Tag Archives: Canadian Union of Public Employees

CUPE takes supervisory battle to the next step | Canadian Union of Public Employees

Posted on by

July 22, 2016

CUPE has filed a notice of constitutional question in the cases of three employers who are attempting to unilaterally remove unionized supervisors out of the bargaining unit of their choosing.

The City of Moose Jaw, the Saskatoon Public Library, and Cypress Hills Abilities Centre are some of the first employers in the province to use new provisions under The Saskatchewan Employee Act (SEA) which allow employers to try to remove workers with supervisory duties from the bargaining unit. A fourth employer, the Regina Public Library, has applied to have similar employees removed from the bargaining unit claiming that they are managers.

“Working people have the right to belong to the union of their choosing. CUPE will fight any employer who moves forward with attempting to exclude supervisory members with every tool in our tool box, including legal avenues,” said Tom Graham, president of CUPE Saskatchewan. “Filing a notice of constitutional question is the first step in what could be a very lengthy and expensive legal battle.”

CUPE has serious concerns about the constitutionality of this legislation, as well as the impact the legislation is having on workers.

“This legislative change is causing a lot of stress and uncertainty for union members who have supervisory duties. People are worried about their job security. They are worried about what will happen to their benefits and wages if they get removed from their bargaining unit. They are worried about what their future holds,” added Graham.

CUPE believes that removing supervisors from the bargaining unit is completely unnecessary. Many major employers in the province have already signed irrevocable agreements to keep the status quo arrangement, including the Ministry of Health, SAHO, and the Government of Saskatchewan.

“Saskatchewan is now the only jurisdiction in Canada with this type of legislation. And I can see why,” said Graham. “This legislation is a solution in search of a problem. In my 37 years with CUPE, we have never had a problem with supervisors being in the same bargaining unit as the people they supervise that was not solved through application of the collective agreement.

“It is in both the union and the employer’s interests to maintain the integrity of the current bargaining unit, rather than create a separate bargaining unit within the local for supervisory employees. The status quo has worked and can continue to work.”

Source: CUPE takes supervisory battle to the next step | Canadian Union of Public Employees

Leave no one behind in CPP expansion: Mark Hancock

Posted on by

June 16, 2016

A growing number of business and financial sector voices with histories of strong opposition to expanding the Canada Pension Plan have suddenly accepted that our public, not-for-profit, pension system should grow. Their newfound support, however, comes with many caveats. Their strategy now focuses on ensuring any expansion of the CPP is overly narrow and extremely modest.

Various Chambers of Commerce, financial industry lobby groups, and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association argue that CPP expansion should: 1) not apply to low-income workers, 2) only apply to some middle-income workers and 3) not be the focus for new saving among higher-income earnings, who, in their view, are presumably better served by the for-profit private pension system. The small number of workers remaining who would be affected would only see a “modest” increase to CPP benefits.

These carve-outs would have significant consequences.

All workers currently participate on an equal basis in the CPP. Adding new exceptions for workers at certain income levels would make it more complicated and costly to operate the plan. More contributions would be used to pay administrative and compliance costs instead of being invested. A simple universal expansion of CPP is the more efficient solution.

Cutting low-income workers out of CPP expansion will also encourage employers to game the system. If new CPP contributions and benefits only applied on earnings above $27,500 as some are suggesting, employers would have yet another incentive to offer lower-wage, lower-hours jobs – keeping total earnings below this threshold would keep payroll costs down. This would lead to a new incentive to split full-time positions into precarious part-time positions. Canada’s governments should not be encouraging precarious employment by building these incentives into the CPP. Canadian workers deserve more good jobs and our governments should be fighting to keep them.

If Finance Ministers are concerned with the retirement prospects of low-income Canadians, CPP expansion should not be carved up. Low-income Canadians would see their retirement incomes rise like others under a bigger CPP. If Finance Ministers are concerned about the impact of the GIS clawback on these workers, they should address that particular mechanism rather than undermine the universal CPP.

Polling shows Canadians of all income levels, including low-income Canadians, strongly support CPP expansion. This federal government clearly campaigned on commitment to expand the CPP without reference to any new caveats.

As the salespeople for many for-profit private retirement products, Canada’s insurance industry has a long track record in lobbying against CPP reform.  Canadians pay the highest mutual fund fees in the world in their RRSPs and these companies like it that way.

The insurance industry ran a massive campaign that tried to kill the CPP before it was born in the 1960s. The Canadian labour movement, on the other hand, was rightly skeptical that most workers would be able to achieve a pension plan at work, leading to our call for CPP benefits to be set at a much higher level. A middle ground was ultimately chosen, establishing a public pension plan with overly modest benefits. Political leaders at the time believed workplace pension plans would grow – enough to fill the gap left by the modest CPP. This hasn’t happened, and the basic benefit target of the CPP remains basically the same as when it was established.

Unions pushed for a doubling of CPP benefits in the 1980s,as the private pension system was not working for most Canadian workers. The insurance industry and other business groups successfully quashed CPP expansion, arguing that workplace pension coverage and private savings vehicles would grow and expand over coming decades.

