Ward 4 Councillors Meeting

Councillor Ken Lewenza

Councillor Bill Marra

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Club Alouette
2418 Central Avenue

1
Can We Come Together to Build a Better City?

By Ken Lewenza Jr.

The hundred-day civic workers’ strike earlier this year was one of the
most difficult and divisive events in our city’s history. And the
repercussion and recriminations from the strike continue even to this
day, living on in nasty “he-said-she-said” recriminations that mar our
deliberations at city council and other civic forums.

With the perspective that comes with a bit of distance, I want to revisit
some of the underlying issues – both fiscal and social – that lay at the
heart of the conflict. My goal is not to carry on old battles. My goal is
to consider what we can learn as a community from this destructive and
unnecessary confrontation, and how to prevent similar debacles in the
future.

2
Because the hard truth is that public sector agencies in general are going to face
intense fiscal pressures in the next few years, a side-effect of the global financial crisis
and resulting recession. Governments at all levels now face sizeable deficits. We
must learn how to negotiate those fiscal challenges much better than we did in
Windsor this year. The consequences, if we don’t, will be measured in social
division, lost services … and, perhaps surprisingly, higher costs.

Let’s take it at face value that the hard-line stance (demanding elimination of post-
retirement benefits, or PRBs, for new hires, along with other concessions) taken by
the City’s leadership was motivated by a desire to keep costs in line and reduce the
fiscal burden on the City and its taxpayers. (Another possible interpretation of events
is that “getting tough” with public sector workers is always a sure vote-getter during
tough economic times.)

The fundamental question I then ask is this: Was this an effective way to reach a cost-
effective collective agreement with the CUPE bargaining unit? In retrospect, it clearly
wasn’t. In fact, by emphasizing confrontation over cooperation, not only did we spark
a long, ugly work stoppage, and drive a wedge through the middle of a community
that needs to come together right now. We also ended up with a collective agreement
that is clearly more expensive to the City, not less expensive.

3
That may seem like a surprising claim, but here’s my logic. We’ve heard no
end of doom-and-gloom actuarial projections regarding the ultimate cost of
post-retirement health benefits for City workers. But in reality, the fiscal
problem associated with those benefits is not that the benefit itself is
inherently “rich.” In reality, the City’s own actuary confirms that the current
service cost of CUPE’s post-retirement benefits is $2.7 million per year –
which works out to a little more than $1 per hour for all the full-time workers
who get this benefit.

This seems very modest, compared to all the frightening headlines we saw
about the City’s $300 million accumulated PRB liability. Because Canada’s
accounting rules have only recently changed , and now require cities to report
these lump sum liabilities, many average citizens (and even those who should
know better, like politicians and reporters) misunderstand these numbers.
Less than one-quarter of that $300 million liability is associated with the
CUPE unit. The annual current service cost of that liability is quite modest.
And all of that cost is associated with existing employees – not new hires.
Yet PRBs for the current workforce weren’t even on the table. It was only
for new hires that the City wanted to snatch this benefit away.

4
So why on earth did we go to war over a $1 per hour cut in labour costs for new hires, who
aren’t even on the payroll yet? In fact, it’s not even clear when the City will be hiring
again. The problem is not the go-forward costs of maintaining this benefit (which is so
important to the security and quality of life of workers when they retire). The problem is
our past failure to set aside resources to support these PRBs. Instead, we just coasted
along, crossing our fingers that the money would be there when we needed it. The epic
strike didn’t reduce this accumulated liability by one cent.

In other words, the problem is not the benefit itself. The problem is that we need to find a
better way to responsibly pre-fund the benefit. Other industries are also grappling with this
challenge (like the auto industry, which is implementing a new pre-funded trust system to
pay for PRBs). Not by going to war to take the benefit away. But by working together to
find better ways to sustainably pay for the benefit.

A simple actuarial exercise illustrates the point. Suppose we took 50 cents per hour for all
future new hires, and invested it in a fund (just like we do for pensions). These premiums
would be indexed to future wage increases. We would invest the monies, aiming for a 7%
return over the long-term (consistent with long-run experience). Using the same actuarial
assumptions as are built into the City’s valuation of PRBs, and assuming 36 new hires per
year (as per the forecast provided to city council), this modest premium would allow the
full pre-funding of PRBs for those new hires until at least 2072.

5
That’s a simple way to address the cost-overhang resulting from
unfunded benefit promises. Instead of battling to the end to take them
away from workers in the future, we should fund them responsibly,
sustainably – and affordably.

