Leweneza's Strike Confession: It Was Not CUPE's Fault

I hope that Junior is furious this morning. He unburdened his soul at Council last night, or, if you are cynical, tried to salvage his sinking political career but was ignored.

Of course he would be. He attacked how the strike was handled by the man in charge. He let us in on the fact that there was no hope of there being a negotiated settlement unless CUPE was crushed.

There were reasonable alternatives that could have been pursued. In fact, he claimed that there was a better offer for taxpayers introduced in the 4th week of the strike that CUPE would have been hard-pressed not to accept but it seems it was never offered to CUPE.

There was ample time for a resolution to be reached without a strike but there was no desire to do so on the City's side.

What a crappy newspaper the Star is.

Oh I forgot. The Star is merely "the messenger" in Marty Beneteau's words.

I am so happy that I cancelled my subscription. I hope that after this BLOG, dear reader, you might want to consider if you should continue to subscribe to it if you have not already stopped receiving it. It is the only way to let the Star, its Senior management and, more importantly, its advertisers know that the newspaper has failed this Community!

What am I so upset about now: the coverage of the PRBs for Councillors story:

• "Councillors move to abolish post-retirement benefits"

I read what Councillor Grandstander said:

• "It’s an issue of fairness. I feel we have no option,” said Coun. Percy Hatfield, who had earlier advised council he would bring forward the motion this week."

But I did not read a word about what Councillor Lewenza said other than

• "Lewenza used debate on the motion to give a long and pained speech on council’s handling of the strike and to defend his actions during the closed-door council sessions dealing with the strike."

Along with Councillor Mom's remarks re non-negotiation for 7 weeks, and isn't it interesting that the Councillor has not Blogged anything more for over a month, and what Junior said, we are learning a whole new aspect as to why this strike happened in the first place and why it took so long to settle.

It is now very clear to me at least that Eddie's Protocol fiasco shortened the Windsor strike by many weeks and probably caused David Miller to settle in Toronto long before he intended to do so.

Junior's comments should have been reported by the Star extensively. However, it did not do so. Better no one should know what Junior says.

Oh they might cover his Ward meetings if he ever has them but by then who will care what Junior says about the strike.

Fortunately, Chris Schnurr has software that allows Junior's remarks to be BLOGGED (see video above). Thank goodness that Windsorites have an alternative media where they can get information.

What Junior says is an absolute indictment of the handling of the strike by the Mayor and Council, including Junior. I know that only the surface has been scratched so far. A skilled cross-examiner should be able to destroy the City's position in any OLRB and other litigation just based on what Junior and Councillor Mom have said publicly so far alone.

As for Junior, how convenient is all I can say. I have some respect for him for at least opening his mouth. However, where was he telling us all of this information during the strike? Why was he so silent? Why did he vote as he did? Why did it take so long before he had his "rift" with the Mayor? Why did he not step up and perform his Municipal Act duties if the Community was in pain and being divided when there were reasonable alternatives? Why didn't he lead his colleagues and take over the handling of the file even after the near-riot and the grossly unfair attack on his Wardmate, Councillor Marra, in the Protocol?

I was interested to note that Junior did not refer to how the Library handled its PRB matter with CUPE that did not result in a strike! I also noted that the Mayor let him go on, off topic, for so long without one single "clarification." I cannot think of another precedent like that except when Dan Stamper or his lawyer, Paula Lombardi, is in Eddie's face!

Here are excerpts from Junior's remarks taken from the video above. Given the settlement, there is no doubt that CUPE won big time in the face of a multi-million dollar campaign to destroy them! Based on what Junior said, CUPE has no choice but to continue forward strongly on behalf of its members in their action against the City.

1.  Wants blue ribbon committee to deal with Councillor salary issues such as PRBs as in the past. Puts things out of whack otherwise [NOTE but why not something similar for employees when dealing with a major issue like PRBs. See comments later]
   


2.  PRBs taken away from only 30% of the work force after the 101 day strike
   


3.  Other workers—police, fire, ONA—will have to go through arbitration and NO arbitrator will take away their PRBs based on CUPE 82 & 543 workers but will look at comparable police and firefighters in other cities. Lewenza put his career on the line over this
   


4.  “I can assure you,” “I can assure you,” “I can assure you,” that there is no way the City can be successful in the future in taking away PRBs from those employees unless they negotiate them away and sell them
   


5.  Lewenza now explains that CUPE got those benefits in lieu of wages
   


6.  City money offered over the 4 year term of the collective agreement cost more than PRBs in its entirety
   


7.  He predicted 4 month strike with enormous consequences to the community ie their 1,800 jobs and 3 or 4 spin-off jobs per job.
   


8.  Having 10,000 people not contributing a paycheck has a tremendous impact to this Community
   


9.  Again confirms that there is no savings to Windsor for 30 years
   


10.  Solution was “phasing it in”
    


11.  Treasurer said if CUPE or the City took only 1 % of what a wage increase looked like and applied it to a PRB fund, no contribution was necessary until 2018.
    


12.  Could have been done with less cost and pain to everyone if there had been a more open-minded approach to finding a long-term solution
    


13.  New employees do not think about PRBs but at the end of the day, they are glad to have them
    


14.  1% contribution by the City or CUPE equals $5 per household with no solution needed until 2018.
    


15.  CUPE offered to keep the status quo collective agreement but keep PRBs. In 4th week, Hatfield offered a Motion for 2% increase in the first year , 2% in the second year and CUPE walks away from PRBs or maintain PRBs in a 2 year agreement but get nothing else.
    


16.  If you analyze the cost, that was the best deal for taxpayers had Council at least approached CUPE with that compromise and CUPE accepted it. Should have at least challenged CUPE, called their bluff, to avoid a whole lot of pain
    


17.  To the public, we need to ask why all people are not entitled to PRBs for life as in other countries
    


18.  There were other alternatives
    


19.  Look at what happened 2 years ago when this issue first started so Council should have had a good idea that this would create a long strike.
    


20.  Managers wanted to form a committee to sit down with Administration and Council to look at alternatives. Lewenza said to an Administrator that they should do it since there were alternatives so both sides could achieve what they were looking for
    


21.  The next day there was an Administrative Recommendation for the City to take away PRBs from managers
    


22.  The managers, after 150 years, sought to unionize because of PRBs.
    


23.  The City has spent $3-400,000 in legal costs over this particular issue so far re the managers.
    


24.  WHEN YOU TAKE ON AN ISSUE OF THIS PARTICULAR MAGNITUDE, DID WE EXHAUST EVERY POSSIBLE MECHANISM TO TRY TO PROVIDE A SOLUTION ON BEHALF OF TAXPAYERS, THE CITIZENS AND ALSO OUR EMPLOYEES?
    


25.  Pain and division was felt in this community that was absolutely not needed
    


26.  Lewenza was not just pro-union. He represented taxpayer interests and is willing to share discussions he had with the CUPE Presidents during the strike to try to find a settlement in the interests of taxpayers and CUPE
    


27.  Challenges his Council colleagues or anyone in the community that this was not his intention
    


28.  Some of the Star Editorials are blatantly, blatantly wrong. Now wants to challenge Vander Doelen since any coward can debate an empty chair [Did NOT mention Brister]