For those that have met me or read my blogs you know the effort and fight I have put in for reaching a Corrections Stand Alone agreement with Binding Arbitration. I wrote up a petition demanding the Government recognize us as 100% Essential, which has over 4500 signatures. I have traveled across the Province with other great leaders shouting from the rooftops that we need this now.
OPSEU and the Bargaining Team are recommending the Correctional
Bargaining Unit accpet this Tentaive Offer. However, as President of OPSEU Local 719 Kenora Jail I am recommending the Correctional BU reject this offer in high numbers. This is also the
recommendation of many Local Presidents across the Province, TBCC, TEDC,
SWDC, EMDC, OCDC, Niagra Jail, Stratford Jail, MHCC, TSDC, OCI, just to name a few.
The
reason behind this recommendation is that this contract falls short. We have a Crisis in Corrections and this offer does nothing in my eyes to address this crisis right now. Everyday we go into work we run the risk of injury, disease, even death. We work under policies that puts the onus on us to remain professional and safe while offenders are insulting, threatening, spitting, gassing, or assaulting us. We are brought under fire, many losing their jobs, when we protect ourselves, our coworkers, and even when we protect offenders from each other. We work with a staffing model that was drawn up 20 years ago, while the offender population has tripled, grown more brash, and become more experienced. We deal with those offenders who suffer from Mental Illness and should not even be incarcerated, if it wasn't for the Ontario Government closing our Mental Hospitals. Staffing levels have hit an all time low, leaving Institutions locked up and under staffed to complete our daily tasks. Yes these are just a few of the issues that make up the Crisis in Corrections. So how does this Liberal Government, who has wasted billions of tax payers dollars through scandal, try to solve this. They offer us an insulting, degrading contract offer with one carrot, praying we bite and believe their threats and ultimatums.
I will start with a few of the items our BT feels are wins. First being CTO, Compensating Time Off, that they removed from us unilaterally after we signed a past agreement. Some may not realize that it still exists in our CA and states under mutual agreement with employer CTO can be given. Now the Government offers us a cap of 36 hours quarterly, that can be used depending on operational needs.With our staff shortage we can not even staff every shift fully, how can we expect our employer to let someone have a day off with CTO when we are already short for the shift. There is no language that guarantees approval. I do not personaly see this as a win.
Many are deeming the ACL, Administrative Compensating Leave, as a raise.
I am trying to understand this. There is still a question out there if it is pensionable. I don't see how this is possible due to the fact
some people will use it for days off instead of cashing it out so for some it won't have added monetary value.
To say it adds up to an extra 2% per year if cashed in makes no sense.
For most we are so overworked that an extra 3 days off is better then
the cash value. Those that use it as time off will not achieve an extra 2% in pay. Also in the era where we have an unlimited amount of
Overtime available, working only two 12 hour OT shifts in the year
amounts to nearly 2% gain. Is being short staffed and creating unlimited OT a win? I don't think so. We need
valuable pensionable gains for our members, not bribes.
The salary grid freeze we are asking our newest hires to accept is for me the most insulting part of this offer. Asking new hires and those who do not have a full 6 years in to stay
frozen in their current position on the wage grid for 2 years is wrong. FXTs do the exact same job as all of us at top rate. They deal with the same offenders and issues every day. We already allowed this Government to create a new level on the grid 5% lower for new hires in 2013. How can we once again ask them to suffer for us. Has anyone done the math? I will not even use a brand new hire. I will
use those that were hired in the last year, the ones who would be bottom
level of a CO2. They make 25.81 or 53,684.80 a year. They would have
earned at one level higher, 26.61 or 55,348.80. The next year they would
have earned 28.69 or 59,675.20. So in total over the 2 years they lose
7,654.40. That is a large amount of money. I have had FXTs tell me they will not be able to take a full time position and lose their 14% in lieu. We continue to raise issues for the need of new staff. This ties our hands for attracting
quality staff going forward, when a new recruit can make more money in
all other Law Enforcement professions. Why would he apply to be locked
in with offenders for 30+ years of his life making peanuts. We never solve our hiring demand with this deal.