Even better, by taking this constructive problem-solving approach

(rather than going to war), we could have reduced the overall cost of
the CUPE contract. Early in bargaining I had proposed a status-quo
roll-over agreement for this group, and I believe that CUPE officials
were signalling that could be a face-saving solution to a very tough
round of contract talks. Instead we slipped into a hundred-day conflict,
driven by overheated rhetoric about “greedy” unions, that won’t
produce a penny of savings for at least thirty years to come. Yet to
eventually get that deal, the City had to sweeten the offer with wage
increases that compound to more than 6 percent over four years. This
compares to many employers in Windsor who are presently negotiating
wage freezes (not surprising, given the current recession). The City
threw in another $2.8 million in signing bonuses ($2000.00 for full-
timers, $1000.00 for part-timers) to seal the deal.

6
The cost of those wage increases will likely add $40 million to City
expenses over the next ten years, just from the CUPE group (and
much more if that pattern is extended to other bargaining units). And
the bill only gets bigger in future years – as subsequent wage increases
are applied to a higher starting point. Over the long run, once again
using the same actuarial assumptions as the City, I estimate those
wage increases (let alone the signing bonus) will cost more than twice
as much as the City will ever save by wrestling PRBs away from new
hires.

So the next time a hard-line politician stands up and boasts about the
money he “saved” you by getting tough with the unions, think again.
There’s no doubt that the strike cost Windsor taxpayers (in money, in
lost services, and in a divided community) much more than it saved
them. We divided our community, we lost services, we damaged the
regional economy (when it could least afford it), and we paid out tens
of millions of dollars to settle the conflict. Why? To reduce the
labour costs of new hires (who aren’t even on the payroll yet) by $1
per hour.

7
Needless to say, Windsor has been hit hard enough by the global financial
crisis and the manufacturing meltdown. Then, on top of tens of thousands
of jobs that have disappeared from the private sector, the City then
effectively eliminated another 1800 good jobs for over three months. How
many millions of dollars of personal income, and how many thousands of
spin-off jobs, were lost by this aggressive stance – precisely when our
community could least afford it? We shouldn’t be glorifying the savings of
that needless battle. Rather, we should be regretting its costs – monetary,
economic, and social.

As a city councillor , I am concerned both with treating our own employees

fairly, and managing our finances in a responsible, sustainable way. There
were much better ways to achieve both goals, than through the now-
infamous War of 2009.

Let’s hope that as we grapple with fiscal challenges in future years, we find
better ways to solve our problems by working together – instead of battling
each other in epic confrontations that no-one can win.

Ken Lewenza Jr. is a member of Windsor City Council

8
 Understanding the CUPE Strike
Just as in any major undertaking, a post-audit of what happened is important. By
honestly looking at what took place, we can build on all of our positives and can learn
from what we did not do so well so that we can improve in the future.

My purpose is not to point fingers but rather to let the public know my perspective of
the 101-day labour dispute. I expect that people may look at the events of the dispute
from a fresh point-of- view after they have had the chance to consider what I have to
say.
It is a different view from that which was provided by our local media, and in
particular the Windsor Star, which coloured how Windsorites viewed the labour
dispute.

Both sides did not handle the dispute well and mistakes compounded mistakes.

In fact, there were opportunities lost during the 101 days that would have allowed
both sides to have reached an agreement by which each side could hold their heads up
high for achieving a positive result.

9
What I intend to help Windsorites understand:
■ What was the strike all about?
■ Was it really about wages and PRBs, OR was it a political strike?
■ Did the City and Taxpayers get the best deal possible?
■ Did the City achieve what they led citizens to believe relative to long
and short term cost savings?
■ Was elimination of PRBs the core issue for Citizens?
OR did the Citizens want us to get the best deal possible, if there was
one?
■ Were we well served by our major news outlet,
The Windsor Star?
■ Was the public given proper information about the role of arbitration?
■ Were the consequences to you and the city worth a 101 day strike?

10
 Why did the so called
“hardliners”
on Council fold in a
one hour span on
June 17, 2009
that caused such
an enormous shift in the
City's position?

11
■ Did the City reduce its leverage to reach a negotiated solution with the
remaining 70% of its workforce?

■ Does anyone really know what the strike settlement was especially in
relation to PRBs for new hires?
　
■ How do we avoid repeating this experience?

■ Answer any questions you may have on this issue.

12
 LEGEND

■ RED text signifies Councillor Lewenza

comments/actions/opinions

■ BLACK and/with ITALIC text signifies

Council Minutes and Motions

■ PURPLE text signifies Windsor Star reporting

13
Some ask me:
"when do you think the strike with CUPE
could have been avoided?"

I think going back to 2006 provides a glimpse of the labour

relations atmosphere, opportunities lost, and is a signal of things
to come.

