Unions To City On Strike Threat: No More Concessions

It’s a strike everyone says they don’t want – but both sides are preparing for the worst, just in case.

 

And you may be caught right in the middle.

In the midst of tough economic times, CUPE Local 416, the so-called outside workers, and their indoor counterparts from CUPE Local 79, have asked a concilliator for a “no board” report, a sign a paralyzing city strike could be just a few weeks way.

Both unions have been negotiating with the City, which is crying poor, and both say little progress is being made. The City insists the economy means workers will have to give something back and has presented both groups with a lengthy list of compromises they’re demanding.   

But on Thursday, the unions came forward first with one clear message – they’re not willing to make any more concessions. And if that means a strike, so be it.

They stress the main issues aren’t wages but lie in other key areas, including hours of work, job security and a clawback in sick leave. A major sticking point relates to sick days — the City doesn’t want union workers to be able to store up to 18 sick days a year indefinitely.

“What we are really talking about now is replacing their sick day policy with a short-term disability and bringing our unions in line with every other municipality in Ontario,” Toronto city councillor Karen Stintz said. “That’s really what we’re talking about.”

But union negotiators say their workers’ rights are at stake.

“City negotiators have tabled over a hundred pages of concessions with our bargaining unit,” explains 416 President Mark Ferguson. “These are items that would take away rights related to seniority, job security and other issues that we’ve made gains over the years through collective bargaining, arbitration awards and the largest municipal strike in Canadian history in 2002 …

“They are an attack on our rights as workers and send a signal that the city wants to return to the bitter climate that led to the strike in 2002. We thought those days were in our past. We do not want to go back to that bitter climate.”

He pledges to make his people available 24 hours a day to get an agreement but warns the city must reciprocate with reasonable demands.

Local 79’s chief Anne Dembinski doesn’t believe Toronto’s claims that concessions are necessary. She points out several of the city’s unions – like fire and police – were awarded contracts without any real cuts being demanded.

“This recession didn’t happen overnight,” she charges, a tinge of anger obvious in her voice. ” Someone in the City of Toronto needs to explain to my members in Local 79 why deals have been made, why the most recent collective agreement that came down was for another City of Toronto group … and why we are not being treated the same as everyone else.”

Toronto insists it wants a negotiated settlement – but it has to be one taxpayers can live with. “We do not believe that a strike or a labour disruption is either necessary, nor is it wanted by anyone,” explains spokesman Kevin Sack. “We know that nobody wins in a strike.”

So has the city made any plans in the event of a walkout? Sack is non-committal.

“This isn’t about making contingency plans. This is about negotiating until we reach an agreement at the bargaining table … Contingency planning is not something that we like to do, but it’s something that we’re prepared to do if we have to, and if there is a labour disruption at any time, we have a contingency plan that will be communicated very broadly at that time.”

But there’s already bad blood between the City and the Local 79 – Toronto has filed a complaint of bargaining in bad faith against the union, while insisting they’re still willing to talk.

The no board is designed to put more pressure on the mayor and his negotiators. The unions can strike or be locked out 17 days after it’s issued, which would put a possible work stoppage as soon as the last week in June – right in time for the hottest days of the year in the city.

What follows would be an unpleasant scenario that could leave Toronto a smelly mess, with few services available – including garbage collection.  

Torontonians have mixed feelings about the sick day issue and whether the union has a point.

“People like me, I am out of a job for one year and why are these garbage workers getting pay increases,” Ted Rajendran mused.

Andie Devine was more sympathetic to their plight, suggesting, “They are handling people’s garbage. Not just residents’ (garbage), in the summer it’s tourists’ (trash).”

The unions fired the first salvo in what promises to be a long war of words, holding a press conference Thursday afternoon, warning the city could come to a halt unless things change.

The biggest effect of the strike would be trash collection, an echo of a similar walkout in June 2002. Huge piles of green garbage bags grew on the streets of the city, with many simply illegally dumping their trash in city parks. There were piles of garbage stacked up in alleys, leading to fears of vermin and disease, and the smell in some places was overpowering.

The outside workers also represent road maintenance crews, paramedics and animal control officers.

The inside workers include  clerical staff, maintenance workers, bylaw officers, recreation facility staffers and people who work in seniors’ homes.

A strike would idle most of them but not all – under existing agreements, essential services like paramedics and those who attend the elderly in seniors homes would still have to maintain some levels of service.

The 2002 walkout lasted half a month before the province stepped in and ordered the workers back. Most returned reluctantly, convinced it only happened because the city was expecting Pope John Paul II for World Youth Day and the city didn’t want to be embarrassed before the eyes of the world.

This time, there’s no such visit or event. And many are worried a walkout could drag on, making for a very long, hot and stinky summer in the city.

How will that look? For a glimpse back at what we went through in 2002, check out the CityNews Rewind below.