We have not seen an increase in wage over the past 2 year contract
and this offer is asking for 2 more years of 0% increases. This is
unacceptable. Wage adjustment was our Co-number one demand for our members and it was absolutely rejected. We all have seen the numbers everywhere, how far behind we are. A top
rate CO2 makes 32.64 or 67,891.20, compared to top rate OPP at about
98,000, court officers through out the province making in the 80,000
range. OPP civilian clerks make over 70,000 and our own OPSEU staff
secretaries make around 70,000. We have spent too much time getting
shit, piss, cum, puke and blood thrown at us to make as little as we do.
For those retiring in the next few years I personally apologize, as
your best 5 years will be an identical salary of 67,891.20. How much
money in your pension did you leave behind for fear of striking.
Corporations and Governments use the scare tactic that you never make
back what you lose on a strike. It is a fear mongering statement to
suppress working people from fighting. Now we have members on the
Bargaining team using it to instill fear in our membership to accept
this offer. Statements like we lose 2% of our yearly wage every week we are out, while
being a true statement, can not be used to say we need to earn that back
in a raise to break even. We don't and I will prove it. I am going to
be throwing out 3 scenarios based on our contract from 2013-2016, 4
years, and assuming that the 1.4% in 2017 would be the same in all
scenarios. Also past 2017 I will assume all the same numbers going into
the future so each scenario after the 4 years would rise the same
percent amount. Scenario 1: Exactly what we have had, 0% pensionable
wage increases each year, so we made 67891.20 * 4 = 271,564.80. Scenario
2: Assume we went on strike in 2013, the strike lasted 4 weeks which
today I can't see it lasting that long. After the strike we earn a
measly 1.5% annual raise and to avoid a strike, as they know we are
willing to, we get the 1.5% for 2015 and 2016. In the first year we must
subtract the loss from the strike and in that year we earn only
63,687.00. Now each year with the raise our income goes
69,950.40/70,990.40/72,051.20 which totals 276,679.00, a difference of
+3885.80. Scenario 3: This scenario shows the difference of choosing not
to fight now and letting more years of zeros go by. So we will leave it
the way it is 0% for 2013 and 2014. Now lets assume we received that
same 1.5% for 2015 and 2016. So it would be
67,891.20/67,891.20/68,910.40/69,959.40 for a total of 274,643.20.
Waiting 2 years to fight cost us 2,035.80. This is all pensionable
earnings for when we finish our 30 years of working in a place no member
of the public wants to. For one final look at the difference this makes
long term, taking our 2016 ending salary in all three scenarios and
assuming equal increases for the next 10 years we have a total earnings
of 678,912.00 in Scenario 1, 720,512.00 in Scenario 2 and 699,504.00 in
Scenario 3. That is a difference of 41,600.00 lost by not fighting now. How can we afford not to strike? Every raise matters. What if we won more then 1.5%? When inflation is
rising at an average of 1.5% we have actually lost over 6% buying power
for our money. When you are going into retirement that is a huge hit.
Even the minimum wage is showing increases over this time. Of all the
professions that deal with our criminal society we are the lowest paid
individuals, ones who suffer from the highest rate of PTSD. Is this fair? NO.