1. Council Minutes, Page 7 Windsor Ontario May 15th, 2006

2. Post Retirement Benefits - Consultation Process
3. John Miceli, President and Mike Stamp, CANUE
4. Item 9 Post Retirement Benefits - Consultation Process

14
 
1. From the May 15, 2006 Minutes of City Council, Page
7:

John Miceli, President And Mike Stamp, Civic Association

of Non - Union Employees (CANUE) request that item 9.1
being the report of the City Treasurer dated March 22,
2006 entitled "Post Retirement Benefits" - Non Union
Employees" and item 9.2 being the report of the City
Treasurer dated April 11, 2006 entitled "Post Retirement
Benefits - Consultation Process" be deferred to allow
CANUE membership and representatives from local 543
and 82 an opportunity to be in attendance since it was
CANUE 's understanding that report 9.1 had been
substituted with report 9.2.

15
2. Post Retirement Benefits – Consultation Process

Moved by councillor Lewenza , seconded by Councillor Valentinis,

That the reports of City Treasurer dated March 22, 2006

entitled "Post Retirement Benefits" - Non Union
Employees“and item 9.2 being the report of the City
Treasurer dated April 11, 2006 entitled "Post Retirement
Benefits Consultation Process" BE DEFERRED for one
week to allow CANUE membership and representatives
from 543 and 82 to be in attendance.

The Motion is put and it is LOST

Aye Votes: Councillors Lewenza and Valentinis.
Nay votes: Councillors Cassivi, Brister, Gignac, and Halberstadt.
Other councillors in conflict or absent

16
3. Item 9.1 from the May 16, 2006 Minutes of City Council:

John Miceli, President, and Mike Stamp, Civic Association of Non-Union

Employees (CANUE) appear before Council to express concern that only
CANUE and none of the other employee bargaining groups were included
in the initiative which will adversely affect the future of non union
employees and asks for a fair consultive process recognizing the benefit
costs are of concern and that CANUE welcomes the opportunity to meet
with Senior Administration to discuss creative ways to reduce the current
and future obligations through a consultative process.

This says it all!

What must not be lost in the discussion is the word "current" as this one
word represents opportunities lost as a partial solution in dealing with the
issues related to post retirement benefits.

17
4. Item 9.2 Post Retirement Benefits Consultation Process

John Miceli, President, and Mike Stamp, Civic Association of Non-Union

Employees (CANUE) appear before Council stating that CANUE believes there
is no further need to speak on this matter as it was CANUE's understanding that
the report on "Post Retirement Benefits - Consultation Process" (Item (.2) was to
replace Item 9.1 and that since CANUE is not a bargaining unit it cannot
negotiate any benefits with the corporation and will deal with any administrative
matter at a future date.

CR252/2006
Moved by Councillor Brister, seconded by Councillor Cassivi

Whereas, City Council recognizes the importance of dealing with the escalating
costs of providing Post Retirement Benefits to the retirees of the Corporation,
and the need to develop strategies for limiting the financial and budgetary
implications to the Corporation of continuing to provide these benefits to new
employees: and further, given that City Council recognizes that post retirement
benefits are subject to negotiations with the various employee bargaining units: it
is therefore resolved that in order to lead this process that;

18
 1. All new employees hired by the corporation within the Non Union
employee group, with a signed offer of employment dated on or after May 16,
2006 would be limited in post retirement benefit coverage to age 65.

2. All New employees hired by the corporation with a signed offer of

employment dated on or after May 16, 2006 and transferring at some time
thereafter into the Non union employee group, would be limited in post
retirement benefit coverage to age 65.

Carried
Aye votes Councillors Brister, Cassivi, Halberstadt, Valentinis, and Gignac
Nay Votes; Councillors Lewenza, and Postma

I did not support this strategy, as this approach was predicated on

confrontation not cooperation, and it ignored any possibility of a
negotiated settlement that addressed both parties concerns!
 

19
■ Moreover, this was a strong indication from our employees and their
representatives that they were open to an alternative funding approach that
addressed the City's concern about unfunded liabilities and health care costs.
■ The consequences of this arbitrary approach was chilling to our employees,
since PRBs for new hires were wiped out by a mere vote at Council. The
consequences were costly, not only in terms of money but poor labour
relations, and cannot be completely measured today!
■ As one example, the city has spent to date $300 - $400,000 to fight union
organizing attempts that we have lost. We are now fighting them in disputing
the size of the bargaining unit which we will also lose.
■ CANUE has expressed their reason for organizing had little to do with
improving wages or benefits, but had more to do with having no meaningful
mechanism to express themselves in a binding fashion.
■ In future years it is certain that CANUE by acting collectively will make
gains through the bargaining process that will no doubt surpass the city's
original concern about post retirement benefits.

20
 THE STRIKE CHRONOLOGY
I was the one who introduced the Motion at Council to make the in
Camera Council Minutes available to the public so Windsorites could
judge what happened with all of the information in front of them.

