Strike Vote 2004

Months of negotiations with the Treasury Board have led to nothing but an unacceptable offer. Under the current deal, increases to salary are dismal, job security is not guaranteed and our proposals on many other issues have been rejected.

Why vote YES?

A strong YES vote supports our bargaining teams. It gives them the power to push harder for our demands. The employer must see all of us when they look across the table, not just the representatives we elect. We need a YES vote to do this.

Our teams are made up of members like you. At a personal level, a strong YES vote says, “We’re with you and we appreciate the work you’re doing.”

The employer wants a cheap deal. If we want a fair deal, we have to stand up for it. We deserve a better offer and a strong YES vote is how we say so.

In past rounds of bargaining, the employer tested us with low-ball offers. We always replied with a forceful YES vote that gave our bargaining teams the necessary mandate to carry on. We have to do the same thing again. Your YES vote sends the message that we deserve better.

Does a YES vote mean there will be a strike?

A Yes vote means the union can call a strike if an agreement cannot be reached. No one wants a strike, but the best way to avoid one is to show the employer we’re ready to strike. Being ready to strike tells the employer that only a fair deal will do.

The goal is a fair deal without a strike. Reaching it requires being prepared to strike.

SALARY

Your salary

Pay is a key issue in bargaining. It affects how we live now and how well our pensions provide for us in the future. True to form, the employer is seeking a cheap pay deal in this bargaining round. We deserve better.

Lost ground

On pay issues, we have lost more ground than we can afford. Since 1991, the pay increases for members at Table 1 have totaled 19.4% while the average in the private sector was 31.5%. Over the same period, the Consumer Price Index has risen by 31.1%. Can we simply walk away from those losses? Can we afford to see our standard of living decline even further?

What are we asking for?

We are looking to make up lost ground from the 1990’s and for real increases in our standard of living. The main points in our proposal are:

• A 5% increase in each of the first three years of a 42 month agreement and a 3% increase in the final six months.
• The addition of an increment, equal to 4%, to the top of each pay scale in each of the first and second years of the contract.
• A cost of living allowance (COLA) to protect us against inflation.
• Pay adjustments:For CR, CM, DA, OE and ST groups, recognition of their work compared with other members at Table 1 or with jobs outside government.

  For PM-02 positions at the former HRDC (Investigation and Control Officers, Insurance Officers, Programs Officers, Outreach Officers, Program Integrity Officers and Labour Market Information Officers), recognition of their work when compared to similar jobs outside HRDC.

Instead of a constructive discussion of our economic proposal, we received a ridiculous offer from the employer.

What the employer is offering

Rather than discuss our proposals seriously, the employer is offering only this:

• A three-year contract with a 1.75% increase in the first year and increases of 1.25% in each of the second and third years.
• No additional increments.
• No COLA.
• No pay adjustments.

The ground we lost in the 1990’s will be extended with this offer.

We deserve better

The erosion of our standard of living must end and we need to move forward. A strong YES vote will give our bargaining teams the mandate they need. It will send the message to the employer that we are serious.

With a budget surplus of $5 billion, the government can afford a reasonable settlement. They know it. We know it.

Vote YES on the strike ballot.

JOB SECURITY

Your job

When an employer that cut 50,000 jobs in the last 10 years shows a renewed interest in privatization and contracting out, job security becomes a top issue in bargaining.

The Martin government assumed power in December 2003, and it immediately announced an Expenditure Review to determine the activities or programs that should or could be transferred to the private/voluntary sector.

After what we have been through over the past 10 years, we deserve better.

How serious are they?

The Martin government is very serious about privatization and contracting out. Their program of Expenditure Review leaves little to the imagination and they have appointed MP John McKay as an official cheerleader for Public Private Partnerships (P3’s). In his position as the parliamentary secretary for Public Private Partnerships, McKay recently gushed, “…I’m impressed by the creativity that’s going on between public and private partners.” There can be no doubt about the government’s wish list.

What are we asking for?

We are seeking to protect our jobs through a three-part proposal:

• Only those covered by the contract will perform the work we normally do, except for past practices and emergencies;
• No lay-offs for the life of the new contract;
• No contracting out of our work for the life of the new contract.

Simple. Straightforward. No more job cuts.

What the employer is offering

The employer has refused to deal with our proposals for job security.

We deserve better

We have seen the public service devastated by cuts in the 1990’s. The members who left paid a high price, as did those who remained. And the public paid a high price in the quality of service provided and the level of accountability that could be maintained.

Vote YES on the strike ballot.

OTHER ISSUES

Your contract

Salary and job security issues are crucial for us, but a good contract should have more. Unfortunately, our employer doesn’t think so. At the table, the Treasury Board has turned away our proposals on important issues. We deserve better.

What are we asking for?

• Leave: Members deserve time away from work, both for relief from their workloads and to meet needs presented by children and aging parents. We have proposed a number of improvements in areas such as vacation and family related leave. In addition, we have asked that unused sick leave credits be paid out on retirement, death or other termination of employment.
• Hours of work: We are proposing a 35-hour work week to bring us into line with many others performing similar work in Canada.
• Term employees: The employer continues to abuse term employees by requiring three years of service before gaining indeterminate status. We are seeking to reduce that to two years.
• Whistleblower protection: We are asking for whistleblower protection in our contracts to shield members who come forward in the interest of the public.

What the employer is offering

The employer has not responded positively to any of these proposals. Instead, they have proposed roll-backs.

For members working variable hours, the Treasury Board wants to roll back the contract to circumvent the cases we won at adjudication on the “day is a day” issue. They are also seeking roll-backs on marriage leave provisions.

This is no way to negotiate.

We deserve better

We are looking for a reasonable agreement on these issues, nothing more. The employer is looking for something quite different. Send them the message that serious bargaining is needed.

Vote YES on the strike ballot.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

In addition to voting, there is plenty you can do to participate in the current round of bargaining. It’s your future. We encourage you to make your voice heard.

Local meetings

Talk to other members face-to-face about the issues. Host or attend local meetings to discuss your questions and concerns. Invite CEIU National Vice-Presidents and staff to speak at your meeting. Call or e-mail them directly. They would be happy to answer questions and share their thoughts at your event.

Virtual meetings

Use this website to reach out to other members nation-wide. Post your thoughts in the Discussion Forum.

Wear your support

Speak out without saying a word. Wear a CEIU button to send the message we deserve better.