Latest Strike Bulletin from OPSEU Website

http://www.opseu.org/caat/caat_sup/bargaining2011/bulletins/caat-s_strike_bulletin_01_web.pdf

Sept 2 Update from our Team

Bargaining Backgrounder

September 2, 2011

To all Local Presidents & Mobilizers

From your CAAT Support Bargaining Team

____________________________________________________________________________

Late in the evening on Wednesday Aug. 31, as the clocked moved toward a midnight strike deadline,

negotiators for management told us ‘this was it.’ They weren’t prepared to move a step closer to a

settlement. Left behind on the bargaining table were several of our items that needed to be addressed

and a number of changes they proposed that would have eliminated some of our existing rights.

We want to be perfectly clear on one issue: we put forward the last offer of settlement and management

told us they were not prepared to go any further. We believe that had management come to the table in

June with their full proposals on the table, or had they responded by providing their full proposals earlier

than August 23

rd, we may have been able to avoid a strike.

We are out on the picket lines now because management dragged its heels and refused to deal with our

issues early. They continued to refuse to deal with some of our issues on the very last day.

We could have bargained further than we did, however, management did not want to. It would have been

pointless for us to be at the bargaining table when the other side was at the table in body, but not in mind.

It’s been 32 years since Support Staff last went on strike; that fact is not lost on management or the

union. Your tangible issues are on the table. The one thing that is not on the table is the respect that the

colleges have for support staff and the importance of the work we do.

We feel that management has shown their thoughts about support staff throughout this bargaining

process, whether it be through their proposals or their actions within the colleges themselves. They have

denied you information from the union point of view, choosing to censor information, only because they

wanted to put out their “we know best” message. Dragging their heels to coming to a settlement and not

respecting the important role we play in the colleges and in students’ lives. They have refusing to take

your issues, the ones that you brought forward, seriously. Finally, they bypassed your bargaining team by

presenting their “offer” through the media. An offer which they only showed parts of.

We have been asked to provide the detailed list of where we are at. Listed below are the last official

positions of both the union and management with explanations of each proposal. Again, we believe a

deal could have been done on August 31

st, but we were told management would go no further.

Union Proposals

Wages: Year 1 – 3% , Year 2 – 3%

We know three facts about this proposal, a) support staff indicated to us they were looking for a 3%

increase, b) the inflation rate is 2.7% and c) the average wage increase of those in the education sector

for July is 2%. Why would we ask our members to go backwards? The Colleges have confirmed that a

number of colleges do have surplus money, they explained to us that this money is not for us, it’s money

to be set aside to fix things (ie..a leaky roof, or air conditioning unit that may have broken). It’s always

good to know that our buildings are more important than the people in them. We have stated on many

occasions we do not want to get ahead, but we also do not want to fall behind either.

RECOGNITION - Exclusive Bargaining Agent

In 2008 OPSEU applied to have the part time employees unionized, a vote was held and the ballots from

that vote are still sealed. There are a number of reasons why the colleges don’t want to unionize the part

time employees.

a) They cost less than a full time employee (lower wages, no benefits)

b) They have more flexibility in terms of work scheduling as they have no protection

c) They are easily disposed of as they have no job security

This makes hiring part-time instead of full-time more attractive to the college, that is one of the main

reasons why the number of part time hires is almost double the number of full time hires. If this trend

continues the need for good full time jobs diminishes, which means less full time jobs, benefit and

pension premium increases as there are less people in the plans, and less positions available for

placement in the case of layoffs.

4.3 List of Part-Time Employees

This proposal speaks to the inaccuracies of the lists provided to the union of part time employees. When

OPSEU made application to have the part time employees unionized the employers lists they provided to

the Labour Relations Board were almost completely different than what they provided to the union. This

makes it almost impossible to track part time positions in order to convert them to good full time jobs.

This proposal adds absolutely no cost to the colleges. These reports are already delivered every four

months and all it takes is a push of a button to produce this list. Management’s fear is that we will find

where there could be more full time jobs.

5.1.1 Leaves of Absence Reimbursed by the Union

We only have one word on this issue…….mobilizing. This round of bargaining has been particularly

challenging as management decided they were going to bully you. They denied members access to

information by not allowing us to have mobilizers available to keep you informed. Members and locals

were threatened that email access would be cut off and bullied into holding meetings offsite to make it

difficult for you to get information.

Article 5.2 – Time Off Local Union

We have proposed 18 hours at 25% (which we already have), to add 27 hours paid by the union and 40

hours paid 100% by the Local. The colleges have full time employees that are paid 100% to deal with

labour relations issues. This proposal allows your representatives to be on an equal footing with

management. The approx. cost per college to provide this would be $21,000 per year.