However, the minutes themselves do not demonstrate the dynamics that

were going on around them. For that, let me give an analysis of them
from my perspective.

The best way to do so is to follow the minutes chronologically with

comments added in. My Intention when I first started to put this
brief together was to walk you through chronological order that
provided some insight to as to what was happening behind closed
doors?

21
 I also wanted to incorporate submissions by the Windsor Star to
demonstrate the role they played during the strike.
What positions were they taking, what information did they choose to
provide, and how through opinion pieces, editorial cartoons, and daily
news did they attempt to influence public opinion?
The intent would have been to show that they were not objective,
balanced, or fair, and that they very much contributed to prolonging the
strike.
I decided I did not have to do this once I came across the blog by Chris
Vander Doelen so my remarks will be limited from what I intended.

Chris Vander Doelen Blog

Kevin and Nicole Cabana
Dear Kevin, or Nicole: Quit being a cry baby, If you want to go back to
work, go back already. I'm not stopping anyone from working.
As for prolonging the strike, I think that might be true, and it's a
compliment to the Windsor Star for representing the interests of its
readers. If the Mayor and council didn't know public opinion was so
strongly behind them they'd throw in the towel and cave in like previous
councils did. We are doing our job well, I'd say.
22
September 15, 2008:

Moved by Councillor Lewenza and seconded by Councillor

Halberstadt:

1. THAT City Council DIRECTS Administration to

negotiate a collective agreement with CUPE locals 82
and 543 that will result in a zero net cost increase to
the City of Windsor over the term of the collective
agreement; and
2. THAT City Council DIRECTS Administration to
provide notice to CUPE locals 82 and 543 that City
Council intends to repeal/amend benefit by-law #8133
in accordance with changes negotiated in the
collective bargaining process.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, Councillor Postma absent for the vote.

23
What the Windsor Star selectively fails to report, is that at the end of
this motion I comment "that in no way does this motion suggest that I
support the removal of PRBs." What they also ignore is my position in
the 2006 and where I consistently supported a new pre-funded PRB
plan that addressed both parties concerns through negotiations.

Pre-funding would be similar to funding a pension plan so that when

an employee retires, money would be immediately available from the
fund and NOT be a burden on taxpayers at the time. Right now PRBs
are paid out as part of the City's Operating Budget on a pay as you go
basis.

24
■ Net Zero was NOT unique in these negotiations but was a starting point
and part of a strategy used at Windsor Police and with the Windsor
Utilities Commission.

■ The intent of this motion was to signal to the unions that it's "not business
as usual"

■ Of course, in neither the Windsor Police nor WUC was this final
resolution. No one ever expected it to be. In both cases local economic
circumstances were recognized by both sides.

■ WUC settled at 1.75% each year of a three year collective agreement.

Lowest settlement in the Province in this sector!

■ Offsetting these increases were productivity improvements.

■ And it was resolved with out a strike maintaining a healthy labour

relations environment.

25
 Examples

■ Little to no lost time claims

■ Absenteeism is a non issue

■ Little to no Grievances

■ A good working relationship

■ Increased Productivity

Let the truth be told I was mocked by two of my council colleagues

for the deal being too high and they were critical of me for talking to
the union.

26
December 15, 2008:

Moved by Councillor Gignac, seconded by Councillor Lewenza:

THAT Administration BE DIRECTED to file for

conciliation with respect to the current collective
bargaining process being undertaken with CUPE
locals 82 and 543.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

27
Tough Talk. In hindsight, it may have been a mistake since more time
should have been taken to explore options. There were no work slow downs
that would cause the city concern, thus providing no rush to bring this to a
head.

January 9 2009, The Star reports that the city has opted to file for
conciliation after only four negotiating sessions.

Again, in hindsight, it may have been a mistake.

This is hardly the way to demonstrate to a Union that the City wants to talk
to avoid a labour dispute. In fact, the opposite message is being given.

28
February 9, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Gignac, seconded by Councillor Valentinis

THAT the verbal update report from the General

Manager of Corporate Services and the Executive
Director of Human Resources regarding labour
negotiations BE RECEIVED for information.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

29
March 24th 2009 - Conciliation talks break down, setting the stage for
a work stoppage in mid April. Mayor Eddie Francis says services will
still be delivered in the event of a strike as city managers were
preparing "perhaps one of the most comprehensive plans this
corporation has ever seen in terms of contingency planning."

Again, this was also a significant revelation as it indicates the City is

fully expecting a work disruption and perhaps can be interpreted as
putting more effort into a contingency plan instead of focusing on an
agreement!

30
April 6, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Marra:

THAT Administration REQUEST an actuarial report

with respect to the effect of capping Post
Retirement Benefits at the age of 65 for all new
employees hired after January 1, 2009 for Local 543 and
Local 82 and to report back to Council.
CARRIED.
Councillors Halberstadt, Gignac,Valentinis and Mayor Francis voting
nay. Councillor Lewenza was absent for the vote.

