Ya, like they needed improved wages and benefits.

….and Justice is served!! Nice to see that Shari Green and her henchmen new they were in deep, Kudos to the Union folks for standing their ground against a Dictator of a Mayor!!!!!

Now…let the Bitching and Whining begin, have at it Palopu, Axman, Hartguy LOL!! Say what you must but its a clear victory for the Union and rightfully so :)

Honestly the Bargaining Committee kinda caved. A strike would have really messed the organization up due to the complexities of Essential Services bargaining. If we had walked out, we could have gotten more. I suspect that the Union was deliberately avoiding inconveniencing anyone. Those of you who they avoided inconveniencing, your appreciation is appreciated. :)

Wow… so quite, I can almost hear the sound of winter crickets. Guess we won’t be hearing from the bellyachers, and whiners until 2017 ;-)

Well said People#1……the silence is deafening LOL!

If you guys could read, you would know that I predicted pretty close to what the Union got.

In addition I predicted that Management would sell us out in the last two years of the contract, which it appears they did.

Easy to do when taxpayers have to pay for both sides of the negotiations.

Giving up one day of sick pay is nothing more than a milk sop. A victory for the Union means a loss for taxpayers.

In any event this should end the bargaining until 2017 when the Unions will come back asking for more. Whats new.

CrysBaron is a one song crooner, so hopefully we will not hear from him again until 2017.

Well said also Cityworker, And congrats to you and your fellow Cityworkers, as you do a Very underappreciated job and I for one am glad to see Labor peace and the workers get a fair deal!!

Well, it’s official! Looks like council caved from their 0,0 and 2% offer, which was more than generous considering the excessive wage increases over the previous 5 year term!

Give up one sick day? Now that makes me want to puke!!

Looks like the average taxpayer got screwed again!!

In this case, I think both sides compromised. I was predicting a 1%, 1%, 2% in the first three years.

I think both sides should be congratulated, imagine if we lived in a would where there was no compromise? There would be a lot more bad feelings, disputes, and even violence.

Good job City and CUPE :-)

And in the end, the taxpayers lose. No surprise.

now that it’s over would someone please plow Juniper St.

Still no plow after 2 large snowfalls and another on the way. Too busy congratulating themselves I guess.

Over a 4 year period, the wages part of the new contract will increase the end of December 2012 wage by 5.34%

The pervious contract was over 5 years. The first 4 years of that contract (so that we are closer to comparing apples to apples) increased the wage by 12.55%.

So tell me, which one of you had the inside information on the union’s side of what they were prepared to settle when they started negotiation …. what was their bottom line?

I would also like to know from any of you what that was for the employer’s side.

Unless you know that, you really do not know who “won” this battle.

As far as snow goes, it looks like it will continue relatively warm, with an average of 5cm of snow per day over he next two weeks.

Actually, I made a mistake. The increase is 4.82% plus a .5% bonus which is a one time payment in 2014 which is not incremented in the wage rate.

Just got back half an hour ago from doing some banking at Pine Centre Mall. I counted five (5) loaders clearing their parking lot, and one dump truck with a extra trailer in tow.

I watched in awe at how bust they were, one of the loaders was equipped with a blade, rather than a bucket.

No doubt about where the money and power is at in this town! Business and industry has it all hands down!

So tomorrow, when you struggle to keep your vehicle in control on our snow clogged streets, and you happen to pass by Pine Centre Mall, turn in an drive around on their “private property”, then drive back onto our snow clogged city streets.

Keep in mind all the while, City Hall has cut business and industry tax rates over the past two consecutive years, while increasing our (Joe and Jane Doe taxpayer’s) rates.

I’m pleased CUPE and the City finally reached an amicable agreement. Now let’s please see if we can address issues within the ranks of management. Stewardship begins at all levels but it is the bosses that call the shots.

I believe commercial property has been taxed at about the same percentage of the total tax burden for some time. It is one of the lowest in the province.

It is the province that has cut a bit of business taxes over the years.

The snow clearing contractors have fairly steady business with the parking lot owners. Several years ago the City indicated that was the problem. Business was the #1 client. The City came up behind them. They are not about to switch to the City which cannot guarantee them a thing.

That is one of the problems this City has. They are second fiddle.

