincreases for the term of a two year contract OR theoption of ending employer paid post retirementbenefits for new employees hired on or after January 1,2009 and receiving a 2% wage increase in year

1 of a two year contract and a further 2% wageincrease in year 2 of the contract.

NO SECONDER FOR THE MOTION


62/114

62

s I put this motion forward in attempt to flush out if 2yr status

quo collective agreement could be accepted by either CUPE

or the City.

s This motion provided options to both sides.

s CUPE could save face by maintaining their core issue.

s The City would achieve resolving their legacy cost Issues for

future employees and would be provided With pre funded

options that are affordable and Sustainable.

s The City would have a negotiated solution that

might be better considered by the other 70% of our

workforce.s The City would have a negotiated solution that might be

better considered by the other 70% of our workforce.


63/114

63

s The City could pre fund this benefit at 100% which is still

less expensive to tax payers than what taxpayers paid out

in the final agreement.

s Or start the process of phasing in contributions similar to

what we do with OMERS, thus providing the option to

defer passing on increased costs to the tax payer beyond a

level of what is needed today.

s As an example if the City applied just 1% to a PRB fundwhich equals 26 cents per hour, per employee, starting

today. And the new employee contributes 25 cents per

hour when they start. By using all the city's actuary

assumptions you have a fully funded PRB plan to the year2072!

s Cost per house holds $5.00 per year!


64/114

64

Special note

Understanding the numbers:

s Cost of 1% CUPE increase to the city is $750,000 yr

s 1% average increase to a CUPE member is 26 centss If we multiply 750,000 to 35yrs = $26,250,000

s I assembled this figure to help people better understand the

long term cost of a wage increase so they can be compared it

to the long term cost of pre funding a PRB plan for newemployees.

Moved by Councillor Hatfield seconded by Councillor


65/114

65

Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by CouncillorLewenza:

THATthe issue ending employer paid post retirement

benefits for new employees hired on or after January 1, 2009BE REMOVED from the bargaining table and that the following terms be offered to CUPE Local 82:

s $1000.00 lump sum payment to all full time employees in year 1of a three year contract;

s 2% wage increase in year 2 of the contract; ands 2% wage increase in year 3 of the contract.

MOTION DOES NOT CARRY

Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield and Jones voting aye.Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Marra, Valentinis, Dilkens and Mayor

Francis voting nay.


66/114

66

s This motion is even better for the City than the one I

previously introduced as it was a 3yr deal.

s This deal averages out at 1.3% per year as there is no

increase in the first year and the lump sum is not

compounding.

s As for CUPE, this deal provides them options

s They would have had enough money to self fund PRBs in

their entirety with money left over for wage increases.

s How they directed the money or phased it in would have

been up to them.


67/114

U d t di th b i


68/114

68

Understanding the numbers again:

s For every 1% increase to CUPE is a $750,000 charge to the

City's operating Budget.s This means an average increase to each home of $5.00 per

household.

s Over 35 years at 1% this figure is $26,250,000

s Over 35 years at 4% this figure is $105, 000,000s The cost of this agreement over 35 years is $105,000,000

s Signing bonus not included in the figure, or compounding

costs of future wage increases

s Compare this to the agreement that was signed three monthslater.

Moved by Councillor Halberstadt, seconded by Councillor Gignac:

THAT City Council ACCEPT the recommendation of the General


69/114

69

THATCity CouncilACCEPTthe recommendation of the GeneralManager of Corporate Services regarding a further offer to CUPE Local82:

s Three year contract.

s

No wage increases.s ODA increases on a net zero basis

s Job Security for the life of the contract;

s Lump Sum payment of $1000 for all full time employees/$500 for all part timeemployees.

CARRIED.

Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield and Jones voting nay.

Moved by Councillor Marra, seconded by Councillor Brister:

THATthe same termsBE OFFERED to CUPE Local 543.

CARRIED.

Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield and Jones voting nay.

M 12 2009


70/114

70

May 12, 2009

The following email poll was sent:

The Mayor has asked that Council be polled for its'direction on a further negotiation issue with regards toCUPE Local 543. As you know, Council approved offeringan incentive payment to all Regular Full Time CUPE 543members in the amount of $1000 and $500 to Regular PartTime Members. As the full membership will be aware ofthis offer the negotiating team would like authorization tooffer an incentive payment of $250 to each member of the

following remaining employee groups

-Temporary Full Time (41 employees)-Temporary Part Time (55 employees)

- Seasonal Recs (445 employees)


71/114

71

s All of these employees are voting members with equal votingrights.

s The total additional cost to offer this payment, in addition to

the approx. 1.2 million approved last night is $135,250.00.

s Please indicate if you are in favour or opposed to this paymentby return email at your earliest convenience.

s The following were the replies:

All in favour except Councillor Brister


72/114

72

May 19, 2009

Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded byCouncillor Jones

THATthe Citys negotiating teamBE SENTBACK to the bargaining table with the flexibility tonegotiate the best deal possible on behalf of the tax

payers and to bring that deal back to City Council forratification.

CARRIED.

Councillors, Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac voting nay.Francis does not vote.

Why no questions about this vote?

Special note - George King


73/114

73

Special note George King

At one point I made the suggestion that the City bring inGeorge King. This may surprise people as George King is

usually the representative of choice by employers throughoutour region. The thought process behind this suggestion Georgehas the experience to get a deal done and get to the point withthe least amount of pain. I also think he could provide muchneeded advice to City Councillors with little to no experience

in collective bargaining.Although this suggestion was not supported, George did play arole working with administration and the Mayor, where I firmlybelieve his skills were not utilized towards achieving acollective agreement.

Dilkens was absent for the vote.


74/114

74

Rita Poliakov Windsor Star May 24 2009

Jim Wood, he added in one of the offers,

the union proposed a cost sharing plan for

post retirement benefits, but both partiescould not come to an agreement.

-- 50/50 cost share or benefits to 71.


75/114

75

May 25, 2009

Moved by Councillor Gignac, seconded by Councillor

Halberstadt

THATCity CouncilDOES NOT AGREEto submit

to binding arbitration in the current labournegotiations and that City Council continues to support a

resolution made in Windsor, for Windsor.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councillor Jones absent for the vote.


76/114

76

At this point I did not support arbitration because I

was under the mistaken impression that the City's

economic position would not be taken into

consideration. Also from my knowledge it isalways better to get an agreement that you can live

with vs turning your destiny over to an arbitrator.


77/114

77

Moved by Councillor Gignac, seconded by

Councillor Lewenza,

THATCity CouncilMAINTAINSits current

position on the offer of job security for additional

years mirroring the term of the contract but

emphasizes that there is no discussion or consideration onthe issue of a guaranteed work force.




78/114

78

June 1, 2009

Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded byCouncillorPostma:

THATthe CityPROCEED to interest arbitration

pursuant to section 40 of the Ontario Labour Relations

Act, as amended provided that the issues tobe discussed and the parameters for resolution be

agreed upon between the City and CUPE Locals 82

and 543.


Councillors Postma, Lewenza and Jones voting aye.


79/114

79

Arbitration

ARBITRATIONARBITRATION


80/114

80

ONMayor Eddie Francis:

Francis said he's aware of the growing irritation among Windsor taxpayersabout the lack of service.

"But at the same time, I don't want a group of irate taxpayers knocking onour door saying, 'Why'd you give away the farm?'

We have a financial responsibility to the corporation..."

It is my opinion not to leave this in the hands of a third party that's 400 or500 kilometres away "It is the responsibility of the parties to reach anagreement. The city of Windsor is prepared to sit down and reach an

agreement."

"The history of arbitrators is one of giving away the farm -- they're knownto give away the farm."