CUPE achieved Post Retirement Benefits to the age of 65

31
Moved by Councillor Brister, seconded by Councillor Gignac,

THAT the verbal update report from the General

Manager of Corporate Services and the Executive
Director of Human Resources regarding labour
negotiations BE RECEIVED for information.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

32
 April 12 2009 Doug Schmidt

Citing tough economic times, Windsor wants its unionized

workers to
accept a four-year wage freeze and agree to a lower set of
benefits for all newer hires, says Canadian Union of Public
Employees, representing about 1800 municipal workers.

Lots of Rhetoric!

33
 April 14 2009 Windsor Star

"The two sides are negotiating down to a deadline at the end of the
week that spokespeople say will end in either a strike or a lockout for
the 1,776 members of CUPE Local 543 and 82"

■ There is going to be a work disruption!

■ I was very surprised and disappointed that CUPE went on strike.
■ City held hostage by not one side, but because of the inability to find a
solution.

Both Wood, representing almost 400 outside workers, and CUPE

Local 543 president Jean Fox, Representing 1,400 inside workers, said
recent conciliation talks broke down in part because city negotiations
were offering nothing but contract cuts.

34
April 15, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Postma:

THAT the City negotiating team RETURN to the

bargaining table and make an offer to CUPE Local 82
with respect to post retirement benefits which would
include the provision of a modified post retirement
benefit plan to new hires past the age of 65 which
would include a reduction in benefits from those presently
enjoyed by employees hired before January 1, 2009.
MOTION DOES NOT CARRY.
Councillors Postma, Lewenza and Jones voting aye.
Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Hatfield, Marra, Valentinis
and Dilkens voting nay.

35
■ This April 15th motion signals a compromise that could have provided a
win-win for both sides. The issue of PRBs for new hires was NOT an
immediate concern since the City will probably not be hiring new employees
for years. Staff will be reduced by attrition and probably not be replaced.
■ It is my firm belief that with all the enormous cost estimates thrown around
the issue of PRBs, even though CUPE's share was only 30% of them, became
the lightning rod for the strike. I am certain that the public really did not
know how to understand the issue or put those numbers in perspective. The
same could even be said for some Councillors.
■ It could have opened the door to many possible scenarios to be negotiated on
what a possible PRB plan could look like and how it could be funded.
■ Through out negotiations CUPE offered many scenarios which were denied
as non negotiable. Example - 50/50 split, Benefits to age 71, etc.
■ This hard line stance ignored the possibility of finding immediate savings to
the City as oppose to waiting 30 - 35yrs before savings started to materialize
for the Corporation and Taxpayers.

36
■ Example - Savings could have been found in the current benefit plans of
existing workers and retirees, similar to what was done in the big three.
And what was suggested by CANUE in 2006.
■ Benefit plans could be capped, with future adjustments to be made in
bargaining that is relative to present day environment and ability to pay.
Thus avoiding over inflated actuarial projections and legacy costs of
employees yet to be hired.
■ Moreover, there was an impact on other non - CUPE union workers.
■ By avoiding any chance of finding a negotiated settlement that addresses
the needs of both sides, the City's leverage in trying to mirror those
changes, that may be seen as an acceptable compromise, with the other
70% of our workforce was limited considerably.
■ It is my very strong opinion the no arbitrator will take PRBs from Police or
Fire merely because CUPE workers lost them, as these benefits have
become common throughout the province from which they are compared.
■ The cost of this failed approach cannot be quantified, but must be
considered in the final agreement which I will speak to at the end!

37
What has not been reported is that CUPE achieved the intent of this
motion during this set of negotiations as the City agreed to administer a
Pre-funded, self funded, post retirementt benefit plan for new employees.

This point is interesting and again I will touch on this in the end of the
presentation.

38
2. Moved by Councillor Marra, seconded by Councillor Dilkens:

THAT the City’s negotiation team BE DIRECTED to

return to the table and offer the following to CUPE
Local 82:
Stronger language in the guarantee being
given to protect the post retirement
benefits of current employees; and Post
Retirement Benefits for new hires hired
after January 1, 2009 to the age of 65.
CARRIED.
Councillors Postma, Lewenza and Jones voting nay.

39
3. Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by Councillor Lewenza:

THAT Council AUTHORIZES the City’s negotiating team

to return to the table with Local 82 and gives authority to
offer the following:
Flexibility regarding the term of the contract;
The option for a one time lump sum payment to the
members of Local 82 with final approval to be given to City
Council. This lump sum payment would be separate from
the "net zero" direction previously given but is to
be packaged with the post retirement benefit issue.

