Not at all that is only first year, does not count strike pay does not count what was protected in sick days, payout over life of contract is positive, all rolls into higher pension for life after retirement, union won financially by a mile. You need to look at this as an "all in economic view."
The final garbage strike thread
- Thread starter Questor
- Start date
Sorry, you're mistaken.Mrbig1949 said:
Let me clarify and be more accurate since you provided no specifics but generalities.
- loss of wages for 5 1/2 weeks based on $40,000 per year is $4,231
- it's 6% over 3 years, not just in the first year as you state, therefore increase is $2,400
- strike pay is $1,100
Therefore, loss is $4,231 -$2,400 - $1,100 = $731
Protecting sick days is not a gain, but status quo. Also pension is based on the best 5 consecutive years salary, not including overtime, strike pay, etc.. The key word is consecutive so this year will be a low one so they will have to start all over again and in five more years it will become financial beneficial for them. That's assuming the pension stays the same which can easily change due to the economy and will probably be on the agenda for change on the next round of negotiations in 3 years.
So, you're comment about the union won by a mile is slightly embellished, lol.
Mia.Colpa said:
Well the $1100 was paid by the union so that is still a loss to the workers although individual workers may feel that the union dues are really just another form of taxes technically the $1100 belonged to the workers at some level.
This is where you are wrong again
Even if this was not a great year it protects and extends the base wage for the eventual pension payout, a wage that the worker is at for manybe 30 years with survivor benefits for the spouse so the union has to take some lumps here and there to protect the end rate and to remind management how miserable a strike is for them so they don't push too hard next time. The only true comparison is the last city offer before the strike began and the settlement projected forward and compounded over a workers career and pension years. The union knows this, they have their own accountants and economists.
Your perspective is as an outsider. They re fighting for their lives.
Mia.Colpa said:
Even if this was not a great year it protects and extends the base wage for the eventual pension payout, a wage that the worker is at for manybe 30 years with survivor benefits for the spouse so the union has to take some lumps here and there to protect the end rate and to remind management how miserable a strike is for them so they don't push too hard next time. The only true comparison is the last city offer before the strike began and the settlement projected forward and compounded over a workers career and pension years. The union knows this, they have their own accountants and economists.
Your perspective is as an outsider. They re fighting for their lives.
What in the world is this drivel???? Again, you give no specifics, just generalizations. It's very hard to debate with such airy fairy comments. Unless you provide details, I'll end this useless debate.Mrbig1949 said:
btw, I'm not an outsider, I know a lot about this contract than you think and what happend in the last CUPE strike where the initial threat of curtailing the sick bank started and I knew it was going to get tougher this time around. In 3 years from now, the sick bank will be completely taken away, if it's not done now if councillors vote against ratifying. So no, the next round will be tougher on the union and not the city as the public is really, really pissed off at the union, much more than they're pissed off at Miller.
You have a lot to learn about long term projections
What matters, I will say this slowly for you, is the size of the pension so the union needs to max the wages at the senior end of the agreement. I have been in unions long enough to know the bargainers will have to sell the members on THE END RATE. Not one member in the room will net out the lost wages against the raise for 2009 and say they lost.
Mia.Colpa said:
What matters, I will say this slowly for you, is the size of the pension so the union needs to max the wages at the senior end of the agreement. I have been in unions long enough to know the bargainers will have to sell the members on THE END RATE. Not one member in the room will net out the lost wages against the raise for 2009 and say they lost.
Mrbig1949 said:
what % increase was the city offering before the strike? was it less than 6% over 3 yrs? what was the net difference in %?
Last time for you MB to clearly understand, I've asked you three times to provide specific examples and you haven't, just generalizations. I don't debate with anyone that doesn't have the capability or capacity to do so. This is a waste of my time. I've read many of your posts on various threads and you're incapable of being specific to back up any of your claims. Have a nice life.
Mrbig1949 said:
Which really doesn't say much AGAIN. You hit it on the head when you said the bargainers will have to sell it to the members. Not a tough sell when it's clear not many people in these locals don 't have a triple digit IQ and they've already bought the CUPE BS to this point. It's still out of pocket money, not potential money. Mind you they probably made up some with the part-time jobs they had on the side.
Last edited:
Mia.Colpa said:
the net loss is actually greater since the city was obviously going to offer an annual raise even if they didnt strike. so the lost wages should be netted out against the difference in what the city originally offered and what they got now.
Again you would like it to be there concern but it is not their concern.
One number matters to the union members THE END RATE.