Most pathetic deal I have seen. The city should have been shut down. Band Perry and all then they would have been forced to bargain properly. Instead the members just voted because they are tired of this crap. The bargaining committee caved. That deal should have never been brought to a vote.

“Stewardship begins at all levels but it is the bosses that call the shots.”

Kind of an old way of thinking about working relationships.

You wrote “Now let’s please see if we can address issues within the ranks of management.”

To me that implies that you think the issues within the included workers are primarily compensation related. So there are no issues with respect to work product?

Gus, thank you for the opportunity to clarify. My stewardship comment is a separate thought. Management generally speaking does have the responsibility of stewardship – for good or I’ll thought out purpose. Issues do remain. It is the nature of the beast and I hope those existing issues are resolved.

I would hope that the City, after caving in to the Union once again, will now find the courage to seriously consider the possibility that there may be efficiencies available to them that might possibly offset the cost of this new agreement!

The size of government at all levels is currently unsustainable. Are we not able to reorganize in a way that will allow the city to provide a similar level of service while utilizing fewer people, or do we allow “empire building” to continue?

The private sector seems capable of reorganizing when required in order to survive. Sometimes it is left with no other choice! Perhaps it’s time to ask the same of our various levels of government?

Government, at all levels, seems more than capable of living up to the public perception that it is inefficiency at it’s very best (or worst?)! IF we can achieve some degree, any degree of efficiency, then we should be able to reduce the size of government and the tax burden that it places on all of us!

Efficiencies could and should result in a reduction in the size of government. Whether by attrition, reorganization, failing to fill currently vacant positions or even layoffs, a reduction in the size of government must be looked into as a means of providing some tax relief to the average taxpayer! Growing the size of government and paying those in government more and more is simply a recipe for disaster!

“Management generally speaking does have the responsibility of stewardship”

Commoner, the way I look at it is that stewardship is like safety, for instance. I could write “Management generally speaking does have the responsibility of safety”. If that is the level of thinking on a job site, it would be very difficult to apply stewardship principles or safety principles or respect principles. Such principles have to be accepted and distributed by everyone.

To me, all people on a work team ought to have the responsibility of stewardship.

I prefer this philosophy about stewardship in the workplace:
“The willingness to be accountable for the wellbeing of the larger organization by operating in service, rather than in control, of those around us. Stated simply, it is accountability without control or compliance.” – Peter Block, author of “Stewardship” 1992

There was not signing bonus!!!! The agreement was to a 4 year contract. .5%, .75%, %2%, 2%. 2013 has already passed, therefore the .5% is reflective of that. It is NOT a signing bonus – not sure who came up with that brain storm description… because its not right.
And for you bleeding hearts who feel that (approximately) $100 for this .5% would be an incentive as a signing bonus should sure be worried. That really made such a difference on your taxes !!

Posted by: gus on January 9 2014 10:58 PM

Unless you know that, you really do not know who “won” this battle.

————–

We may not know who won but as is the norm in municipal politics the taxpayers have lost.

Up next will be comparable wage increases for management.

The only thing the taxpayer will get is increased fees, taxes and surcharges because 50 million a year for wages and benefits can’t be pulled out of thin air.

Hello. It was clearly referred to as a signing bonus in all the news media, so one would have to ask you where you get your information from.

The overall increase for four years would amount to over a million dollars, add to that the increase for the Police budgeted at $750,000.00 per year for 2014,15,16, and of course increases for the Fire Department, and Management, and **WALLA** you are looking at at $3 to $5 Million dollar increase in wages and benefits for a three year period. So yes that amount would make a huge difference in my taxes.

Hey Pal if I recall correctlym you7mhad a couple of 0’s in you prediction for pay inccrease

I dont understand why you are so agains those who go to work day after day to support their families. When you look around and you see all these elitits scimming the wages of those who work and are organize to protect their intrests.

This capitalist bs looks good to those on the receiving end but look at those who are not organized to confront management they work for a minimum wage and make a hugh profit for their employer.

Come on Pal you may know what goes on a City Hall but your a bit shart sighted when it comes to the employees that work for the City to provide some of you needs.
Cheers

Retired. My prediction was based on what I thought they would settle for. Seems with some of the concessions the City Management is now saying that the first two years of the contract will be net zero.

I am not against the Unions or Management when they stay within reason, however we are now in a situation where both Management and Unions at City Hall are over paid.