CARRIED.
Councillors Gignac, Halberstadt and Valentinis voting nay.

40
4. Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by Councillor Lewenza:

THAT the City’s negotiating team BE GIVEN AUTHORITY

to offer job security to local 82 for each year of the term of
the contract to be negotiated.

CARRIED.
Councillors Gignac and Valentinis voting nay.

Side note as strike begins

Regardless of what side you’re on in Collective bargaining one of the

primary goals is to achieve the best agreement possible with the least
amount of pain!

41
April 18th 2009 by Monica Wolfson

Local 82 staff were seeking the same $500.00 per employee lump sum
payment and wage increases . The deal would have cost the city
$720,000 and amounted to a 4% pay hike over the two-year contract.

42
Cost to Citizens: What is CUPE's asking for?

■ signing bonus $900.000 one time payment of $8.00 perhousehold

■ 2% in 2009 = $10.00 per house hold
■ 2% in 2010 = $10.00 per house hold
■ No solution to PRBs

Even though I think this offer is inflated as their is no solution to

PRBs in sight. It does provide a glimpse of What CUPE is looking for.

43
 Fox said negotiations took a bizarre turn Friday night
when the city proposed the union give up the fight on post-
retirement benefits for new hires and then the city would
reveal wage demands for employees.

■ Not a way to bargain. Limits opportunity to find a solution

that both sides might be able to accept within the over all
package. What's concerning is who delivered this
message?

■ As City Council gave no direction to discuss any move

away from net zero.

44
"Taking away benefits so we have a two-tiered
system is not palatable to us at all," Jean Fox

■ City Council & the Windsor Star miss the point as to why CUPE
members are so oppose to a two-tiered system.
■ Creates a divided workforce
■ Senior members will soon pay the price when they become the
minority.
■ Goes against a time honoured principle of equal work for equal pay.
■ This type of backward thinking spreads into other sectors of the
economy.

45
April 18, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Dilkens, seconded by Councillor Postma:

THAT City Council REAFFIRMS its’ support for the

City’s negotiation team.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Doug Schmidt and Monica Wolfson April 20, 2009:

Jim Wood, president of CUPE local 82 representing almost 400

outside workers, said "if the city doesn't change its position on
capping retirement benefits for new hires, "were going to be out here
in August."

46
 Consequences of a long Strike which I also
predicted weeks before!
■ 1,800 jobs affectively eliminated for 101 days
■ How many millions of dollars of personal income and how many
thousands of spin off jobs were lost during this time
■ Citizen's being inconvenienced by lack of Municipal Services
■ Employee Moral
■ Poor labour relations moving forward
■ Image of City
■ Community Division
■ City's reputation
■ Costs can't be measured!

47
April 20, 2009:

Open Motion. Moved by Councillor Brister, seconded by Councillor Marra:

a) THAT City Council REQUESTS that:

a) Sid Ryan, President of CUPE Ontario, meet with the
negotiating teams for CUPE Locals 82 and 543, and that
City Council will meet in closed session immediately after its’
regular public meeting on Monday, April 20, 2009, to
discuss the current labour negotiations with CUPE Locals 82
and 543; and
b) THAT subsequent to the above noted meetings, Mayor Francis
and Mr. Ryan MEET in order to discuss the current labour
negotiations between the Corporation of the City of Windsor
and CUPE Locals 82 and 543.
CARRIED. Councillor Valentinis and Jones voting nay.

48
Moved by Councillor Marra, Seconded by Councillor Dilkens:

THAT the report of the City Clerk dated April 20, 2009 regarding Council
direction regarding labour negotiations BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION;
and

THAT COUNCIL CONFIRM and RATIFY its decision TO CONFIRM that all
directions given to the negotiating team by Windsor City Council at its in camera
meeting held Wednesday, April 15, 2009 respecting Local 82 negotiations also
apply to Local 543 negotiations, including specifically:
i) The direction regarding extending post retirement benefits to age 65;
ii) Flexibility in offering a 2-year contract term;
Offering job security for employees hired in 1992 and 1993;
The Authority TO OFFER a lump sum payment which would
be packaged with the post retirement benefits issue.

AND THAT the amount of the lump sum be brought before Council for
ratification, via email poll if necessary, before a final agreement is made.
CARRIED. Councillors Lewenza and Gignac voting nay.

49
 Moved by Councillor Marra, seconded by Councillor Dilkens:

THAT the report of the City Clerk dated April 20, 2009 regarding
Council direction regarding labour negotiations BE RECEIVED
for information; and
THAT Council CONFIRM and RATIFY its decision TO
CONFIRM its previous directions of April 15, 2009 and
April 17, 2009 regarding offering no wage increase to CUPE
Locals 82 and 543 respectively and its further direction to the
negotiating team to offer a lump sum payment to be packaged
with the issue of elimination of post retirement benefits
past the age of 65 for new employees hired on or after January 1,
2009, provided that the amount of the lump sum be brought
before Council for ratification, via email poll if necessary,
before a final agreement is made.
CARRIED.