81/114


82/114

Here is a local arbitrated ruling that was delivered recently betweenWi d R i l H i l d h I i l B h h d f


83/114

83

Windsor Regional Hospital and the International Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers, local 636. Compare that result with what CUPEreceived:

"Additionally, the board has considered the general economicconditions in Canada and Ontario, and the specific economic situationof Windsor. With respect to the latter point in particular we are of theview that the local economic difficulties, and the influence they willhave on the funds available to the employer, aside from Provincial

funding, must seriously be considered."Accordingly, the Board Awards and Orders as follows:

Wages

March 31st 2008. An across the board increase of 3%

March 31, 2009. An across the board increase of 0.5%

April 1, 2009. An across the board increase of 1%

October 1, 2009 An across the board increase of .75%

AM 800 Lynn Martin Show - June 2nd 2009


84/114

84

On June 2, 2009 I did a three hour live call in show, two days prior to theJune 4th ward meeting with constituents.

One of the issues that were raised was arbitration.

Donald McArthur June 5th 2009

Constituents urged council to end the strike by sending it to binding third-party arbitration.

Lewenza held out hope for a negotiated settlement.

The reason for this change of position once again was it was very clear thattheir would never be enough votes around the council table to entertain this

direction. I also think by continuing to raise this issue would have been adistraction from both sides focusing on working towards a collectiveagreement.

We're very close to a made in Windsor Solution" said Lewenza. A very small


85/114

85

contribution from the employee and a very small contribution from thecorporation and you have an agreement. The solution is a lot easier than thecraziness that's gone on."

Barry Suszek, a striking building inspector who described himself as a "proudcity of Windsor worker," said the concept is definitely worth exploring. If that'swhat it takes, lets get it done," he said. "This strike is killing me and everyoneelse in the city."

July 18th 2009 Donald McArthur CUPE Urges arbitration:

City sees opportunity in mediator

"There was good progress and an admission that both sides have madetremendous mistakes throughout the process" said Ward 4 Coun. Ken Lewenza

of the meeting. "There's a feeling of cautious optimism that we can get a dealonce we tone down the rhetoric."

At this meeting I spoke about the urgency to get a deal done.

W h d 1800 h d d l t ll ti h k d 3 t 4 i ff j b


86/114

86

We had 1800 hundred people not collecting a pay check and 3 to 4 spin off jobsfor every public sector worker.

Fox called on Francis to step aside and send the issue to arbitration because

negotiations have been "severely flawed and tainted."

She received backing from an unlikely source--- Catherine Swift, president of theCanadian Federation of Independent Business. In a news release expressing her"outrage" at the union's rejection of the city's offer, Swift called on the province tolegislate the striking workers back on the job.

"Before the nay Sayers try to dissuade you from taking a stronger position, citingarbitration as a more costly option, the province can and does set parametersaround arbitrated settlements, including the ability of the employer to pay," shewrote. "As we have pointed out to you before , the City of Windsor has a strongcase in protecting its taxpayers from the gold-plated demands of unions."

**Side Note--Maybe a little late for this contribution

Windsor Star Editorial CUPE strike A look at the


87/114

87

Windsor Star Editorial CUPE strike A look at theclaims June 6 2009

Tension continues to rise around the CUPE strike. Tax dollars are

involved and many have entered the discussion. Our views on thestrike outlined below in an effort to stimulate further thought and toadvance the discussion. We acknowledge that in these matters, ourpositions usually come from a business perspective.

What is the stake of the strikers in retiree benefits for future hires?

They are the only ones without a stake in benefits for future hires.Almost everyone else is a potential hire.It seems unreasonable thatcurrent employees should take such a strong position when they arethe only ones without a real stake in the issue. In this particular case, itis likely most stakeholders would prefer that they worry aboutthemselves and let us worry about ourselves.

