Category Archives: federal government

Unions plan public fight over federal labour reforms

Posted on by

Canadian Labour Congress says Ottawa ‘declared war’ by pushing changes without consultation

By Trinh Theresa Do, CBC News Posted: Nov 21, 2013 5:00 AM ET

Tony Clement says the labour reforms will "bring savings, streamline practices and bring them in line with other jurisdictions"

Tony Clement says the labour reforms will “bring savings, streamline practices and bring them in line with other jurisdictions”

Tony Clement on public service right to strike 9:51

Related Stories

In a sign they have all but given up on talks with the Treasury Board over labour reforms proposed in the federal government’s budget bill, union leaders say they are taking matters into their own hands.

The Canadian Labour Congress quietly met with more than 100 representatives from unions across the country this week to plot a long-term strategy to engage both the public and union members in pressuring the government to reverse its proposed labour law changes. The CLC represents more than 3 million workers across the country.

The CLC has already wrapped up a series of television ads that ran over the past six weeks. Its next step is to reach out to each of its own members in a campaign that will detail how reforms in the budget bill will affect their bargaining rights.

And then, according to CLC secretary-treasurer Hassan Yussuff, union members must appeal directly to their MPs.

“They need to, of course, take direct responsibility to how they’re going to start speaking out on behalf of their union, on behalf of themselves,” said Yussuff. “And more importantly, in terms of the gains they have made to ensure this government doesn’t take that away.”

‘Government had declared war on us’

Yussuff said this offensive strategy will become the “new normal” unless policy changes are reversed.

“I think the government had declared war on us,” he said. “We didn’t start any of these measures — the government itself has done so. I think it’s fair for us to respond to their actions.”

If passed, Bill C-4 would make sweeping changes to a number of labour laws, including the Canada Labour Code and Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Among other things, it would streamline collective bargaining by allowing the government to determine which services are essential and make it illegal for those workers to strike. In situations where 80 per cent or more of workers in a bargaining unit are designated essential, the only dispute resolution method is arbitration.

In a statement sent to CBC News, Treasury Board president Tony Clement said the Public Service Labour Relations Act is being amended to ensure that the public service is modern and affordable.

“The proposed amendments will bring savings, streamline practices and bring them in line with other jurisdictions. Our government will sit at a bargaining table on behalf of the taxpayer where the rules are fair and balanced.”

Unions were not consulted in the drafting of the reforms. Labour leaders have since tried to meet with Clement to present counter-proposals, with little success.

Robyn Benson of the Public Service Alliance of Canada recently had a meeting with Clement during which she proposed he withdraw changes from the budget bill to allow for more consultation.

She wrote on her blog afterwards, “He stated bluntly that he had no intention of consulting with us, and that he wanted all his changes in place for the next round of collective bargaining — in fact, by Christmas.”

In response, Clement tweeted, “That’s also the meeting where you claimed co-governance with Parliament. Takes ‘union boss’ to a whole new level.”

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.

No shortage of workers – just a shortage of training

Posted on by

Tue, 11/19/2013 – 10:06
Posted by Andrew Jackson     http://www.broadbentinstitute.ca

Two major recent studies – from Derek Burleton and his colleagues at Toronto-Dominion Bank, and from former senior federal government official Cliff Halliwell published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy – provide excellent overviews of recent developments in the Canadian job market, and an informed framework for thinking about our future skills needs.

This message seems to have finally got through to the Harper government. In a speech to the Vancouver Chamber of Commerce on November 14, Employment and Skills Development Minister Jason Kenney told employers to stop complaining and to stop relying excessively upon temporary workers. Instead, he said, employers should “put more skin in the game” by increasing wages in high-demand occupations and by investing more in the training of Canadians.

The TD and IRPP studies provide balanced overviews of our future skill needs. Neither see generalized shortages as an acute danger, notwithstanding the pending (if increasingly delayed) retirement of the baby boom generation. Indeed, Mr. Halliwell says we should welcome a tighter job market, after years of stagnant real wages for most workers.

Graduates from our postsecondary education system, together with new immigrants, will more or less match job vacancies opening up due to the retirement of highly skilled workers. And employers can be expected to minimize shortages as they emerge by investing in capital and skills so as to raise productivity.

All that said, these studies note that we face some specific skills shortages today in a limited number of occupations and regions, and that some employers may face increasing difficulties finding workers with the right education and skills to fill available jobs in the future.