50
April 24, 2009:
Moved by Councillor Lewenza, seconded by Councillor Jones:
THAT the City’s negotiating Committee BE DIRECTED to:
remove the issue of ending post retirement benefits past the age of
65 for new employees in the negotiations with CUPE Locals 82
and 543, and; offer the Union negotiating committees the commitment
to form a future Committee comprised of Union and
Management representatives which Committee will investigate the
concept of new employees funding their own post retirement
benefits past the age of 65, and maintain the City’s position on all other
issues being negotiated.
MOTION DOES NOT CARRY.
Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield, Marra and Jones voting aye.
Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Valentinis, Dilkens and Mayor Francis
voting nay.

51
By Doug Schmidt, The Windsor Star ***** 29, 2009

Lewenza argued that revealing how councillors voted on various

positions taken during the bitter strike would show how opportunities
were missed early on in the process. And he railed Monday night
against media reporting during the divisive strike, saying "the votes
reveal a different story."

But Francis said the only thing the closed-door motions reveal was
how consistent council remained in sticking to its core demand of
getting rid of post-retirement benefits for new employees. He said they
also prove that what was communicated to the union and residents
during the strike was "clearly" the same as what council was deciding
behind closed doors

52
■ I supported this motion because it provided an opportunity to move towards a
more cooperative approach.

■ It was an opportunity to avoid a strike and all the negative consequences that a
long dispute would bring.

■ It is expected that the city is not going to hire at any significant level in the next
five years. No Hurry to find a solution to a 50yr dilemma, other than maybe a
short term political one.

■ Finding a solution to post retirement benefits issue is a lot easier than all the
exaggeration and rhetoric that we were hearing.

■ City employees were already indicating that they would be prepared to make
compromise's that would address the City's concerns.

■ And once again this motion was predicated on maintaining the city's position on
all other issues. Namely Net Zero.

53
By Doug Schmidt, The Windsor Star September 29, 2009

Mayor Eddie Francis "Ken Lewenza is absolutely right, had I

decided to cave and ignore the wishes of the residents of
Windsor," said Francis. "But you don't go into a strike saying
this is your core issue and then cave after a week," he added,
pointing to council's strengthening resolve on the issue as the
strike dragged on.

Lewenza has said the mayor could have shown leadership and
ended the strike earlier, but Francis said that the longer the
strike lasted, the more council "heard from the public very
loudly and very clearly" not to give in.

54
Moved by Councillor Brister, seconded by Councillor Gignac:

THAT City Council RE-AFFIRMS its’ previous

direction given to the City’s negotiating team.

CARRIED.
Councillors Postma, Lewenza and Jones voting nay.

55
■ Very early on in negotiations I told City Council, If you believe you
can achieve removing Post Retirement Benefits from new employees
and maintain a net zero, than good for you.

■ But if at the end of a four month strike if you put money on the table
than shame on you, as this money can be used as a key to unlocking
the solution to the Post Retirement Benefit issue."

■ This quote can be validated by our CEO and others in the room who
have a good memory.

56
April 27, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Postma, seconded by Councillor

Valentinis:

THAT the verbal update report from the General

Manager of Corporate Services and the
Executive Director of Human Resources regarding
labour negotiations BE RECEIVED for information.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

57
 May 4, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by Councillor Jones:

THAT City Council encourages the negotiating
teams for the City and CUPE Locals 82 and 543 to meet
jointly with benefit representatives of Green Shield to
seek creative ways to resolve the apparent stalemate on the
issue of employee self- funded post retirement benefits for
new hires of the City of Windsor, past the age of 65.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

58
• This is the work that should have been happening in 2006
• We are hearing figures that report each retiree costs
$100,000 per and the City’s liability is $300,000,000.00
and escalating.
• What they do not explain is this figure is predicated on
every person retiring at 55 and living to 96.
• That our PRB Costs are escalating.
• What they do not say is the largest cost driver is due to the
40% of our employees who will be eligible to retire in the
next 5 yrs.
■ Going after new hires is a shell game and does not address
the issue of City ignoring these unfunded liabilities for the
last 60 years.

59
May 11, 2009:

Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Postma:

THAT the City’s negotiating team REMOVE from the

bargaining table the issue of ending employer paid post
retirement benefits past the age of 65 for new employees
hired on or after January 1, 2009 in the current negotiations
with CUPE Local 82.

MOTION DOES NOT CARRY.

Councillors Jones, Lewenza and Postma voting aye.

Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Hatfield, Marra, Valentinis, Dilkens
voting nay.