If CUPE were to accept this logic, all the terms and conditions ofemployment would be under attack for new employees, not to mentioncreate a division in the workplace.


88/114

June 17, 2009


89/114

89

A Critical and substantial shift!

The leak occurred on June 17, 2009. The numbers that the City's NegotiatingTeam reported to City Council on that date were from an offer from CUPE,

which they wanted presented to City Council:

Three year deal.

Current ODA each year of the collective agreement.

No post retirement benefits for new hires.

Lump sum payment in 2009 of $3,000 for full-time and $1,500 for part-time employees.

Wage increases: January 1, 2010 = 1.75%

- January 1, 2011 = 2.65%

- 4.4% wage increase over 3yr agreement

or

-1.46% average wage increase per year

Moved by Councillor Postma, seconded by CouncillorMarra:


90/114

90

Marra:

THATthe verbal update dated June 17, 2009 from theNegotiating Team respecting Labour negotiations

with CUPE Local 82BE RECEIVED.


Moved by Councillor Postma, seconded by CouncillorMarra,

THATCouncilNOT ACCEPTthe latest offer presentedby CUPE Local 82, and further, that the Negotiating Team

BE DIRECTED to go back to the negotiating table with the

City's last offer as the base for continuednegotiations, both as outlined below:

The City's last offer:


91/114

91

s $1800 lump sum for full time

s $ 900 lump sum for part time

s January 1, 2010 = 1.5%

s January 1, 2011 = 1.8%

s Post Retirement Benefits capped at age 65 for new hires and self-

funded after that.

s - 3.3% wage increase over 3yr agreement

ors - 1.1% average wage increase per year


Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield, Marra and Jones voting aye.

Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Valentinis, Dilkens and Mayor Francis

voting nay.

Moved by Councillor Hatfield seconded by Councillor


92/114

92

Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by CouncillorGignac,

THATthe Negotiating TeamBE DIRECTED to goback to the negotiating table with CUPE Local 82 andto ask the Union to review the City's last offer and torespond.

CARRIED.

Councillor Postma was absent from the meeting when the

vote was taken on this matter.

s CUPE's proposal is not much different than what is achieved a monthl t


93/114

93

later.

s In fact the overall percentage increase went from an average of 1.46%increase over three years to an average of 1.7% increase over 4years -

one month later. A increase of 1% more than what CUPE was lookingfor.

s On the issue of a signing bonus, Council was unanimously prepared tooffer $1800 as a starting point to continue negotiations.

s Had negotiations resumed, and even if both sides had met in the middle,this framework would have represented an agreement that was fair to our

employees and cheaper for tax payers than what we eventually agreed tofive weeks later.

s What is critical on this date is the unanimous admission by council thatnet zero was a failed approach.

s This substantial shift also identifies that this dispute may have been moreabout politics than it was about economics.

s Because the money provided here is more money than what was neededto pre fund Post Retirement Benefits for new employees in their entity.

s Or it identifies that Councils failure in recognizing lost opportunities


94/114

94

going back to 2006 or the failure to pursue motions that were lost on

April 15, April 24, and Councillor Hatfields motion on May 11.

s Which in hind sight all represent a better deal for tax payers and our

Employees .

s For weeks we were hearing in our local paper that there were four or

five council members that were prepared to sell taxpayers down the

river.

s

The question that must be asked to the so called hard liners is whathappened in the span of an hour that caused such an enormous shift.

s Why did five Councillors and the Mayor reverse their vote on

Councillor Postmas motion?

What happened in the span of an hour that caused suchan enormous shift?

June 18, 2009

Moved by Councillor Jones seconded by Councillor Brister


95/114

95

Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Brister,

THATno member of Council or Administration, other than Mayor

Francis and/or Helga Reidel, are to comment on, or do anythingpertaining to, labour negotiations.

CARRIED.

Councillor Postma absent for the vote.