This is the one that effects their lifetime earnings and pension. As mentioned above this in/out question for 2009 will not even come up at ratification meetings.
babyfinsta said:
One number matters to the union members THE END RATE.
This is the one that effects their lifetime earnings and pension. As mentioned above this in/out question for 2009 will not even come up at ratification meetings.
Someone help me here. Wasn't the offer accepted by the union the same one tabled in March. I'd really be happy if I'd gone out on strike for 6 weeks and then be told to accept a package I could have been benefiting from 5 months ago.
When the strike started, WasteCo -- who handle private garbage pick-up for condos and apartments, went to the courts and got an immediate injunction preventing the unions from keeping them at bay from the transfer stations for more than 30 seconds.
When the strike began, the City was in a legal position to do the same. They chose not to. The City was also within its legal rights to hire contract workers to clear the mounting garbage. They chose not to. Rather than hold regular Council meetings to ensure the running of the City, they chose not to cross picket lines.
Miller and his cabal failed us at every turn. They allowed CUPE to 'declare' their intent to walk away from the bargaining table, giving our illustrious Mayor an excuse to hand over everything including the kitchen sink. The thing is, if the union did indeed walk away, they would've lost out in the long-term. It would've given Council incentive to hire replacement workers, get injunctions for the removal of garbage. This would've disempowered CUPE even further.
Miller couldn't let that stand.
When the strike began, the City was in a legal position to do the same. They chose not to. The City was also within its legal rights to hire contract workers to clear the mounting garbage. They chose not to. Rather than hold regular Council meetings to ensure the running of the City, they chose not to cross picket lines.
Miller and his cabal failed us at every turn. They allowed CUPE to 'declare' their intent to walk away from the bargaining table, giving our illustrious Mayor an excuse to hand over everything including the kitchen sink. The thing is, if the union did indeed walk away, they would've lost out in the long-term. It would've given Council incentive to hire replacement workers, get injunctions for the removal of garbage. This would've disempowered CUPE even further.
Miller couldn't let that stand.
evilsgood said:
A lot of truth there. Considering what the union said they would only accept, 3% and status quo, they sure didn't get it. They may have had a plan B but it probably was arbitration which would heavily favour them. I understand that 20% of the local work force is over 55, the younger folks have more ambition and are not lifers, and that should speed up the buy outs ad new hires bring the end game closer faster. It will be interesting to watch how many and how fast people, lifers and those with some marketable skills, will take the buy outs.
WoodPeckr said:Congrats!
About time the good guys won!....
Where'd you come from or are you taking a page out of MB's book and just mouthing off, regardless of merit, and looking for reactions?
The end rate is the amount that the worker is making...
With his/her last raise before the expiration of this contract. It is the same as the last wage the worker makes before the next contract is negotiated. This is the prime directive as they say on Star Trek so the workers can "Live Long and Prosper". At a mass union meeting this is the focus. Workers will even agree to take a lower total wage during the life of a contract in order to maximize the end rate. There are a series of raises in most contracts scheduled throughout the life of the contract. The union will take lower raises on these know as the splits, in order to maximize the last one and reach the highest wage possible even if it is on the last day.
If you attend the CUPE ratification meeting not one worker will get up and say with a calculator in one hand, I just did a calculation and for 2009 I lost money compared to what I would have made if there was no strike. This is not because of intimidation, it is because nobody cares about this.
Do you understand now? This End Rate wage is the platform for the next contract and the driver for the eventual pension. Unions even at the local level tend to be run be senior members who have their focus on the wages of 50 year olds and the pension thereafter.
That is why some will "trade off" the sick days of new members. Sad but true.
babyfinsta said:
With his/her last raise before the expiration of this contract. It is the same as the last wage the worker makes before the next contract is negotiated. This is the prime directive as they say on Star Trek so the workers can "Live Long and Prosper". At a mass union meeting this is the focus. Workers will even agree to take a lower total wage during the life of a contract in order to maximize the end rate. There are a series of raises in most contracts scheduled throughout the life of the contract. The union will take lower raises on these know as the splits, in order to maximize the last one and reach the highest wage possible even if it is on the last day.
If you attend the CUPE ratification meeting not one worker will get up and say with a calculator in one hand, I just did a calculation and for 2009 I lost money compared to what I would have made if there was no strike. This is not because of intimidation, it is because nobody cares about this.
Do you understand now? This End Rate wage is the platform for the next contract and the driver for the eventual pension. Unions even at the local level tend to be run be senior members who have their focus on the wages of 50 year olds and the pension thereafter.
That is why some will "trade off" the sick days of new members. Sad but true.
Similar threads