It is the taxpayers including those on retired, or limited incomes that have to pay for these increases, along with others like MSP, Transit, BC Hydro, House Insurance,ICBC, Groceries, etc; etc;. Time to stop the increases on the top end, and try and do something for those who are not protected by Management, and Unions. These people pay the same for a loaf of bread or a can of milk, however they have significantly less money to work with.

At what point would you say that the high paid Union Workers are receiving enough??? $50.00 an hour $60.00, $70.00. Give me a number that you think is fair.

Pal I dont think there is a fair number its about being organized and getting a fair share even if its tax dollars its all just money in the end.

Just take a look at whats happening at City Hall. They are taking advantage of the tax payer because they are not organized. You and I both are aware of the lack of interst by the general public when it comes to controlling their spending.

So if its a union or a ratepayers organization its all about controlling our interests and looking after those who drive our economy. And the best you you in the New Year Pal.
Cheers

I can’t believe that some people think the Union won this one. IMHO I think that the numbers in the union will be reduced somewhat (or drastically) to make up for the increase in wages. Just my thoughts on this.

From what I’ve heard from various people, the new City Manager is good at clearing house. I wonder if the Union got anymore in the job security department?!

If there’s anyone that needs to go its Beth James who together with Shari Green brought this labor uprising upon the City. Beth James has never ran a City and comes from the Provincial system. She is the perfect fit for Green in that she acts autonomously and could care less about staff! Nice to see the Cupe workers stand their ground, and given the City wanted 0-0-2 and they now have .25 (For year that is already past) .75 and 2-2…and gave up 1 sick day I think its safe to say that Beth James learned ALOT about managing a City and just How your should treat the Employees, in her first (Hopefully last) year as the City Manager.

I’m glad the strike is over so people like CrysBaron and his fellow commenters who only started posting here during the labor unrest can crawl back under whatever rock they came out from under and stop making their ridiculously one-sided comments.

Posted by: gus on January 10 2014 1:11 AM
“Management generally speaking does have the responsibility of stewardship”

Commoner, the way I look at it is that stewardship is like safety, for instance. I could write “Management generally speaking does have the responsibility of safety”. If that is the level of thinking on a job site, it would be very difficult to apply stewardship principles or safety principles or respect principles. Such principles have to be accepted and distributed by everyone.

To me, all people on a work team ought to have the responsibility of stewardship.
********
Yeah Gus, that is what I said. Management calls the shots on all of that. It wasn’t very great management (stewardship) to allow the contract to expire was it? It isn’t great management to allow our roads to be in the conditions they currently are. It isn’t fantastic stewardship (management) to drag these issues out, costing more money than necessary if handled with some foresight. It is the job of managers to handle of those things – ideally, with efficiency, respect and reason.

Every worker, including lower level managers, face certain constraints. If changes are to be seen within, those changes need to occur within management itself.

Most people just show up for work and do their job. Few consider the impact of their role on the job. Philosophy is great in theory. It is more difficult to apply it in the real world.

commoner: “Most people just show up for work and do their job.”

….And that sums up the problem with CUPE. Too many people just showing up and warming a seat, blaming ‘constraints’ on their problems rather than taking ownership of their work. Take a look at our roads for a great example of this.

If we’re all tax payers, whether it be joe citizen or the city union workers…. why has the mayor dug her heels in; along with Beth James and they REFUSE!!!! to release the dollar amount spent on this very unnecessary lawyer to deal with this contract. As stated by Bill Gaal himself, the lawyer didn’t make any difference to the outcome of the contract. Therefore what was the reason for hiring them? What was the reason for keeping them? And why won’t mayor or James give us the dollar amount?
If we’re all upset about .5% .75% 2% 2% then we should be outraged !!! at the fees this lawyer has cost us all. I’ve heard its gotten to the point that there is a request under the Freedom of Information act in order to try and find out the $$ amount. Probably won’t find out until after November’s election.

2% to 500 CUPE workers equates to about $1,000,000 that the City has to come up with somehow. I doubt the lawyer cost that much.

Well said Hello…… and suprise suprise another whinny comment from JohnnyBelt regarding a problem with CUPE members just showing up and not taking ownership of their work. Strange no mention about the Mayor refusing to share what the cost of the lawyer was…….talk about no accountability to tax payers.