8.1.3.3 College Paid (STD)

Our proposal speaks to third parties infringing on and restricting on our members’ rights, We’ve heard

stories of these third parties dictating how long you should be sick for, and then advising the colleges.

The colleges then take this information and threaten denial of sick time for the members.

8.1.12 Retirement Benefits

Currently, it is our understanding that the average pension for CAAT Support is around $1300-1400 per

month. This proposal would allow members to have better conditions when they retire as the benefits

plan costs take up a good piece of that pension money. In many cases the retirees had dedicated their

working careers to the college and the students we serve. This is one way the college could recognize

the importance of their contributions towards making the college system the success it is today.

Critical Illness

This proposal has been accepted by our side. There is no cost to the employer for providing this as the

member pays 100% of the premiums.

Extended Health Care

Our proposal deals with the addition of smoking cessation and weight loss to our plan. The members

have asked for this benefit for a number of years.

Section 17 Short Term Disability Plan (STD)

Our proposal allows for re-instatement of sick days upon you first day of returning from an illness, rather

than having to wait 30 days.

9.4.1 Tuition Fees

The proposal from management just doesn’t go far enough. Approx. 19 of 24 colleges have some sort of

tuition policy for dependants. We would like to see this available in all 24 of the colleges, and we also

would like to see it handled centrally.

13.1 Health and Safety Training

This proposal deals with Council’s reneging on an agreement that was signed a number of years ago to

have the Worker’s Health and Safety Centre as the trainer of choice for health and safety.

15.4.5 Displacement

Our proposal would serve to truly take into account a persons seniority. What good is seniority if the

colleges have the ability to release you from the college because you are the third bump? We would like

the true principal of “last in, first out” to apply, meaning that the person in the lowest payband with the

lowest seniority would be the person who went out the door. This change in our collective agreement

would cost nothing to the employer.

15.4.6 Familiarization Period

This would allow for members who do get bumped a reasonable period of familiarization into their new

job. Right now there is no definition of that period and is made up by the colleges.

Letter of Understanding - Less Than 12 Month Positions

This proposal has been accepted.

Letter of Understanding Contracting Out

Our proposal speaks to no contracting out of members’ jobs.

Letter of Understanding – Automobile Insurance

This proposal has been accepted.

Article 6.1.4 Flexible Hours of Work

We heard management’s concerns that two weeks was too little time to have employees opt out of

flexible work hour agreements and counter proposed a four-week period.

Complaints/Grievances

In principal we agree with this proposal, except that the arbitrator’s powers should not be limited.

Letter of Understanding St. Lawrence College

We agree that this article is now redundant and can be removed from our collective agreement

Appendix G

The proposal we put on the table we believe is fair. We can agree to an earlier start date for these

students. However, we also believe they should be paid at a properly evaluated rate and if the earlier

start date is agreed to, they should be paid for the Good Friday holiday should it fall after the start date.

Management Proposals

Wages: Year 1 – 1.50%, Year 2 – 1.50%, Year 3 – 1.75%

We know three facts about this proposal, a) support staff indicated to us they were looking for a 3%

increase, b) the inflation rate is 2.7% and c) the average wage increase of those in the education sector

for July is 2%. Why would we ask our members to go backwards. The Colleges have confirmed that a

number of colleges do have surplus money, they explained to us that this money is not for us, it’s money

to be set aside to fix things (ie..a leaky roof, or air conditioning unit that may have broken). It’s always

good to know that our buildings are more important than the people in them.

Article 5.1.3 - Union Negotiating Committee –

We feel management wants to create a rift between your bargaining team and you by trying to portray this

dispute as an example of how the union leadership wants more, while members are prepared to accept

nothing.

Article 5.1.2 - Leave of Absence – Union Representatives

In order to serve the needs of our members your elected reps need leaves of absence. It may not be a

major issue for members but it’s another way that management deliberately creates a disruptive and

dangerous wedge between the members and your elected union

Article 5.2 - Time Off Local Union

Another example of how management seeks to weaken your right to strong union representation and

contract enforcement. This proposal is a concession to the collective agreement, at first it appears they

are allowing an increase, however when it is put together with the increase of cost to the local, it is an

actual decrease.

Critical Illness

Management and faculty already have this; it’s not a stretch to give this to us. Keep in mind as well, the

premiums are 100% paid by the member.

