[October 5, 2007 02:14 PM]
CUPE 15, CUPE 391 and CUPE 1004 bargaining committees are currently meeting to review Foley's recommendations and all previous agreed to items. They are considering whether or not they will recommend or reject Foley's recommendations.
Find relevant documents below:
* CUPE 15, CUPE 1004 and CUPE 391: Foley's Recommendations
- cleaner copy than CBC.ca post
* CUPE 1004: Items previously agreed to
* CUPE 391: Items previously agreed to
13 comments:
I'm no expert in Labour/Management negotiations, but its hard to believe that CUPE couldn't have gotten these terms 8 weeks ago. Although I guess they wouldn't be offered a $1000 then.
Just a quick question. They didn't mention retro pay dating back to the day we haven't had a contract. Is this replaced by the $1000 "bonus"?
Most of the Foley recommendations seem like a no-brainer. I agree with the comment about getting to this point 8 weeks ago. Very frustrating.
Also, as I interpret this, as a new employee, my probationary period picks up again after the strike (i.e. another 11 weeks before I see any benefits!!), but others have no loss of seniority. Also, if I read correctly, my $1000 will be prorated based on my start date. This bites!
10:53: I believe I saw that the 07 raise (3%) is from Jan 1. So I guess that would be 7.5months of back raise.
Again, I'm not an expert and I don't even play one on TV, just by what I've read in the media and picked up here on PB's site, the largest issue appeared to be contracting out. The union said 'never' and the city said we need flexibility on this clause. It shouldn't have taken a mediator to craft a solution that looks very much like Foley's: a significant time period of notice and actions to ameliorate the effects. CUPE should have seen a solution to this clause, in particular, a lot earlier and it might have broken the log jam on other issues. Sorry, I guess I'm assuming that the membership will vote for Foley's rec's.
I agree with anonymous at 6:26am.
Vaughn Palmer put it best on CKNW Friday - roughly quoting him
The City mishandled the dispute at the beginning while CUPE mishandled the dispute after the 17.5% over 5 years became the template.
Staff were stuck in the middle.
The City mishandled the dispute at the beginning while CUPE mishandled the dispute after the 17.5% over 5 years became the template.
I agree with this, and was puzzled why CUPE didn't leap on the 17.5% offer and declare victory. Vancouver locals seem (I know thats objective and I'm not a CUPE member) to have wanted to inject a political edge to the strike and whether thats because the leadership is upset at the NPA or the provincial Liberals or even PM Harper, I think it was a mistake that cost the membership dearly. CUPE is at its strongest when its advocating for its members and at its weakest when its lecturing to voters.
How is it "within our grasp to make this reckless, hurtful, greed-driven strategy of Boulwareism a thing of the past"? And when did Boulwareism become part of the mandate? When this strike started the primary issue was the length of the contract. That was resolved quite quickly. The layoff/contracting out issue is dealt with in Foley's recommendations. Maybe not to the Union's satisfaction, but also not to the City's satisfaction. Negotiation is about compromise. What more is to be gained by continuing the strike?
I guess we know how blackbird will vote..
blackbird pass the gravy...
toot toot goes the whistle judy
we all eat crow just when the city is tired we go back,did you hear Dobrovolny? BOO HOO I won't be here next contract -but strikers need to stop thinking its a summer party and start their strikes in October armed with propane heaters cause the managers will get tired faster.
and not to be negative, SHOULD A STRIKE EVER BE NECESSARY
and of course that will be when the city fails to bargain or there is fairness
Post a Comment