June 22, 2009

Moved by Councillor Lewenza, seconded by Councillor Marra,

THATthe verbal update from the General Manager of CorporateServices regarding labour negotiations BE RECEIVEDforinformation.

CARRIED.


July 13, 2009


96/114

96

What was CUPE asking for in it's final offer to the city?

On July 10, 2009 CUPE provided the City's Negotiating Team with a final offer.This final offer was presented to City Council on July 13, 2009:

s Four year deal.

s Current ODA each year of the collective agreement.

s No post retirement benefits for new hires.s Lump sum payment in 2009 of $2,500 for full-time and $1,250 for part-time

employees.

s Wage increases: January 1, 2010 = 2%, January 1, 2011 = 2% and January 1,

2012 = 3%.

s 7% total increase:s Two years of job security for each year of the collective agreement (2009 =

1993, 2010 = 1995, 2011 = 1997, 2012 = 1999).


97/114

97

The difference between what was in CUPE,s final offerdated June 10, and the eventual agreement is 0.4% in base

wage increases.

And 1150.00 less in lump sum payments.

M d b C ill J N S d l h


98/114

98

Moved by Councillor Jones - No Seconder as a result the

motion was never on the floor for consideration and is

included here only for sake of completeness:

THATthe final offer presented to the Citys

negotiating team by CUPE Locals 82 and 543 BE

ACCEPTED by the City of Windsor.

NO SECONDER FOR THE MOTION.

Doug Schmidt July 14th 2009


99/114

99

g y

City makes counter offer; Talks to resume Tuesday

Francis then met with reporters to announce today's talks.

He said council vote on CUPE's final offer had been 8-3

against. He said council formulated a new position which

was accepted unanimously, 11-0The union has refused to

to disclose the substance of it's so called "final offer" -- anoffer that was rejected 8-3 a week ago Monday by city

council -- but some details have emerged.

Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by Councillor


100/114

100

y , yLewenza,

THATthe Citys bargaining team BEDIRECTED to return to the bargaining table with anoffer to be shaped by the expertise of the bargainingteam with flexibility to continue the negotiation process.


Councillors Postma, Lewenza and Hatfield voting aye.

Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Dilkens, Valentinis and Marra

voting nay.Councillor Jones was absent for the vote.

Moved by Councillor Brister, seconded by Councillor Dilkens.


101/114

101

THATthe final offer presented to the Citys negotiating team byCUPE Locals 82 and 543BE NOTED AND FILED.

CARRIED.

Councillors Postma and Lewenza voting nay.

Councillor Jones was absent for the vote.

s I voted against this motion because I was very concerned that Council was goingto note and file and then go home. My concern which I spoke to was predicatedon the fact that the community and our employees felt a settlement was near. Myfear was had we went home it may have set off a whole chain of unpredictable

events that may have erased the progress that had been made. I remember sayingthat we had a responsibility to prepare a counter offer no matter how long it took.

s I also feel that by the mere suggestion that we note and file then go home speaksto the fact that some around the table felt no urgency to get a deal done.

s Their was still lots of sentiment in the community that the majority of council wasfighting on their behalf, and that city council should not accept CUPE's

outrageous demands.s But when you look at all the details, is that really the case?

Moved by Councillor Marra, seconded by Councillor Brister,


102/114

102

THAT the City of WindsorMAKE a last offer to themembership of CUPE Locals 82 and 543, via a mechanism to

be determined, to include in form and content all material

positions advanced by the Citys negotiating team on previouslyreported relevant matters and with the financial package to bepresented to include:

s $2000.00 lump sum payment to all full time employeesand $1000.00 lump sum payment to all temporary, part-time

and seasonal recreation employees in exchange for theloss of employer paid post retirement benefits beyondthe age of 65 for all new employees hired on or afterApril 17, 2009.

s 1% wage increase in year 1 of a 4 year contract

s 1.5% wage increase in year 2 of the contract

s 1.8% wage increase in year 3 of the contract.

s 2.0% wage increase in year 4 of the contract.

s 6.3 % total cost -


103/114

103

s $160,000,000 over 35 yrs in wages

s $ 2.8 Lump sum compounded @ 5% = $15.4 m

Which is more expensive than the option to explore the April 24th motion.

