Chris Schnurr
Carol Kosowan LL.B., B.A. (Law), B.A. (Policy)
Below is a 10 minute video of Ken Lewenza’s introductory speech he gave last night.
I am really feeling quite under the weather and will reserve comment until later.
In the meantime, I encourage you to watch and listen to a different perspective than what we have been fed by the “hardliners” and the mainstream media – notably the Windsor Star.
An entire video of the 1 hour presentation will be uploaded tomorrow which goes through every detail and gives the much needed background to the in-camera minutes – and after you watch that segment, you’ll understand why certain media types and elected representatives want us to move forward.
Rather than moving forward and ignoring the mistakes made in the past; I have to agree with the councillor, by addressing the failures and/or mistakes today, can we only truly move forward in the best interests of all.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Pro-union retoric sounds great now – where was he when the strike was on? Why is he only giving us the facts and figures now?
Blame everything on the past – that’s what every politiican has always done. We didn’t put enough away, so now we suffer, it’s not my fault.
His daddy would be so proud of him. He had all the answers and no one would listen to him.
At first, I had the same reaction – that was until I read the minutes.
I will agree – there is an element of hindsight is 20/20.
But the motions he put forward did demonstrate a commitment to find the most affordable solution over what ultimately was approved.
One can argue this is only his version of the events, which compels the so-called hardliners to come forward and demonstrate how their solution saved us money.
It didn’t save any money, it only ‘saved face’ which is all-important to mis-educated politicians pretending to be fiscal conservatives. Government is always at least 20 years (one generation) behind the people, thus our leaders will only be discovering non-adversarial ‘team concept’ approaches (Kaizan, employee involvement, etc) some time in the year 2030. The brain donors will experience a great revelation and do in government what business did 20 years ago.
This is what we laughingly call “leadership”? Please…
Where exactly, are they leading? Forward into the past!
This is why the people always always ALWAYS have to drag government toward progress, never the other way around.
The membership needs to step up and say it’s wrong to screw over new hires – period. Yah, Kenny is being the trade unionist here, but he is right. Freedom and civil rights do NOT come from the top-down, otherwise we’d all still be rowing like mad in the galley of slave ships.
There is an element of ligitimacy to the thought, “Where was he during the strike?” However, all councillors were bound by the resolution to allow only Edgar and Helga to speak for the city. A poor resolution but necessary from the city’s standpoint.
But that thought does not take away from the facts that Kenny Jr has put forward and which are supported by the in-camera minutes. Obviously the city has spent more than they had to and Lewenza, et al, tried by the means available to make the hard-liners see the truth.
The strike situation was about more than negotiating an employment contract. From the way we see Edgar withholding pertinent information from councillors it is quite possible that the “group of four” weren’t privy to the city’s ultimate objectives, as the hard-liners apparently were.
So now the cost of the contract is to be paid by the rate payers when six members are liable for increasing that cost. There is not a better example of a reason for needing the right to recall elected representatives than this.
Thank you for the insightful reporting. We cannot rely on the Windsor Star to provide this service for us!
Lets grant that you accept everything Councillor Lewenza says. Does anyone see a flaw or weakness in Unions that allows them to be held mercilessly to these attacks.
If the union knows that politicans are willing to cause workers months of agonizing pain for votes over an issue that will end up being paid for by pay increases in other areas (no net cost to workers). Why do they allow this.
Councillor Lewenza maintains that there were no cost savings, that means to me that the reverse must hold true. That the union workers gave up benefits for pay increases at no net cost to them.
So why did they continue to strike?
The entire discussion is nearly converted to the appropriate format for web viewing.
Although long – the councillor goes through every detail and explains the impacts of decisions made/not made.
And then the resident questions really add to the insight.
And yes LOS – your statement sums it up perfectly:
“But that thought does not take away from the facts that Kenny Jr has put forward and which are supported by the in-camera minutes. Obviously the city has spent more than they had to and Lewenza, et al, tried by the means available to make the hard-liners see the truth.”
There has never been a full assessment conducted on the current contract by the media or the “hardliners.”
In our budget difficulties and challenges, they are oddly silent as to the impact of this contract on them.
I’ll be breaking it down highlighting the key points the councillor raised.
Mark:
You ask:
Councillor Lewenza maintains that there were no cost savings, that means to me that the reverse must hold true. That the union workers gave up benefits for pay increases at no net cost to them.
So why did they continue to strike?
I ask you – did you read the in-camera minutes?
In the end, yes, CUPE took wage increases in lieu of benefits.
But read the minutes – because that is not the point the councillor is making.
The point he is making is that PRB’s did NOT have to be the issue it was. The point is, original proposals put forward by councillors that were rejected, were in less costly than ultimately what was achieved.
There was no need to strike over PRB’s – but the city refused to budge on this issue.
Mark, you forget that PRB’s weren’t even part of the collective agreement prior to this round of negotiations. Had Edgar had the balls all he needed to do was amend the bi-law to eliminate PRB’s, but for some reason he went headlong into the lion’s den and it bit him in the ass. They are now not only part of the collective agreement, but they can now be increased in future negotiations. As well, PRB’s are also now enshrined and cannot be taken away. I’m not a unionist, but I would continue striking to get that deal.
I put it to you; why did the mayor do this to the rate payers?
Yeah but it takes two to tango. The union also refused to budge even though everyone seems to acknowledge that the net effect to their members was zero.
I can only conclude that This puts working people at the mercy of political motives with CUPE union powerless do anything about it due to their inflexibility.
If I were a CUPE member, I’d be looking for a representative that doesn’t fall into this political trap so easily. Especially if I end up receiving the same amount of money in the end.
Nothing prevents CUPE members from taking their monetary gains and buying post retirement benefits if they only cost as much as CUPE and Councillor Lewenza claim. Unless they actually rather wanted the money in the first place in which case the union struck for a benefit they are now proving they are not willing to pay for with their gains
Mark –
I could accept your argument completely, had CUPE not attempted to negotiate a cost-sharing plan – which they did as evidenced in the minutes.
But as Counc. Lewenza noted, PRB’s were NOT up for negotiation. Period.
As I understand Mr. Lewenza’s point – we eliminated PRB’s after age 65 but then provided wage increases that surpassed the value of the PRB liability in this contract alone.
What the hell was the strike about?
As Mr. Lewenza’s motions demonstrate, it would have been less expensive to provide a cost-shared PRB plan with no wage increase.
Council turned that down. They didn’t call CUPE’s bluff – if it was a bluff.
The point being made, the contract the city ratified was NOT a winner for ratepayers. Cheaper options exisited that could’ve ended this strike earlier.
Yes – speculation – we’ll never know because council never tried.