The City's ad that Toadicus obviously saw in The Sun last weekend stated that City employees have 51 'paid days off'. This misrepresents the real situation in a disappointingly underhanded way.
Yes, City employees are paid for statutory holidays and vacation time - thank you.
But the other '19.7 days' are in fact 'Earned Days Off' - that is what they are called in the Contract, because staff get days off through the year in return for working longer hours each day. Are these 'paid days off'? No - we are paid for exactly the hours we work, in a manner similar to shift work. If the City wants to call them paid days off, then I assume I am working that extra time each day for free - you can't have it both ways.
And incidentally why would the City decide not to call them 'Earned Days Off' in their (publicly funded) ad, when that is what they are called in the collective agreement? Remember that City managers are, by all accounts, a professional group. Do they not know the language of their own contracts? Is it because the word 'earned' would not suit their purpose in portraying 'the union' in a negative light?
Monday, August 27, 2007
Earned not Paid Day's Off
Jumper 49 posted this concise rebuttal, August 21, to the City's ad in the weekend Sun and Province, that civic employees have 51 "paid days off."