These business groups were proven spectacularly wrong. Workplace pension coverage has been on a decline ever since. It’s no surprise we are facing a retirement crisis.

If we had listened to the insurance industry in the 1960s, we wouldn’t have a CPP today. If we hadn’t listened to them in the 1980s, Canadian baby boomers would be retiring with bigger CPP benefits today, instead of the justified anxiety of the retirement insecurity our failed system has left them with. The picture for their children looks even bleaker – unless something is done today.

Our Finance Ministers should reflect on this history next week as they weigh the latest, flawed advice from the insurance industry about CPP.

The labour movement’s message has been simple for the past 50 years: the CPP works very well in terms of coverage, benefit security and inflation protection. Its only flaw is that its benefits are too modest. It should be expanded for all Canadian workers. Relying too heavily on our private, for-profit retirement system has not and will not work for most Canadians.

Canadians are overwhelmingly behind the simple idea of setting aside a bit more today for a decent and secure retirement. Our Finance Ministers have an obligation to listen to Canadians, and universally expand the CPP.

Mark Hancock is national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Representing over 635,000 members across the country, it is Canada’s largest union.

Home

Source: Leave no one behind in CPP expansion: Mark Hancock

Federal Budget 2016 in depth: Infrastructure | Canadian Union of Public Employees

Posted on by

Apr 18, 2016

Summary

As promised and expected, the 2016 federal budget focuses extensively on infrastructure. While the proposed spending falls short of the Liberals’ promise to provide an immediate injection of $5 billion into the economy, it does outline a substantial output of $11.9 billion over the next five years, much of which will be available immediately.

The infrastructure spending will come in two phases. The first phase begins in 2016 and comprises the $11.9 billion, allocated in three major areas:

  • infrastructure ($3.4 billion)
  • Water, wastewater, and green infrastructure ($5 billion)
  • Social infrastructure such as affordable housing and child care ($3.4 billion)

Phase one has been described as the “maintenance” phase, where existing infrastructure or already-planned infrastructure projects will receive a necessary influx of federal cash. To this end, a number of new funds, such as the Public Transit Infrastructure Fund, have been established to manage disbursement. The government will also leverage existing funds, such as the Gas Tax Fund, to target infrastructure priorities. Finally, the government plans to download some of the fund management to partners such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities – which will deliver $250 million of new funding to its members for various infrastructure projects – and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation – which will participate in the design of affordable housing strategies.

Phase two of the infrastructure funding will commence in two years, and will be focus on larger long-term goals such as transitioning to a clean and green economy, and facilitating a greater capacity for global trade.

The Good

There are a number of aspects of the federal budget’s infrastructure plan that appear positive. Generally speaking, the Liberal government has halted the previous government’s trend of reduced social spending and austerity budgets. Increased infrastructure spending is the right move in a stagnant economic period, when borrowing costs are relatively low.

More specifically, we are pleased to see the government:

  • Remove the public-private partnership (P3) screen on large infrastructure projects, and the P3 requirement on transit projects.
  • Commit to funding up to 50 per cent of most infrastructure projects, rather than maintain the previous 1/3 ratio. Many communities would have been unable to meet the previous financial threshold, so this is a welcome change.
  • Focus on the importance of water-related infrastructure, particularly on First Nation reserves.
  • Focus on affordable housing, including housing for seniors, for the homeless, and for those fleeing domestic violence.
  • Commit to green infrastructure, including the integration of climate resiliency into building standards. In particular, we applaud the commitment to environmentally-conscious repairs and retrofits for federal infrastructure, which includes an exploration of alternative energy sources.

The Bad

While this budget reverses the previous government’s move to shackle public infrastructure spending to the private sector, the current government’s infrastructure plan establishes an open and fertile ecosystem for privatization. Indeed, the budget specifically mentions that the government will “examine new innovative financing instruments” and “engage public pension plans and other innovative sources of funding” to get projects moving. It also states the government’s interest in so-called “asset recycling” – one of the newest terms used for the privatization of public assets to for-profit interests.

Most of the evidence suggests that when public services and public assets are privatized, costs are higher and quality suffers. The private ownership of infrastructure – even if that owner is a workers’ pension plan – represents a real diminishment in value for Canadians. It is both ironic and unfortunate that the loosening of P3 requirements by the Liberals may result in a proliferation of privatization fights over infrastructure.

In addition to its gestures toward privatization, the amounts allocated in the budget are not sufficient to close the infrastructure gap in Canada. Furthermore, we note that a financial commitment and a capacity to carry out that commitment are very different things. Already, for example, Engineers Canada has speculated publicly about the shortage of engineers prepared to carry out this work, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has pointed out that detailed spending requirements have not yet been established.