Compressed Work Week

This was a glimpse into management’s motives that affect your working life. On the one hand they finally

addressed the issue of split work weeks. On the other hand, management

did not address the possible

shift changes that could take place, or changes to your work schedules. Management negotiators did

not

address how it would deal with inequities whereby some members would be allowed to have a four-day

work week while others would be denied. Under management’s proposal if you are a frontline worker you

would never be able to exercise a four-day work week. Management did indicate that if you, too, wished

to exercise a four-day work you’re your only option is to put pressure on your manager to agree to your

request. We consider this proposal as a concession to your ability to have some control over your shift

scheduling. We believe the colleges have the ability to do this under flexible hours of work. If this was a

true proposal it would be offered to everybody.

Flexible Hours of Work

Management negotiators stated two weeks was too short a time frame and that they wanted a longer

period of notice to opt out of a flexible work schedule - even though you may have special circumstances

that require a change in your schedule.

Article 7.7 - Special Allowance

Under our current contract the colleges are required to pay the ‘Special Allowance’ annually on Sept. 1 or

the prior pay period. Management wants to change the date of the payout to the first pay period

AFTER

Sept. 1.

A bit of background. This past August the College Employer Council actually advised the colleges NOT

to pay us the Special Allowance this year. Why not? We believe it was a deliberate move on their part to

further intimidate or bully you by further reducing those funds available to you during a strike. When we

asked management at the bargaining table why they were requesting this change their dubious reply was

that Sept. 1 did not necessarily fall on a payday and because of that it complicated payroll process. So

why didn’t they propose the first payday in August? or July? Because they DO want to limit your available

funds in the event of a strike hoping it will influence your decision on whether or not to support a strike.

Article 14.1 - Probationary Period

Forty-two years ago, under our first collective agreement, our probationary period was six months.

What’s changed over 42 years? Why, suddenly, the urgent need to change the length of the probationary

period. Again, management is trying to undermine our good jobs and abuse new employees. We believe

management’s real agenda is to hire new employees and then release them before their probation

expires, thus creating a temporary workforce. This certainly is a concession to an article we have in the

collective agreement.

Article 18 - Complaints/Grievances

This is actually a decent proposal that both sides successfully achieved. Management proposed a quicker

internal process and we proposed to go to a single arbitrator rather than a board. This could save the

colleges and the union hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Management, however, still aims to limit

an arbitrator’s powers.

Article 18.6.4 - Powers

This would limit the powers of an arbitrator for complaints/grievances (see above)

Scheduling of Arbitration

The colleges have complained that they want to see the number of grievances cleared up and would like

to limit how long a grievance can be “on the books”. This would mean that if your grievance was not

heard in a certain time then it would be dropped.

Letter of Understanding - Less Than 12 Month Positions

This proposal would allow those in less than 12 month positions to carry benefits during their annual

layoff period. The premiums would be paid by the member.

Letter of Understanding - Time Off – St. Lawrence College

This proposal to delete this letter of understanding makes sense. There is only one local at St. Lawrence,

so this letter really is redundant.

Letter of Understanding - Initiatives/Opportunities

During the last round of bargaining this was a contentious issue. We eventually agreed leave this as

Letter of Understanding as we thought these could be good professional development opportunities if

properly used. The colleges, however, have abused this letter. The result is that very few people find

themselves hired into these positions as a part of professional development. Management now seeks to

make the letter a permanent part of our collective agreement.

Appendix G - Summer Student Workers

Management revealed what they wanted to do with this proposal. They want summer student workers to

be able to work mid-April to mid-September. The start date would be fine; however, the problem is with

the end date. Why would these students work until mid-September? We also would like to see them paid

the properly-evaluated rate rather than minimum wage.

Benefit Booklet Out of Province/Country Emergency Coverage and Private Duty Nursing

This benefit was introduced by management to limit their liability to our insurance plan for out of

province/country emergencies. We have been advised by the Joint Classification Committee that overall

this is a benefit to our members. They are concerned with the cap for private duty nursing.

Letter of Understanding - Automobile Insurance

Management proposes to increase the amount of automobile insurance they will pay to those who use

their vehicles for the college. The question is how many people ask for this insurance now? The answer

would be very few. So this appears to be a benefit except that it really does not mean a lot for the

average member.

The parties agree that the union may raise the issue of tuition reimbursement and smoking

cessation/weight loss at EERC (Employee/Employer Relations Committee).

This proposal from management just doesn’t go far enough. It is our understanding that approx. 19 of 24

colleges have some sort of tuition policy for dependants. We would like to see this available in all 24 of

the colleges, but we also would like to see it administered centrally.

Contracting Out letter shall become an Appendix to the Collective Agreement.

This is a decent proposal as a start, but we would rather see a proposal that does not allow any

contracting out. A number of colleges have lost staff due to contracting out and we believe it must be

stopped.