And more expensive than Councillor Hatfields motion on May 11, 2009.

AND THATno return to work protocols be entered into;

AND THATno overtime be afforded to members of CUPE Locals 82and 543 on the return to work to complete strike related

work backlog, except in the case of essential services.


Moved by Councillor Dilkens, seconded by Councillor Brister,

THAT, in the event that CUPE Locals 82 and 543 refuseto present the Citys final offer to their memberships, or

in the case that the said final offer is rejected , that theCity will immediately make a request to the Ministry of Labourto conduct a ministry supervised vote on the Citys final offer.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

July 17, 2009

M d b C ill P t d d b J


104/114

104

Moved by Councillor Postma, seconded by Jones,

THATthe verbal update from the General Manager

of Corporate Services regarding labour negotiationsBERECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.July 23, 2009

Moved by Councillor Postma, seconded by Councillor Hatfield,

THATCity CouncilRATIFYthe labour settlement withCUPE Locals 82 and 543 as recommended by the Citysnegotiating team.


Selling this agreement to the Public


105/114

105

By Chris Vander Doelen, The Windsor Star July 25, 2009

If a struggling corporation can't cut costs during bad times, when can it? Buttaxpayers should thank their councillors today -- well, most of them, anyway-- for sticking to their guns during a strike that turned into a nerve-rackingstare down for both sides.

An overwhelming majority of the city's residents decided they had had enoughof perennial tax increases driven by the rising costs of their so-called servants,and ordered local politicians to fix the problem -- or else.

Mayor Eddie Francis and council responded by delivering the first significantreduction in city labour costs in memory: $35 million in unfunded liabilitiesfor post-retirement benefits will be off the city's books within 10 years. Towhich no citizen will see a dime of savings

That means Windsor will eventually be able to reduce its taxes relative toother cities so it can compete again for investment and jobs.

Th t d i b bl fi h th l i t t f


106/114

106

That day is probably five years away, when the real savings to taxpayers fromthe new CUPE contract start to kick in.

Again not a dime in real savings

Taxpayers should give themselves a loud cheer for that. They showedunprecedented solidarity. Instead of submitting like sheep to CUPE's demandfor "more," they stood up to what clearly were unreasonable demands from thepublic sector during the city's catastrophic loss of jobs and tax assessment.

Were CUPE demands any different than any other unions that the city wasdealing with? Did City Councils Hard line position go on for to long?

City negotiators tell me pressure from taxpayers is what really settled thestrike. The overwhelming tide of public sentiment was against the strikers, and

everybody on both sides of the negotiating table knew it: they felt buffeted bythe anger, which propelled them all whether they liked it or not.

Now labour costs -- a trend line which has done nothing but climb fordecades, accounting for 60 per cent of property taxes -- will start


107/114

107

decades, accounting for 60 per cent of property taxes will startdipping by about $1 million per year. Not True!

And Windsor has done it without taking anything away from itscurrent employees in terms of wages or benefits or job loss. Isn't thatthe very definition of win-win?

Yet we've all heard people complain that given Windsor's dire

economic circumstances, council should have insisted on a completefreeze on its workers' wages for two years or more. And/or massivecontracting out.

Cutting wages or jobs simply isn't possible in Canadian labournegotiations -- especially not in government. Not when CUPE

members across Ontario have been winning average annual contractsettlements worth 2.4 per cent per year.Not true

By Chris Vander Doelen, The Windsor Star July 25, 2009


108/114

108

If a struggling corporation can't cut costs during bad times, when can it? But taxpayersshould thank their councillors today -- well, most of them, anyway -- for sticking totheir guns during a strike that turned into a nerve-racking stare down for both sides.

