Tag Archives: cupe

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

Stop trade deals that undermine local power – CUPE

Posted on by

May 27, 2016

Canadians want their communities governed in the public interest. But increasingly, trade deals like the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) threaten municipal rights and powers in favour of the interests of multinational corporations.

While the Canadian government has signed the TPP and CETA, both can still be blocked during the upcoming ratification process. There are many reasons why the federal government should not ratify either of these deals.

Canada is a trading nation and international trade is vital to all levels of our economy. But trade agreements must put the interests of Canadians before corporate profits. Modern trade deals like CETA and the TPP are more about expanding corporate rights and powers, and less about trade.

In fact, trade between Canada and its 11 TPP partners is already 97 per cent tariff free. The TPP’s 6,000 pages are mainly focused on giving corporations the power to challenge laws and regulations which affect their investments – and profits – in signatory countries where they do business. Both the CETA and TPP would give corporations the right to challenge, and potentially overturn, Canadian laws and regulations.

Unlike the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), CETA will fully cover Canadian municipalities. While the TPP does not currently cover subnational governments, like provinces and municipalities, Article 15.24 mandates Canada to begin negotiations to expand coverage, including to subnational governments no later than three years after the deal comes into force.

Trading away our democracy 

The TPP’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions, are similar to rules set out in NAFTA and CETA. The TPP’s investor arbitration rules will let transnational corporations bypass our public court system and sue governments over legislation or policies made in the public interest. The claims will be heard by secretive, pro-investor arbitration panels. It only takes two of three arbitrators – all corporate lawyers whose pay depends on the number of cases – to override legislation enacted by democratically-elected governments. This gives multinational corporations excessive power to undermine the authority of cities, provinces and the federal government to create reasonable rules and regulations such as environmental, health and labour safeguards; climate policy, food safety standards; protections for local jobs and businesses. As an example, when the Canadian government banned the import of a neuro-toxic gasoline additive called MMT, the US producer sued under NAFTA’s investment protections. Canada was forced to agree on a $13 million dollar settlement and reverse the ban.

CETA’s dispute settlement mechanism has recently been rebranded as Investor Court System (ICS) in order to make it sound more palatable. However, the accompanying cosmetic changes do little to prevent abuses from investors and arbitrators.

Locking in privatization and corporate profits

Under international trade rules, municipalities may find it expensive to bring a utility or service back in house, even if the costs of private delivery have sky-rocketed, or privatization has failed. Both CETA and the TPP ‘lock in’ privatization, and could make any attempt to bring contracted-out services back in house the target of an investor-state claim.

Similarly, living wage policies could trigger challenges. In 2012, the French utility company Veolia, present in some Canadian municipalities, launched a $115 million suit against the Egyptian government, under a bilateral investment treaty. The dispute stems from the City of Alexandria refusing to revise a waste disposal contract to meet higher costs, in part due to the introduction of a minimum wage.

Municipalities that want to favour local solar and wind energy over polluting fossil fuels may also face trade-related barriers. Under NAFTA, almost 40 per cent of investor claims using ISDS have challenged environmental regulations. A recent example is TransCanada Corporation suing the US government for $15 billion, after a democratically-elected president rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline over environmental concerns, and under mounting public pressure.

Driving up health, education costs

Major patent extensions in both CETA and the TPP will increase the price of prescription drugs as much as $2 billion per year, by some estimates. Drug costs are already the second-highest cost for provincial governments. Rising costs will mean pressure on municipal transfers and programs. Municipalities can also expect similar impacts on the costs of health benefit plans for employers.

Similarly, the TPP’s US-style copyright extensions will increase the time it takes for materials to fall into the public domain from 50 to 70 years. That will translate into up to $100 million per year in higher costs for municipal libraries, post-secondary libraries and public education more broadly.

Opening up municipal procurement

The total government procurement market in Canada is worth at least $100 billion per year. CETA will give access to provincial and municipal contracts and purchasing. The thresholds are so low (near $300,000 for goods and services contracts and $8 million for infrastructure projects) that most procurement contracts will be open to European firms. This will severely limit the ability of municipalities, school districts and other local authorities to establish ‘buy local’ or ‘buy Canadian’ policies. This would include banning measures that protect or promote local business opportunities and local jobs when municipalities contract for goods and services. Strategic purchasing strategies that promote local green jobs and local food policies may also be at risk.

Municipalities will likely also face increased costs associated with providing the federal government with information about their procurement activities. This includes publishing detailed notices and announcements of intended procurement, issuing tenders which comply with CETA procedures, and justifying procurement decisions to unsuccessful suppliers.

Need for more transparency and public debate

The investor protections and dispute settlement provisions included in both the TPP and CETA give too much power to corporations, at the expense of our democracy. Nobel Laureate and world-renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz recently described the TPP as “the worst trade deal ever.” And investor rights in CETA have sparked massive mobilizations across Europe.

Canada’s experience with NAFTA has meant the loss of between 300,000 and 400,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs, declining wages and a hollowing out of the middle class. Implementing the TPP and CETA will only entrench this new economic structure and further increase inequality.

More than 70 Canadian municipalities have passed resolutions expressing concern or asking to be exempted from CETA. Canadian municipalities are now beginning to pass resolutions raising similar concerns about the TPP. Cities and towns can use their voice at the table in provincial and federal forums to call for a real public debate and full, independent analysis of these trade agreements. Let’s ensure our public services, municipal rights and local democracy are not traded away.

For more information about CETA and the TPP visit cupe.ca/trade

Attachments Stop trade deals that undermine local power

Source: Stop trade deals that undermine local power – CUPE

Asbestos ban is a good start but we need a registry, says Hancock | CUPE

Posted on by

May 11, 2016

Following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s announcement that the federal government is “moving forward on a ban” of asbestos, CUPE National President Mark Hancock reiterated CUPE’s call for a comprehensive ban of the deadly substance.

“Asbestos is killing CUPE members. It’s been a serious hazard for decades. We’re happy to hear the government is moving on this issue, and we want to see them do the right thing by introducing a comprehensive ban,” said Hancock.

A comprehensive ban means, among other measures:

  • Banning the use, export and import of all asbestos-containing materials
  • Establishing an expert panel to make recommendations for implementation of the ban
  • Creating registries of cases of asbestos-related diseases and buildings used by the public that contain asbestos.

The Canadian Labour Congress has a detailed description of what a comprehensive ban would look like here.

“The government has to do more than just say ‘we’re banning it.’ We need to find out exactly where it is, so workers can take the appropriate actions to protect themselves from exposure. We need to prevent exposures, and support workers who have been exposed. It’s about protecting workers and protecting Canadians,” said Hancock.

Trudeau made the announcement on Tuesday at a building trades unions policy conference in Ottawa. No details or timetables for imposing a ban have been released. In April, CUPE joined the CLC in lobbying the federal government about implementing a comprehensive ban, and sent a letter to the prime ministeron the issue.

CUPE has been calling for a full ban of asbestos for decades, but successive governments have been slow to act and sometimes even worked counter to the cause, despite overwhelming evidence of the serious harm caused by exposure. Every year approximately 2,000 Canadians die from asbestos-related diseases.

Learn more about asbestos here.

Source: Asbestos ban is a good start but we need a registry, says Hancock | Canadian Union of Public Employees

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