The number one demand in my eyes is a Corrections Stand Alone agreement with interest arbitration, where
we can bargain our own unique issues, separate from Unified members. This is being offered through language for 2018. I have spent countless hours looking over this language. I have spoken to the few Presidents that are accepting this agreement and this is the area we disagree on most. Those accepting this agreement believe this is our only way to a Corrections Stand Alone agreement. They also believe that the Employer's threat of taking Corrections Only off the table if we don't accept this contract is true. The language in the agreement leaves too many ways for the Government to
back out or escape from this over the next 2 years. Examples are, ".....the parties acknowledge that any legislative amendments to CECBA 1993 will be conditional upon the direction of government.....",
".....subject to the direction of the government...","....access to interest arbitration or a meaningful right to strike....", strikes are what we are trying to avoid; "...if the parties negotiate a Correctional Stand Alone agreement....","....If any paragraph in this MOS is inconsistent with Revised CECBA , the terms of Revised CECBA shall govern.. ". If the
Government does decide to"Revise" CECBA in any form and that revision
does not contain specific Language for a Stand Alone Corrections
Agreement ( or Arbitration..) ,then it appears that Legislation over
rides all these so-called clauses and OPSEU agreed to NO appeals. If the Government has not amended CECBA by 2018 then Appendix A kicks in. Here is the fail safe that some are banking on. What I don't understand, what I need answered is how can an Appendix to a MOA override CECBA legislation. In the end CECBA has to be amended no matter what. So how Appendix A avoids this I have no idea. If it does avoid it then why can't it do it right now and we can work on amendments as we go. This is a serious
issue that needs to be addressed now not in 2018. The Liberals even
added an ultimatum that if we do not accept all the other take aways
they would remove the Corrections Stand Alone agreement offer for ever.
If you ask me that is a bribe and bargaining in bad faith.
I can not honestly believe that three years ago
when we created the 1st Committee to see if we could achieve the Stand
Alone, we would have accepted this language. Absolutely no way. Ask
yourselves this, if Corr Only was not in this offer would you even
contemplate voting Yes? I don't think so, and I don't think it is strong
enough to blindly accept it now. Please look at a chronological order
of what we have achieved and tell me if you are satisfied.
We started
the committee in 2013, we took it to the convention floor where all of
OPSEU told us to sit down and it will never happen, and we didn't quit.
Smokey wrote a letter with over 20 points of how Corr Only couldn't,
shouldn't and wouldn't ever happen, and we responded by uniting and
writing multiple letters arguing his points and never quit. We were told
by the same labour lawyer who is now telling us this language is solid
that in his legal opinion we couldn't achieve this without opening CECBA
and hurting OPSEU, yet we rallied at Grosvener where a true leader was
arrested and we never quit. We even played nice at 2015 Convention where
every one of our resolutions were either not heard or rejected and we
never quit. We continuously were told by this same Bargaining team, who
is now telling us they achieved this goal, that it wasn't a demand and
we couldn't get it this round, yet we never quit. We marched on OPSEU
headquarters and demanded this be taken seriously, and finally there was
bend in OPSEU to look at us, because they knew we would never quit. So I
say after all this on the very first offer of a Corrections Stand Alone
agreement, with horribly weak language at best, we are going to quit
and chance our future on a Government who hates us, a Union who's
President has told us hates us, a Bargaining team who wouldn't listen to
us until they saw how horrible being linked to Unified really was, and a labour lawyer
who admitted opening up CECBA was too risky. This all seems surreal to me. I respect the opinions of those leaders I've fought beside but I in no way understand it.
My final point is in regards to the idea that if we don't ratify
Corr Only is gone for ever. I see this as a pure fear mongering
ultimatum the Government wants to see work. How can we not be calling them on bargaining in bad faith. I'm sure bribing people is not a good faith act. As I said above look at how
far we have come. We hold the cards and the power. A strong NO vote
tells them we deserve better. There is no way that this Government wants
blood on their hands and they know there will be without us in these
institutions or supervising offenders in the community. We are so close
to the biggest wins in the history of Labour Fights. A division ignored
by their own union, hated and beat down by a Government, stands solid
and strong together and fights for the rights of their members both new
and old. This Government asked for "net zeros", well they achieved so
much more then that when Unified ratified. Why would we let them
achieve better then "net zeros" with us. There is a lot of money in the
coffers after Unified settled and the Employer knows, with Corrections not linked to Unified, they will forever win savings off the backs of the rest of the OPS. So why accept
this very weak offer.
I recommend rejecting this offer
because we are worth more and this Government can't do our jobs without
us. Lets stand together and show them we are right.
No comments:
Post a Comment