The deal Windsor won this week will cost taxpayers an average of 1.75 per cent moreduring each of the contract's four years, including the $2,000 signing bonus, which willnot be rolled permanently into base salaries.

s Excluding the bonus -- which is the way accountants are tallying up the cost of the newcontract-- the members of Windsor's two CUPE locals will only cost taxpayers an extra1.3 per cent per year over the next four years.

Although very creative this figure is not supported by City Hall administration or otherWindsor Star reports.

s For those who wonder why council didn't hang tough to extract greater savings from

CUPE, given that citizens were coping easily with the strike, there are two simplewords of explanation: Dalton McGuinty.

Not at all true!

s Windsor's negotiating team had to secure a deal with CUPE before Ontario's


109/114

109

s Windsor s negotiating team had to secure a deal with CUPE before Ontario s

labour-friendly premier stepped in with a back-to-work order for Toronto's

striking CUPE workers, with arbitration to follow.Not True

s That would have doomed Windsor to arbitration, too. That would almost

certainly have preserved the post-retirement benefits for life that were the crux

of the strike. Most likely true

s

Windsor taxpayers would have been stuck forever paying gigantic PRB costsestimated at $96 million over the next 20 years -- a risk council couldn't afford

to take.Not True as $96 million liability did not include new workers. This

deal provides no savings on existing workers or retirees.

s Instead the city gets a labour deal that won't kill what's left of its still-bleeding

economy. I agree but it was not the best deal!


110/114

110

Gord Henderson Local CUPE members should jump

ship June 20th 2009

Oh sure. There'll be lots of militant talk about

solidarity and fraternity and CUPE forever. Andyada, yada, But when the dust settles and the

water cooler post mortems begin, clear-headed

workers will have to ask themselves the obvious

question: What the hell was that all about?


111/114

111

Imagine for a moment if CUPE Members at anypoint during this agreement decide to apply 1% oftheir wage increases to a PRB plan for newemployees. This would be no different than the

benefit in lieu of wages approach where TransitWindsor Employees applied 1% of their increases

to enhance their benefit plan.

If CUPE followed this same approach citizens towould be scratching their heads as well wonderingwhat this strike was really about?

So what was this strike all about?


112/114

112

Was it really about wages and PRBs, or was it a political strike?

Did the City and Taxpayers get the best deal possible?

Did the City achieve what they led citizens to believe relative to long and

short term cost savings?

Was elimination of PRBs the core issue for Citizens,

Or did YOU the Citizens just want us to get the best deal possible?

Were we well served by our major news outlet, The Windsor Star?

Was the public given proper information about the role of arbitration?


113/114

113

p g p p

Were the consequences to you and the city worth a 101 day strike?

Why did City Council continue to follow through with the hard linestance of net zero with CUPE and not other bargaining units?

Why did the so called hardliners on Council fold in a one hour span on

June 17 that caused such an enormous shift in the City's position?

Did the City reduce its leverage to reach a negotiated solution with theremaining 70% of its workforce?

Does anyone really know what the strike settlement was especially inrelation to PRBs for new hires?

Conclusion


114/114

I personally agree with Eddie Francis that this unanimous deal supportedby City Council at 6.3% over four years, or $160,000,000 over 35 yearsrepresents a fair deal to our employees and to the people that pay them.

My issue however with this deal is it took 101 days longer than it shouldhave, and the consequences of this dispute were far greater than anythingachieved.

We have been able to settle contracts at WUC, Enwin, now Transit

Windsor that are very similar in nature, minus the 101 day strike and all thetheatrics that went with it.

For the hardliners out there, this deal is clearly not the best that wasavailable, their were less costly options for every one.

The only question that remains is, what approach will CUPE take tofinding the 50 cents needed per hour to ensure that new employees have afully funded Post Retirement Benefit Plan?

cupe strike presentation

Documents