Chris Schnurr
Carol Kosowan LL.B., B.A. (Law), B.A. (Policy)
CUPE Toronto Update
Statement – City of Toronto and CUPE Local 79 resume bargaining TORONTO, June 9 /CNW/
The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 79 and the City of Toronto today issued the following joint-statement:
On Friday, June 5, 2009 the mediator requested that the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 79 and the City of Toronto withdraw the complaints of bargaining in bad faith and return to the bargaining table. In the interest of moving bargaining forward, both the City and CUPE Local 79 have agreed to the mediator’s request.
The City and CUPE Local 79 returned to full bargaining on Monday, June 8, 2009. In addition, CUPE Local 79 and the City of Toronto have agreed to the mediator’s recommendation that there be no further comments on the negotiations at this time.
CUPE’s Question of the Day
From CUPE’s question of the day:
If Mayor Francis really believes Post Retirement Benefits are wrong, why does he want them for himself and his fellow Councillors? When the Mayor says Post Retirement Benefits are wrong, is he just saying they’re wrong for workers? Everyone should know that on September 3, 2003, then City Councillor Eddie Francis and fellow Councillors passed a motion to give themselves Post Retirement Benefits after 4 terms, and if ineligible may purchase the post retirement benefit package at a 50/50 cost share with the Corporation.
[My Note] The September 8, 2003 minutes are here. The motion approved was:
In amendment, Moved by Councillor Valentinis, seconded by Councillor Halberstadt, That Clause I (ii) BE DELETED and Clauses 4 and 7 BE REFERRED to 2004 budget deliberations and further, Clause 6 BE AMENDED to read as follows:
That the provision for 100% retirement medical benefits BE MADE AVAILABLE to the Mayor and members of Council in accordance with the City’s existing criteria for staff retiree benefits, provided that the member of Council has served a minimum of four (4) terms in office; and further, that where a Council member has served a minimum of four (4) terms in office but does not meet the required eligibility for retiree benefits, that the member be afforded the opportunity to purchase the retiree medical benefits at one half of the prevailing rates as may be adjusted from time to time.
The amendment is put and is carried.
Whether or not then Councillor Francis voted in favour of this motion, cannot be determined by the minutes.
On the flip side, 4 terms of council (in 2003) amounted to 12 years of service. With the amended term of council increased to 4 years that would increase to 16 years.
But for Councillors elected in 2003, a total of 13 years (4 terms) would have to be served.
Is CUPE suggesting the same be applied to new hires? Not a strong argument in their favour.
But the point is made – perhaps council could terminate this for new councillors elected or agree to whatever the negotiated settlement is for workers, for themselves.
And from yesterday’s Question of the Day:
Clarification on Talks with the Employer
The Mayor is exaggerating. The only “talks” were brief, informal words between your local union leaders and some members of the City Negotiating committee. The City representatives made it clear, the Mayor will not agree to a real return to talks unless the union caves in and agrees to his terms. This is not going to happen.
Missing Minutes
The link to the April 24, 2009 In-Camera meeting minutes no longer works, but thankfully, Google saved the HTML text of the document (full print out of webpage here).
1, That Council DIRECT its negotiating committee to explore with CUPE Locals 82 and 543 how new employees could pre-fund post retirement benefits after the age of 65and that a sub-committee be formed immediately to investigate this issue.
Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield, Marra and Jones voting aye.
Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Valentinis, Dilkens and Mayor Francis voting nay.
The motion does NOT carry.
Now of course, we don’t have the benefit of the in-camera discussion, but why would city council reject a motion for pre-funded benefits?
Why not investigate this option with CUPE? What were the reasons for not doing so?
Benefits for Retirees
A reader sent me an interesting link that demonstrates post-retirement benefits can be provided to employees after retirement through a different provider.
According to the CUPE Local 1356 website:
MROO [Municipal Retirees Organization Ontario has worked on post-retirement plans in conjunction with CUPE Ontario since 1975. The plan is available to retiring members applying within 90 days of losing the employer-sponsored health benefits – without a medical questionaire and without considering any pre-existing conditions.
According to the online brochure:
MROO is recognized and endorsed by a diverse cross-section of municipal associations including: Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association, Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers, The Association of Municipal Tax Collectors of Ontario, Association of Ontario Road Superintendents, Canadian Union of Public Employees (Ontario Division), Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, Ontario Association of School Business Officials, Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, Ontario Separate School Trustees’ Association, Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and the Police Association of Ontario.
A brochure of the benefits and monthly cost to the employees is here.
The Ontario Drug Benefits Plan as well as the Trillium Drug Plan (for individuals with high prescription drug costs relative to income) are also available.
I’m interested in hearing the pro’s and con’s of this from any one of my readers, because I’m about as clear as mud regarding this issue.
Councillor Pecuniary Interests
Apparently, Councillors Ron Jones, Dave Brister and Joanne Gignac all declared a pecuniary interest with the following (click on for larger view):
So the obvious question is, how can these same councillors vote on matters related to post-retirement benefits let alone vote on the above posted motion regarding pre-funding retirement benefits?
See it here:
Filed under: Uncategorized
I may be missing something here but it may be because that motion was specific to “retirees”.
As an aside, however, I appreciate the clip because I’ve been suffering from “Greenlink” withdrawals. Thanks.
LOL. And thanks for the info.
I guess it’s because the upper classes ‘deserve’ high compensation and lifetime benefits for contributing their wise, educated ‘leadership’ to society? They are the professionals and the experts…at, something or other. Without them, we would all be swinging from trees throwing feces at each other.
It is the false, adversarial caste system that makes unions a necessary evil in the first place.
If there is no such thing as a class system then why do they enforce it so religiously?
The first thing red bull did was put up the Very Important People section to separate the elites from the drunken downtown bar crowd.
They had a few good concerts in the Malden dump a few years ago, I dunno who started it. But I saw the guy from Bad Company there and it was great, wide open amphitheater setting was like Pine Knob. It was packed – 5000 or so had a great time.
Next concert, the Beach Boys, here come the roped off sections and the ‘VIP’ seating in front of the stage. The lower classes didn’t get chairs and had to sit in the grass section in the back.
Suddenly it became against the rules to bring your own lawn chair. See, only the high class people got chairs.
After that it fizzled.
The business geniuses couldn’t figure out why.
They just don’t get it.