Category Archives: federal canadian government

Why labour unions are concerned about the new budget bill — and you should be too

Posted on by

By H.G. Watson  | November 21, 2013  http://rabble.ca

Photo: flickr/Kim Elliott

It’s almost a yearly tradition now — with a new session of Parliament comes a new omnibus bill to stir up controversy. This year, Bill C-4 — the budget implementation bill — has raised the ire of Canada’s national labour unions, for good reason. And while we might not notice the impacts now, if Bill C-4 passes, we soon will.

So, what’s in this bill?

Bill C-4, like omnibus bills before it, makes amendments and changes to all sorts of legislation. As reported by Macleans, it will extend solicitor-client privilege under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and potentially give the minister of immigration new powers to approve economic class applicants.

But what changes impact labour?

The bill gives the federal government exclusive right to determine what public services workers are essential — a designation that is currently negotiated by the employer and the union. Under the current system, if they can’t reach an agreement they go to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

Bill C-4 simply calls for consultation, after which the government can still declare the workers essential. In this new proposed system, the final decision rests with the government.

And there’s more. If over 80 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit are deemed essential — essential workers are deemed so if their work is needed to ensure the safety and security of the public — they go right to arbitration. Do not strike. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $50.

At the same time, the bill dissolves and combines The Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal and creates the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. This new board will oversee all grievances brought by workers in the federal public service.

Lastly, the bill makes some major changes to the health and safety provisions in the Canada Labour Code — a statute that applies to all federally regulated industries. As the Labour Code currently stands, officials called health and safety officers, who are designated by the minister of labour, investigate workplaces and deem them dangerous if need be.

If the amendments contained in Bill C-4 pass, the minister would be directly responsibly for leading the investigations, and the definition of “danger” would be “an imminent or serious threat to the life or health of a person exposed to it.” The current definition notes that the danger only has to be a hazard or condition that could reasonably cause injury or illness.

And why is labour concerned about this?

In a nutshell: unions believe that workers are being stripped of their rights to collectively bargain and protect themselves in unsafe workplaces.

“Obviously we are not pleased with this bill,” said Robyn Benson, the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), a union that represents 180,000 workers in the federal public service.

She is concerned that if the bill passes, far more of the workers in PSAC will be deemed essential and thus unable to strike should they decide to do so after a round of bargaining their new contracts with the federal government.

“I think that [Clement] will probably, for example, try to deem every customs officer essential when that’s not in fact the case,” she explained. “I don’t believe collecting taxes at the border has anything to do with [that].”

The health and safety concerns extend past the federal public service and include industries like airlines, rail and telecommunications. PSAC representatives believe that the dissolution of the health and safety officers could politicize workplace monitoring and that the new definition of danger leaves too much room for interpretation.

And much like previous omnibus budget bills, the Conservatives are being criticized for including non-budgetary items in Bill C-4, like changing the essential worker designation. “It’s an anti-democratic and anti-parliamentarian tactic,” said Alexandre Boulerice, the NDP labour critic. He worries that because of the scope of the bill, many of the changes contained within — including some of sweeping ones concerning labour — won’t get enough time for proper scrutiny before the parliamentary committees.

Clement declined to be interviewed for this story, but he told The Globe and Mail earlier this month that these changes would transform and modernize “the public service negotiation architecture.” He’s told other media that he believes it ridiculous that the government has to negotiate with labour unions to determine what services are essential — an arrangement that according to Benson had been working with previous Treasury Board presidents, including Vic Towes. According to her, Clement also refused to consult with PSAC during the writing of Bill C-4.

So why make these changes?

Benson believes that these changes are coming for one reason — the federal public service is negotiating a new collective agreement in 2014 and the federal government is preparing to do battle with the public sector unions.

She has no plans to stop battling these changes, now or at the bargaining table next year. “We have told this government from the day that I was elected that I was not going to expect any concessions,” she said. “And I believe that our membership is solidly behind us and will stand up to be counted.”

Clement, for his part, has already started his own campaign to support his cause. He told media that he will stay mum on who is to be deemed essential, but has been sure to stress that it is for the cause of public safety. At question period earlier this month, he also addressed a concern from within his own party about the absenteeism rate of public service workers, noting that he will address the issue next year at the bargaining table.

And what does it mean for the federal public service?

It means that once the new year begins, they may find themselves involved in drawn-out labour negotiations that will have impacts felt beyond federal public service workers. War drums are already beating. On Twitter and in the media, both have Benson and Clement have taken shots at each other.

Ottawa bargained in bad faith with striking diplomats, labour board rules

Posted on by

The Public Service Labour Relations Board ruled Friday that the federal government has been bargaining in bad faith with its striking diplomats

Treasury Board President Tony Clement agreed to binding arbitration but then insisted on a series of preconditions, including taking the union’s key demand for wage parity off the table.

Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS file photo  Treasury Board President Tony Clement agreed to binding arbitration but then insisted on a series of preconditions, including taking the union’s key demand for wage parity off the table.