We Are On Strike

College Support Staff are on Strike Effective September 1 at 12:01 a.m.

Still at Table

Still at the table with 3.5 hours to go!   Encouraging news from our Team.

Still at Table

Rod Bemister, Chair of our Bargaining Team, posted on our Facebook group that they are still at the table talking.  Stay tuned... I will post updates as we receive them

Smokey Thomas's Notes from Today's Press Conference

Warren (Smokey) Thomas President OPSEU August 30, 2011 CAAT Support Contract Negotiations CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY Good afternoon. My name is Smokey Thomas, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. OPSEU represents more than 130,000 workers in the Ontario Public Service, the broader public service, hospital professionals and other agencies of the provincial government like the LCBO. We also represent staff at Ontario community colleges, including those who provide support services at our colleges and academic staff. They are represented by two separate bargaining units. As you likely know, contract negotiations are continuing between negotiators for college management and representatives of more than 8,000 of our members who work as support staff inside the colleges. Thank you for attending this news conference. I’m joined at the table by Rod Bemister, chair of our bargaining team. I called this news conference so that we can provide you with an update on the status of negotiations. In less than 48 hours our support staff members will be in a legal position to withdraw their services. At 12:01 a.m. Thursday they could walk off the job, if we fail to reach a contract settlement. This is a situation we haven’t witnessed in 32 years – the one and only time college support workers in Ontario took strike action against their employer. Since that strike in 1979, we have successfully negotiated about 10 consecutive collective agreements with management without resorting to job action. It’s an enviable record we would like to keep intact this year. But that won’t be possible until negotiators for management get down to the serious business of negotiating a settlement before our contract expires tomorrow at midnight. Let me provide you with a bit of background Back on June 7 the two sides exchanged contract proposals. Ours was a comprehensive document running to something like 60 or more pages. It included proposals to defend and support decent, family-supporting jobs in the colleges and also to recognize the right of part-time staff, who are currently not unionized, to have their voices heard in the workplace.” In return, management tabled a bare bones document that included concessions and claw backs that sought to strip away many of the achievements we had negotiated in previous rounds of bargaining. The two sides then scheduled several dates when negotiations were supposed to have taken place. We met on those occasions but, frankly, nothing was achieved, let alone settled upon. Suddenly it was mid-August and management had nothing to offer but the same concessions and claw backs they first proposed in June. All this time our side showed up at these so-called bargaining sessions ready to get down to the hard job of reaching a settlement, only to find out that management had nothing to offer but more concessions and more claw backs from our members. Clearly this was unacceptable to our side. Then, on August 23, management released its monetary package to us. Our bargaining team asked for a few days to look it over. But instead of negotiating those terms with our bargaining team, management elected to release the monetary package directly to our members last Friday by email and by way of the news media. I’ve been involved in the bargaining process for more than 30 and if there’s one lesson I’ve learned it’s this: negotiating through the media is no way to reach a settlement. Notwithstanding this tactic by management, we returned to the table yesterday hoping progress on a new contract could be achieved. The prognosis is not good. My negotiators tell me that management continues to drag its feet on many of the proposals our members put forward almost three months ago. Some so-called ‘housekeeping’ items have been agreed upon, but not much beyond that. At this rate, I’m not optimistic that a settlement can be reached by tomorrow’s deadline. Let me be clear: we have no interest in withdrawing our services at community colleges. As we are fond of saying, contracts are never settled on the picket line; they’re settled at the bargaining table. But, unfortunately, management has given little indication they’re prepared to do the heavy lifting that’s required to reach a settlement. That’s regrettable. It’s regrettable because of the anxiety it is certain to cause students and their parents. It’s regrettable because it may delay our community colleges from preparing students for the jobs of tomorrow. And, it’s regrettable because it needn’t have come to this brinkmanship on the part of management. Let me conclude my comments on this note. Our members have adopted the slogan ‘Good Jobs Today … Good Jobs for Tomorrow’ to guide them through the bargaining process. What that means is that while we have one eye on the nitty-gritty of negotiating a new deal for our 8,000 members today, we have our other eye focused on keeping good jobs for youth in the future. If we cave in to the concessions and claw backs that management is putting forward in this round of bargaining, what does that say about the quality of employment for future graduates of Ontario’s community colleges – many of whom will find employment within the college system itself? What management’s position on this round of bargaining says to me is that there will be even more part-time work, at lower wages and reduced benefits for future graduating classes. Those are not the conditions under which we build a strong and prosperous province. It’s a benchmark too low for my liking. As it already stands, more than half of those employed in community colleges are part-timers. Is that the sort of Ontario we want to build? An economy where more and more of our graduating students have little more to look forward to than part-time, temporary and precarious employment with little in the way of job security or benefits? So, yes, we now face a strike deadline of about 36 hours from now. We are bargaining hard to reach a deal before then. But we are also bargaining for the jobs of tomorrow … for our students in post-secondary education today. It’s in nobody’s interest that we give in to contract demands from management that will only harm the working conditions of future graduates. Thank you for your attention. Rod and I would be pleased to take your questions

Our Team's Response

Management tries bargaining behind our back

Late on Friday the colleges finally did what we expected they might do all along – they tried to circumvent contract talks altogether by bargaining with you directly.

