|
2002 Bargaining Gains
With a strong
strike mandate in 2002, here is
what we achieved:
2002 OPS
Bargaining - Balance Sheet
OPS Bargaining History
To understand
where we are going, we have to
understand where we have been.
Click below to read the history
of OPS bargaining within OPSEU.
FYI - OPSEU
Bargaining History - Click here
May 12 offer and Article 53
Reading contract
language can be confusing.
In the Employer's offer, there
would be changes to severance and
Article 53 of the Collective
Agreement.
For your
reference, please read the
attached legal explanation of how
the changes would impact us.
FYI - ESA
Application to OPS Employer's
Proposed Separation Allowance and
Article 53 Language Changes
May 12 Memorandum to Deputy
Ministers
Gayle Fisher,
Assistant Deputy Minister,
Employee Relations issued a
memorandum to all Deputy
Ministers on May 12, 2005.
In the
last bullet point, Ms.
Fisher states that there are
"improvements to the scope of
redeployment to broaden the range
of opportunities for displaced
employees". Yet, she
fails to paint the full picture
to the Deputy Ministers.
She doesn't mention the deletion
of the words 'minimally
qualified'. Unlike our
current collective agreement,
where you need entry levels
skills for a particular position
for redeployment, the new wording
implies a higher degree of skill.
Many will not qualify for
redeployment. Many will end
up unemployed. With known
proposed job cuts upwards of
6,000, are you willing to give
up your rights under
redeployment?
Ms.
Fisher fails to mention the
employers intent to have a
moratorium on filling
classification grievances for
the next 3 years. What this
translates to is that all current
classification grievances filed
before the Joint System Sub
Committee, there is no resolution
in sight. And there won't
be any new classification
grievances allowed to be filed
until the "moratorium" reaches
some sort of a conclusion.
Ms.
Fisher has also been remiss in
mentioning that the Employer
wants the Union to agree to any
and all challenges to the Pay
Equity Act. This is a major
violation of non-compliance under
the Act. The Union has no
right to sanction this type of
action with its members.
What
is particularly interesting is the
implied knowledge that we are going
to turn this contract offer down
and the Employer fully anticipates
the resumption of negotiation. In
the second last sentence, Ms.
Fisher states that 'bargaining
will resume at the end of the
month".
Check it out for
yourself. Click below to read
the Fisher memorandum.
Fisher memo
- May 12, 2005.pdf
Take aways versus meeting our
demands
The Employer has
put before you an offer that does
not offer a single improvement.
As a matter of fact, it totally
ignores every single one our
bargaining demands and would
eliminate conditions we fought
for in previous rounds of
negotiation.
To add insult to
injury, the Employer has left
some of the appendix information
blank. Would you sign a
blank cheque to pay your
utilities or mortgage?
Would you sign a Purchase
Agreement without having the date
of closing or purchase price
filled in?
With such vital
information missing and not one
of our demands being mentioned,
is this really the Employer's
final stand in this round of
negotiations? The
Bargaining Team strongly believes
that the Employer can and will
offer a better contract, if we
turn this one down. The
Bargaining Team strongly
recommends rejection of this
offer.
We must have
faith in our Bargaining Teams.
What other choice do we have?
|
May 13, 2005 - Average Wage
Settlements for March 2005
released
Our Employer
would like us to believe "it's a
2% world". Which world?
According to the
Workplace Information
Directorate, Labour Program,
Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada, the average
wage adjustment in the public
sector for March 2005 was 2.7%.
Yet, the Employer continues to
offer you only 2%.
It should also be
noted that the current rate of
inflation is 2.3%.
In Finance
Minister Greg Sorbara's 2005
Budget Speech, he states
"With steady gains in employment,
overall personal income is
expected to increase by 3.8% this
year and an average of 4.9%
through 2006-2008."
So, where is this
2% world and why are Ontario
public service workers worth so
much less than any other worker
in the Province? Is this
from the same government whose
leader stated, on election night
October 2003, that he
"valued" our work? This
same leader also made a
commitment that night to work
with us to "rebuild public
services" then turned around
13 months later to announce a 15%
reduction in staffing levels in
the OPS. Is this wage
settlement offer from the same
government, whose Finance
Minister paid "tribute to the
thousands of men and women in the
Ontario Public Service who have
dedicated their careers to
serving the people of this
province" in his 2005 Budget
Speech?
The wage proposal
in the May 12, 2005 offer is far
below the anticipated personal
income growth determined by our
own Employer, below the average
wage settlements in other public
sector agreements and below the
current rate of inflation. Do
you feel valued?
Click below to
see the Labour Program Report
from the Government of Canada.
Labour
Program - 2005 Wage Settlements.pdf
Salary Steps
- What does 2% really mean?
The Employer CAN afford the
extension of Factor 80
The current
surplus in the Employer's
Stabilization Fund is $359
million.
Did you know
that, to fund Factor 80 for the
approximately 3,800 OPS members
who will qualify within the next
three years, the cost to the
Employer is only $173 million?
This is less than half of the
current surplus in the
Stabilization Fund.
So why are they
saying NO to the extension of
Factor 80 in their May 12 offer?
Just something else to consider.
2002
Order in Council
Did you know that
the Tory Employer filed for an
Order of Council, authorizing
overtime pay for managers TWO
MONTHS PRIOR TO A 2002 STRIKE
VOTE BY UNION MEMBERS?
This is a highly
unusual and highly unethical
labour relations practice.
It certainly implies that the
Employer had no intention of
providing us with a decent offer
to avoid a labour disruption.
It set the stage for either a
strike or a lockout, without the
2002 Bargaining Team even
realizing it.
Unfortunately, the Union did not
discover the Order in
Council until after we had
ratified our 2002 Collective
Agreement.
In 2002, overtime
payments for
managers inflated payroll
expenditures in excess of $110
million dollars. Yet, the
Employer would like you to
believe that they save money when
we go on strike. This is
simply one example that proves it
is not the case.
Having learned
from the experience, the Union
has been vigilantly watching to
see if any action like this ever
happens again. In 2005, the
Union has not seen any similar
actions by this Employer. No
Order in Council has yet been
filed by the Employer in 2005 to
authorize overtime pay for
management.
|