The Fix

While the federal budget displays an important commitment to infrastructure spending, we call on the government to bolster this commitment – in policy and/or in subsequent budgets – with the following:

  • Implement strict rules around transparency and accountability for public-private partnerships.
  • Eliminate PPP Canada Inc. and redirect the $1.25 billion P3 Canada Fund to public infrastructure projects.
  • Ensure that federal money only goes to projects with clear ethical procurement policies.
  • Maintain basic oversight over projects that receive infrastructure funding to ensure shovels in the ground as quickly as possible.

CUPE will continue to encourage our members, and other labour organizations, to:

  • Speak out against the privatization of infrastructure in your communities.
  • Resist moves by municipalities to enter into P3 arrangements for infrastructure and public services.
  • Challenge the administrators and trustees of pension plans to move away from investment in P3s for infrastructure, and support investments that renew and strengthen public ownership and control.

Source: Federal Budget 2016 in depth: Infrastructure | Canadian Union of Public Employees

TPP: Urgent need for full, independent assessment | Canadian Union of Public Employees

Posted on by

Apr 18, 2016

Hearings into the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership kicked off in Vancouver with a stark warning from the Trade Justice Network about the deal’s many negative consequences, and an urgent call for a comprehensive, public and independent assessment of the pact.

TJN co-chair Blair Redlin told members of the House of Commons Committee on International Trade there is no rush to ratify the TPP, and every reason for a proper economic, social and environmental evaluation of the deal. CUPE is a member of the Trade Justice Network.

Outside the hearings, demonstrators rallied against Canada ratifying the deal, and advocacy group OpenMedia organized a giant TV screen displaying protest messages from across the country.

Redlin told the committee the TPP’s main goal is to protect foreign investors by securing and expanding corporate rights. The deal is less about trade, as 97 per cent of Canada’s exports to TPPcountries are already duty-free.

The TPP’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system will let foreign corporations sue governments if a law or regulation interferes with their investments – and profits. Under theseNAFTA-style rules, Canada is already the most-sued developed country. Expanding access to this one-sided process could mean a spike in new cases.

The TPP’s controversial ISDS rules will limit government powers to regulate in the public interest, including by supporting industries that create good local jobs, and protecting the environment. A government investing in transit or wind turbines could face challenges for favouring local procurement.

Ratifying the TPP comes at a high price, said Redlin. Independent analysis of the deal has found it will:

  • Cost Canada 58,000 jobs
  • Increase income inequality
  • Limit access to generic drugs, which in turn will drive up health care costs
  • Let corporations move to countries with cheaper labour and weaker labour laws
  • Hurt Canada’s agricultural, manufacturing and technology sectors
  • Threaten internet freedom

Redlin highlighted the outcomes of a recent TJN-sponsored forum, where Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz described the TPP as the “worst trade deal ever.”

The TPP was finalized by the former Harper government during last year’s federal election, and then signed by the new Liberal government. Consultations on the deal have been limited, poorly publicized, and have appeared to favour the voices of corporations – not citizens.

Source: TPP: Urgent need for full, independent assessment | Canadian Union of Public Employees

Liberals shouldn’t sign Harper’s TPP deal

Posted on by

The massive Trans-Pacific Partnership puts corporations, not Canadians, first and the federal Liberal government should not sign it.

Representatives of the 12 countries involved in the TPP are gathering in New Zealand Feb. 4 to sign the far-reaching treaty.

The deal was reached in the dying days of the Harper Conservative government and during a federal election. The full text was only made public in November. The new government is still analyzing the 6,000-page text and has yet to carry out an economic impact assessment. So why the rush to sign?

“You or I would never sign a contract without reading the fine print,” said CUPE National President Mark Hancock. “But that’s exactly what the Liberals are about to do. It’s a serious mistake that will have consequences for decades to come.”

What we already know about the TPP is bad news.

The TPP gives new rights to the world’s richest corporations, while workers and the environment lose ground. The deal supports privatization, will drive down wages, and increases the cost of health care and education. A recent study shows Canada will lose at least 58,000 jobs in the first decade under the TPP.

Independent analysis confirms the TPP is not about helping Canadian exports – 97 per cent of our exports to TPP countries are already duty-free.

The TPP extends the length of patents on prescription drugs – a move that could cost our health care system up to $630 million a year, and is a major roadblock to a universal national prescription drug program. The TPP’s longer and stricter copyright protections could mean higher costs for schools, universities and libraries.

The TPP’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system will let foreign corporations sue governments if a law or regulation interferes with their investments – and profits. Under these NAFTA-style rules, Canada is already the most-sued developed country.

“Governments, not corporations, should set our country’s laws and policies. The TPP stands in the way of immediate and bold action on climate change,” said CUPE National Secretary-Treasurer Charles Fleury.

The Harper government tried to buy its way around some of the deal’s consequences, promising billions in compensation for auto parts makers, as well as dairy, egg and chicken farmers. And the full social and economic costs of the TPP are only now being tallied.

“The TPP is a corporate rights deal. It rewrites laws and regulations in the interests of big business, at the expense of citizens and the environment,” said Hancock. “Canada should not sign this dangerous deal.”

Source: Liberals shouldn’t sign Harper’s TPP deal