This can, however, be seen more as an opportunity than a curse, given the significant unemployment and underemployment of today, especially for youth, recent immigrants and aboriginals. The challenge is to invest in skills to increase access to good jobs for Canadians who want to get ahead, and thus to forestall future shortages that might lower our economic potential.

One set of policies that makes sense is to raise the education and skills level of marginalized groups and to ensure that unemployed workers, especially the long-term unemployed, have access to retraining. While Canada has one of the most educated work forces in the world, we have a relatively high proportion of workers with low literacy and numeracy levels, and many recent immigrants need help to upgrade their qualifications.

Programs delivered by the provinces with the support of the federal government address these issues to a degree, although spending is well below the industrial country average. Unfortunately, the federal government proposal to introduce the Canada Jobs Grant will shift some funds away from training the most marginalized workers and toward employer-sponsored training.

Mr. Halliwell argues that our current educational and labour market policies fail the significant proportion of the work force that leaves the educational system with less than a postsecondary qualification and finds relatively low-paying, less-skilled jobs. These workers tend to receive little or no employer training – and are excluded from current government programs.

He suggests that we think about “second chance” programs for this group, to improve their opportunities in the job market later in life and to help fill employer needs for skilled workers.

One option that Mr. Kenney might consider is to give more employed workers access to Employment Insurance (EI) benefits for training leaves, on the model of apprenticeship training. Apprentices qualify for EI benefits when they are away from their regular job for the classroom part of their program.

EI-supported training leaves would allow workers to take a community college or similar training programs – still at some considerable financial sacrifice to themselves, since benefits only replace up to 55 per cent of normal wages and since tuition costs would have to be paid.

Employers could contribute by making sure that a worker could return to the job from which she or he took a leave and, perhaps, by providing a supplementary income if the training program met the needs of their business.

EI-training leaves would empower individual workers to invest in their skills, and help create a higher-skilled work force for the future. Mr. Kenney might consider this option as an alternative to the proposed Canada Jobs Grant, which has won few supporters to date.

This article originally appeared on the Globe & Mail’s Economy Lab.

Photo: Cristiano Betta. Used under a Creative Commons BY 2.0 licence.

Signs Harper Is Gearing Up to Declare War on Unions

Posted on by

Tory tweets, convention chatter and looming legislation hint at what may be coming, say labour advocates.

By Tom Sandborn, Today, TheTyee.ca

“Just wrapped up a meeting with several staff members, at midnight. Good thing they’re not unionized!”

Federal Conservative Employment Minister Jason Kenney’s tweet was the object of some derision on social media in the early hours of Nov. 19. Although quickly deleted, the tweet’s sentiment hit a deep nerve for some trade unionists across the country — particularly those already worried about what the federal Conservatives have in mind for labour legislation in Canada.

A set of non-binding resolutions was adopted earlier this month at the federal Conservative party convention in Calgary. The resolutions include a call on government to reduce wage and benefit levels for civil servants. The resolutions also call for stripping unions of the right to use member dues to support social policy campaigns and other expenditures not part of a set of narrowly-defined workplace issues.

The resolutions, in addition to clauses in Bill C-4, the omnibus budget bill currently before Parliament, aren’t merely expressions of Conservative anti-labour sentiment; according to trade unionists and labour advocates, they signal a growing war on Canadian workers.

For one, trade unionists argue because Tony Clement, Conservative cabinet heavyweight and president of the Treasury Board, supported a resolution at the convention that calls for public-sector wage and benefit roll-backs, it suggests that the Harper majority government may be inclined to implement them.

“We’re not here to buy labour peace through caving in to every single public-sector union boss’s demands,” Clement told The Globe and Mail at the Calgary convention. “We’re not here to do that. We’re here to represent the taxpayer.”

Bob Jackson, vice president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, describes Conservative actions on labour as “an all-out declaration of war on unions, coming from the highest levels of the party.” Jackson traveled to Calgary to participate in a union-sponsored demonstration outside the Calgary Stampede Grounds where the convention took place.

“We have never encountered this level of animosity and ill will from the government before,” Jackson said in an interview. “They want to get rid of us and to strip away things we have maintained for decades.”

Fears over labour gain roll backs

Hassan Yussuff, secretary treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, shares Jackson’s concerns about a turn to more anti-labour confrontations by the government. Yussuff said he thinks Minister Clement is “fixated” on rolling back gains that organized labour has won over the past half century.