They did so by issuing a press release to the media. They deliberately avoided allowing your team to study their proposals and respond accordingly. Their approach speaks loudly to their disrespect for the negotiating process.

When we visited the colleges’ in June, ahead of the strike vote, we firmly suggested to you that this day would arrive. We told you then – and we’ll repeat it today – your bargaining team would not bring back an offer to you unless it was one that satisfied your demands.

What the colleges delivered on Friday definitely does not meet your demands.

Let’s look at their offer:

1st Year - 1.5% will give you lump sum in the first year, 2nd Year - 1.5%, the lump sum from the first year would not be part of your 2nd year salary. This means you will lose the 1.5% lump sum from the first year, and it will be replaced by this 1.5% increase, the third year - 1.75%. Your total increase then would be 3.25% over 3 years or an average of 1.083% per year

Management has repeatedly lectured us on the economy and the fiscal restrictions they allegedly face. But when we asked management about the surpluses that various colleges enjoy, they told us not to be distracted by those large surpluses (a.k.a. HUGE PILE$ OF CA$H).

Time off for the Union Negotiating Committee. At first glance this appears to be a gain. In reality their proposal takes away from your team’s ability to prepare for bargaining and restricts the team’s ability to visit with you to inform you about bargaining and to discuss your concerns about a strike vote or an offer. They would like you to be kept in the dark about what is happening in bargaining. In other words, they want to use ambush tactics like they used today to inform you about their proposal.

Time off – union representatives. The colleges want to limit your right to union representation by demanding an increase in costs to your local.

Compressed Work Weeks. The colleges continue to hold onto this item -- a right that very few of us would actually see. If you work on the frontline you will not be able to work a compressed work week. The college would also like to extend your workday. Nor is there any mention of protecting the days you actually work and no mention of what the shift schedule could be. We believe the colleges already have this under Article 6.1.4.

Flexible Hours of Work. Management is trying to take away your right to have a say about your work schedule. Currently you can cancel any arrangements for flexible hours of work with two weeks notice. They want to remove that provision so that once we have agreed on flexible work hours those hours can only be changed by the college – regardless of your personal circumstances.

Special Allowance. The colleges want to change the date the allowance is paid to the pay period after Sept 1. This move is an obvious attempt to intimidate the membership during bargaining years and coerce us into accepting contracts that fall short of your demands.

Probationary Period and Part-time Service. In their Aug. 26 release management claims their proposals will not create a two-tier workforce. Their document still contains a demand to increase probationary period for new employees after September 1, 2011 to 12 months instead of six. To add insult to injury, they also want to eliminate any credit you would receive for part-time hours worked prior to full-time employment.

Arbitration. The colleges want to take away some of the discretion arbitrators currently have under the new Colleges Collective Bargaining Act 2008. Currently that discretion allows an arbitrator to rule that a case can proceed even if there are questions about whether the grievance was filed in a timely manner. Removal of that discretion would have significant impact on your grievance rights.

Benefits – Private duty nursing. The colleges want to reduce entitlements for private duty nurses by capping the allowable expense to $25,000 annually. The amount is currently unlimited.

The Colleges are also making a big deal about our serving them Notice to Strike. What they fail to tell you is that Notice to Strike is required by law and that we provide them with a Notice to Strike no later than five days prior to a potential strike. The colleges would have preferred that we wait until after Aug. 31 thereby ensuring we would not be able to strike on Sept. 1

The colleges claim they want to negotiate. If that is the case why did they not give us time to respond to their proposals? They handed them to us at 12 noon on Aug. 26 and we clearly told them we would get back to them on Monday, Aug.29, our next scheduled bargaining date.

Contrary to management’s statement, we do not see this as “working together at the table.”

This is little more than an attempt by the colleges to bargain behind our backs.
Your team is committed to delivering a decent contract to you by midnight, Aug. 31. Don’t be distracted by management’s attempts to circumvent your team and the bargaining process. More than anything, don’t let them scare you into accepting an unsatisfactory offer.