By: Mike Blanchfield The Canadian Press, Published on Fri Sep 13 2013

OTTAWA—The Public Service Labour Relations Board ruled Friday that the federal government has been bargaining in bad faith with its striking diplomats.

Treasury Board violated the Public Service Labour Relations Act by imposing conditions in advance on binding arbitration, the ruling stated.

But in its 27-page decision, the board does not impose a remedy in the long-running saga that universities and tourism groups say has deprived foreign students and travellers from getting the visas they need to come to Canada.

The decision urges Treasury Board and the 1,350-member Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers to go back to bargaining to break the impasse.

“I conclude that the respondent engaged in bad faith bargaining in its approach,” the ruling stated.

“I do not believe that it is conducive to good labour relations to order parties to participate in final and binding determination when such arbitration is voluntary in the first place,” it added.

“I encourage the parties to be guided by my comments in this decision and to renew their attempts at arriving at mutually agreeable conditions.”

The union asked Treasury Board in July to consent to binding arbitration.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement agreed but then insisted on a series of preconditions, including taking the union’s key demand for wage parity off the table.

The foreign service staff want wage parity with their counterparts in other federal departments, who they say make as much as $14,000 more doing similar work.

“It was an impossibility for the complainant to put forward its argument concerning wage parity, which it held throughout the negotiation process,” Friday’s ruling said.

“The respondent’s conditions required the complainant to abandon the position it’s held throughout the negotiations.”

Therefore, the process of going into arbitration “would be moot,” the ruling stated.

The union said Friday it was waiting for Treasury Board to return to the negotiations with a revised offer.

“The time has come for the government to change tack,” union president Tim Edwards said in a statement.

“Our offer to take this dispute to binding arbitration without paralyzing preconditions still stands.”

Treasury Board had yet to issue a statement as of Friday afternoon.

The union which has been without a contract since mid-2011, has been staging rotating walkouts at more than a dozen foreign missions. It has targeted the foreign travel of cabinet ministers and the processing of visas for potential visitors to Canada.

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar urged the government to get back to the table and bargain in good faith.

“The Conservative government’s bad faith handling of the labour dispute with Canada’s diplomats is hurting the country’s economy and our image abroad. It has hurt our communities and undermined the important work of our diplomats,” Dewar said in a statement.

“Instead of trying to discredit our diplomats, I call on Tony Clement to get back to the negotiation table and resolve this dispute through good faith bargaining.”

Democracy delayed

Posted on by

https://i0.wp.com/www.capebretonpost.com/images/logo/cbpost-header.png

Staff ~ The Cape Breton Post      Published on August 22, 2013

Prime Minister Stephen Harper makes a sound argument for proroguing Parliament. He says it’s a chance for his government to set out its agenda for the last half of its current mandate via a new throne speech.

Fair enough. But extending the parliamentary break by about a month in concert with prorogation is both unnecessary and undemocratic.

So far in 2013, the House of Commons sat for 75 days, between Jan. 28 and June 18, after which MPs started their three-month summer break.

They were due back in the House on Sept. 16, but now the prime minister says that parliamentarians won’t get their bums back in the House of Commons seats until October, reportedly after Thanksgiving, which lands in the middle of the month.

As NDP Leader Tom Mulcair noted, Harper could prorogue and restart Parliament with a throne speech on Sept. 16. There’s no need for an extended break.

In June, Mervyn Poole of North Sydney penned a letter to the editor criticizing the length of the House of Commons summer break. He wrote: “Three months is preposterous. A month seems ample to me.”

In response, Sydney-Victoria MP Mark Eyking wrote that he would spend the break “attending meetings, festivals and community events, travelling hundreds of kilometres around Cape Breton and enjoying it. This gives me the opportunity to hear first-hand the constituents’ personal issues and community concerns to take back to Ottawa in September.”

Eyking added: “I enjoy travelling and connecting with everyone throughout the summer. I guess you could say I am on a working vacation.”

That wasn’t a surprising response coming from Eyking, who, like many politicians, isn’t known for his dynamic parliamentary speaking skills or for his mastery of policy matters. His advantage lies in being a strong constituency politician — attending as many community events, shaking as many hands, listening to as many complaints and appearing in as many photos as possible.

Constituency work is important. But Parliament exists for a reason.

After Harper prorogued Parliament in December 2009, Cape Breton Post political columnist David Johnson wrote a followup piece.

Johnston stated: “Canadians love to make fun of politicians and to lament the silly games and partisanship often found in Parliament, especially in question period. But such criticisms should never be seen as Canadians showing disrespect for the institution of Parliament, or laughing at the symbolism of Parliament.

“To most Canadians, Parliament is where the government works. Parliament is where our democratically elected representatives are supposed to serve us. Parliament is where Canadian democracy is enshrined.”

By extending the current parliamentary break by another month, Harper can delay answering uncomfortable and potentially damaging questions about, for example, Sen. Pamela Wallin’s inappropriately claimed travel expenses, which, we learned Wednesday, total almost $139,000.

At the same time, the prime minister will delay democracy.