A Tale Of 2 CUPE Strikes

David Miller and Eddie Francis were both high-flyers when they first were elected as Mayors of their respective Cities. Young and attractive politicians, there were high expectations for both of them. Both have not lived up to their reputations as time passed. It has been interesting to me to see their careers rise and fall in almost complete tandem.

Both had CUPE strikes at the same time.

Both had a very aggressive and similar "no concessions" policy against their unions at the beginning of the strike.

Both picked on one issue as their PR excuse to justify strikes that went on forever.

Both folded at the end at almost the exact same time.

Both gave in to their unions very quickly at the end raising questions why the strike had to last so long. [BLOG: July 27, 2009 CUPE Strike: Little To Do With PRBs].

Both managements' positions fell right after Eddie's Back-To-Work Protocol fiasco.

Both were such good friends that Eddie while flipping pancakes with his family had enough time to tell the Toronto Star that he "expressed his support for Miller."

Here is something else.

• "The tentative [Toronto] deal gives the workers wage increases totalling just under six per cent over three years and a compromise was worked out on sick days - one of the key sticking points nearing the end of negotiations."

Eddie made a big point of saying that our settlement was only 5.7% not 6.3% (over 4 years).

Another fascinating comment I saw:

• "[Toronto] CUPE spokeswoman Ann Dembinski went further, telling reporters Monday the strike should never had happened.
  
  "There could have been a deal without a strike," she said. "There was a point in April when we were on the verge of having a collective agreement but the city changed course."

And when did our strike start: "April 15 -- About 400 outside workers go on strike."

Was there co-ordination between Francis and Miller in the same manner as was suggested so strongly between CUPE Windsor and Toronto through Sid Ryan as the anti-CUPE types alleged? Who knows? Only time will tell.

I found this interesting column in the Toronto Star. The press there has been very negative on the settlement asking some very tough questions. In Windsor however, the Editor can blame the strike on CUPE's jumbled messaging and ignore our Mayor's failure.

But then again, the Windsor Star, as Mr. Beneteau confirmed finally, is the messenger---"A strategy of demonizing the mayor and shooting the messenger."

Change sick day banking with PRBs, and change the Mayor's name as you read the column.

When the City claims a major victory on PRBs, and Councillor Hatfield huffs, puffs and grandstands on eliminating PRBs for newly elected Councillors, of which he is not one now so it will NOT apply to him, remember this from City Treasurer Onorio Colucci who is not going to jeopardize his reputation for political spin:

• "Our Treasurer tells us that there is no immediate impact:
  
  "It's been said there is no benefit to this for 30 years," said treasurer Onorio Colucci. "That's true, but this liability was really something not sustainable for us...
  
  City leaders anticipate it will take between 40 and 50 years before current employees are completely grandfathered out and the $291-million price tag is eliminated."

It may well be that if one wants to have a better understanding of the Windsor strike and its ramifications, especially political, one ought to read the other Star instead---the one from Toronto! http://www.thestar.com/

• Is this the beginning of the end for Miller?
  
  TORONTO STAR Royson James
  
  Mayor David Miller is a weakened politician today, vulnerable to challengers following a strike deal that suggests he caved in to the unions.
  
  Would-be mayors spoiling for a run at his job in November 2010 are no doubt emboldened as details of the deal emerge. They now have an issue on which to launch a run for mayor. They'll be able to spin an election message of "Throw out the sellout."
  
  The number one issue that sparked the longest municipal strike in Toronto's modern history was a long-held benefit that gives employees 18 sick days a year, days they can bank over time to a maximum of a year's worth. Then, on retirement, the worker is guaranteed a maximum payout, a nest egg, of six months' pay at a rate matching his pay at retirement.
  
  It's a sweet deal. Miller targeted it. He left the impression that a strike-ending deal hinged on ending the benefit. He went public with his demand, angering the unions. The public backed his view. They didn't get what they anticipated. Now Miller is trying to spin his way out of the political backlash.
  
  Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, tabbed as a potential Miller challenger, is having none of it.
  
  "It's a slap in the face to the residents of Toronto who held out for 36 days, who supported the mayor because they believed in what he said," Minnan-Wong said. "The mayor caved in on this. He betrayed Torontonians and he let them down. He sold out to the unions."
  
  Maybe he overstates, even as the mayor obfuscates. The city did improve its financial position, at least in terms of observable liability. Over time, a long time, the sick-pay benefit will end. Whether this is good – absenteeism, a problem before the sick-bank plan, may rise again and result in lost productivity – is a debatable point.
  
  But even with that improvement, the nagging question is: Did we go through a five-week strike for that? Could Miller not have accomplished the same without a strike? Why the bluster and chaos and disruption when meeting the unions more than halfway could have settled the dispute months ago?
  
  Miller yesterday tried to paint the picture of a recalcitrant union, unwilling to budge. He failed to take any responsibility for the strike. The unions wanted pay hikes matching the annual 3 per cent given to some civic workers, he says. But Miller offered them zero; then amended it to 1 per cent, 1 per cent, 2 per cent, 3 per cent over four years. The unions settled for 1.75 per cent, 2 per cent, 2.25 per cent. Clearly, salary wasn't the big sticking point.
  
  Miller says the unions weren't prepared to even discuss the ending of the sick benefits. But any analysis of the issue suggested that the city would be incapable of ending the benefit without a significant buyout of a benefit the workers had bargained.
  
  Common sense suggested an end to the benefit for new employees only. That's not what Miller pushed. Fairness suggested the city adopt a fallback position: pay out those who have the benefit because no union would tolerate a stealing of their accumulated benefits. Again, no go.
  
  So, who would have anticipated this: the sick-bank plan is not frozen for those who have it. And they continue to accrue sick days and payouts as before.
  
  So, five weeks later, and counting, Torontonians find that they endured a lost summer for a deal arguably available without a strike.
  
  To add insult to injury, Miller now insists on selling spoiled goods. "We've eliminated the sick bank," he said, 12 TV cameras rolling and frustrated reporters rolling their eyes yesterday. Torontonians should be "extremely pleased," he said. And no doubt, at least the 30,000 strikers are – even if they are miffed at walking the picket line for five weeks to maintain the status quo.
  
  But tried as he may, armed with lawyerly hairsplitting and a politician's doublespeak, he couldn't convince that Toronto's five-week municipal strike was worth the trouble.
  
  The sick-bank "phase-out" saves "millions and millions and tens of millions." But asked to be specific, Miller said he didn't know and refused to "speculate."
  
  Told that he couldn't say the sick banks are ended when workers still have the choice of sticking with the old sick-days plan, Miller persisted:
  
  "The provision is ended."
  
  "Why the doublespeak? Why do you continue to do this?" a reporter challenged.
  
  "With great respect," the mayor said, "I don't think this is doublespeak; this is the fact."
  
  Well, you judge.
  
  A 35-year-old civic worker, employed for 10 years, is entitled to continue banking 18 sick days a year, and do so for the next 30 years – and the mayor says the provision is ended.
  
  Pushed and cajoled, Miller adopted a compromise offered by Star reporter Donovan Vincent. "Phase-out."
  
  Maybe, Miller will find that this municipal strike unmasked much about his personality and leadership that Torontonians reject. And maybe, come November 2010, he may find that while his tenure as mayor did not end in the summer of 2009, the Miller phase-out had begun.