Yussuff expressed particular concern about provisions in Bill C-4, the latest signature government omnibus budget bill, that would strip away rights from public-sector workers to refuse unsafe work. He also raised concerns about Bill C-4’s reduction of independent federal work-site safety inspections.

As well, Yussuff highlighted language in the bill that would allow the government to unilaterally define workers as “essential” during a labour dispute, a definition that has previously been negotiated between the employer and public-sector workers.

This power could conceivably allow government to define workers in a particular job setting as essential, rendering strike action impossible.

Simon Fraser University professor Marjorie Griffin-Cohen is also concerned about the Conservatives’ get tough approach to labour, as evidenced both in the Calgary resolutions and the provisions of Bill C-4. In particular, she said the right of unions to use member dues in social policy campaigns is important.

“If trade unions were not active in encouraging governments to deal in fair ways with labour issues, they would be derelict in their support of labour,” Griffin-Cohen told The Tyee via email.

“Corporate spokespeople, of course, are really objecting to labour uniting on political issues — they would much rather every individual work organization deal with their mighty power all by themselves,” she added.

Resolutions ‘not an attack on labour’: CPC activist

If the Harper government is declaring war on organized labour in Canada, John Mortimer has no apparent objections.

Mortimer, president of the Labour Watch Association and a board member of the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, is a prominent spokesperson for Canadian conservatism who ran for Parliament in 2000 for the Canadian Alliance.

“Unionization doesn’t belong in the public sector,” Mortimer said, adding that he does not endorse any specific party because of his role in the taxpayers’ federation.

Mortimer said that Canada is the only country in the world in which unions can collect compulsory dues and spend part of what is collected to campaign on broad social issues like poverty, minimum wage levels and environmental protection.

“Look at what the Canadian Autoworkers did not so long ago. They used auto workers’ dues to bring Saint [David] Suzuki to a meeting to tell the members their industry was ‘disgusting’,” he said. “I have no issue if a union wants to donate to a party or to promote a cause, but they shouldn’t be able to use mandatory dues collected from all of their members to make those donations.”

Vancouver lawyer and Conservative Party activist Scott Lamb, a member of the party’s national council, said there was broad party support at the Calgary convention for the labour-related resolutions. He disagrees with critics who characterize them as a “war.”

“That’s not fair. We are a grassroots party,” he said in an interview. “Those resolutions came from all across the country. They were not an attack on labour.”

The business-friendly Fraser Institute recently weighed in on public sector wages in an April report that suggested public-sector workers have, on average, a 12 per cent better wage level than comparable workers in the private sector, with most of the difference due to the higher level of unionization in the public sector.

The tone of the Institute’s report suggests that it would be better for public employees to have their wages reduced than for private sector workers to earn more in order to address this disparity.

‘Social unionism’ under threat?

Since 1946, after an influential arbitration ruling by Justice Ivan Rand in an auto industry dispute, Canadian labour law has permitted unions to collect dues from all workers in a bargaining unit, whether they choose to join the union or not.

This led to government and the courts allowing unions to use dues not only for narrow job site issues, but also for campaigns, such as the BC Federation of Labour’s long-standing push to increase the minimum wage in British Columbia.

In the early 1990s, for example, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union that “the state objectives in compelling the payment of union dues which can be used to assist causes unrelated to collective bargaining are to enable unions to participate in the broader political, economic and social debates in society, and to contribute to democracy in the workplace.

“These objectives are rationally connected to the means chosen to advance them, that is the requirement that all members of a unionized workplace contribute to union coffers without any guarantee as to how their contributions will be used,” the judgment continues. “An opting-out formula could seriously undermine the unions’ financial base and the spirit of solidarity so important to the emotional and symbolic underpinnings of unionism.”

Unionization in the Canadian private sector is down from 30 per cent in 1997, to 18 per cent last year in both Canada and B.C. Public-sector unionization is just over 70 per cent, even after a 4.7 percent reduction in that sector over the same period — a reduction created mainly by the contracting out of public services to for-profit providers whose workers are often not unionized.

If the recent Tory convention resolutions ever make it into Canadian law, trade unionists worry the kind of “social unionism” described in the Lavigne case will become illegal, and union membership could continue to shrink across the country. [Tyee]

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.”