60
 Moved by Councillor Lewenza, No Seconder – as
a result the motion was never on the floor for
consideration and is included here only for sake of
completeness:
THAT CUPE Locals 82 and 543 BE PROVIDED
the option of retaining employer paid post
retirement benefits for new employees hired on or
after January 1, 2009 if they will agree to no wage
increases for the term of a two year contract OR the
option of ending employer paid post retirement
benefits for new employees hired on or after January 1,
2009 and receiving a 2% wage increase in year
1 of a two year contract and a further 2% wage
increase in year 2 of the contract.

NO SECONDER FOR THE MOTION

61
■ I put this motion forward in attempt to flush out if 2yr status
quo collective agreement could be accepted by either CUPE
or the City.
■ This motion provided options to both sides.
■ CUPE could save face by maintaining their core issue.
■ The City would achieve resolving their legacy cost Issues for
future employees and would be provided With pre funded
options that are affordable and Sustainable.
■ The City would have a negotiated solution that

might be better considered by the other 70% of our

workforce.
■ The City would have a negotiated solution that might be
better considered by the other 70% of our workforce.

62
■ The City could pre fund this benefit at 100% which is still
less expensive to tax payers than what taxpayers paid out
in the final agreement.
■ Or start the process of phasing in contributions similar to
what we do with OMERS, thus providing the option to
defer passing on increased costs to the tax payer beyond a
level of what is needed today.
■ As an example if the City applied just 1% to a PRB fund
which equals 26 cents per hour, per employee, starting
today. And the new employee contributes 25 cents per
hour when they start. By using all the city's actuary
assumptions you have a fully funded PRB plan to the year
2072!
■ Cost per house holds $5.00 per year!

63
 Special note

Understanding the numbers:

■ Cost of 1% CUPE increase to the city is $750,000 yr

■ 1% average increase to a CUPE member is 26 cents
■ If we multiply 750,000 to 35yrs = $26,250,000
■ I assembled this figure to help people better understand the
long term cost of a wage increase so they can be compared it
to the long term cost of pre funding a PRB plan for new
employees.

64
 Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by Councillor
Lewenza:

THAT the issue ending employer paid post retirement

benefits for new employees hired on or after January 1, 2009
BE REMOVED from the bargaining table and that the
following terms be offered to CUPE Local 82:
■ $1000.00 lump sum payment to all full time employees in year 1
of a three year contract;
■ 2% wage increase in year 2 of the contract; and
■ 2% wage increase in year 3 of the contract.
MOTION DOES NOT CARRY

Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield and Jones voting aye.

Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Marra, Valentinis, Dilkens and Mayor
Francis voting nay.

65
■ This motion is even better for the City than the one I
previously introduced as it was a 3yr deal.
■ This deal averages out at 1.3% per year as there is no
increase in the first year and the lump sum is not
compounding.
■ As for CUPE, this deal provides them options
■ They would have had enough money to self fund PRBs in
their entirety with money left over for wage increases.
■ How they directed the money or phased it in would have
been up to them.

66
■ This motion is one of the more practical approaches that may
have had a chance for success or a least started some creative
dialogue.
■ CUPE Leadership was making statements that they could have
lived with a status quo collective agreement.
■ This motion in essence would have provided that.
■ Some on Council suggest they never saw anything about a status
quo collective agreement in writing?
■ All Councillors and the Mayor heard this through various forms
and we all talked about it around the table. Why not as a normal
practice of bargaining would we not investigate if this was
possible?
■ We called their bluff every other time, why not here?
■ Had this approach at least been considered, citizens and our
employees would have been provided with a deal that was less
painful and more attractive to both sides.

67
Understanding the numbers again:

■ For every 1% increase to CUPE is a $750,000 charge to the

City's operating Budget.
■ This means an average increase to each home of $5.00 per
household.
■ Over 35 years at 1% this figure is $26,250,000
■ Over 35 years at 4% this figure is $105, 000,000
■ The cost of this agreement over 35 years is $105,000,000
■ Signing bonus not included in the figure, or compounding
costs of future wage increases
■ Compare this to the agreement that was signed three months
later.

68
 Moved by Councillor Halberstadt, seconded by Councillor Gignac:
THAT City Council ACCEPT the recommendation of the General
Manager of Corporate Services regarding a further offer to CUPE Local
82:
■ Three year contract.
■ No wage increases.
■ ODA increases on a net zero basis
■ Job Security for the life of the contract;
■ Lump Sum payment of $1000 for all full time employees/$500 for all part time
employees.
CARRIED.
Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield and Jones voting nay.

Moved by Councillor Marra, seconded by Councillor Brister:

THAT the same terms BE OFFERED to CUPE Local 543.

CARRIED.
Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield and Jones voting nay.

69
May 12, 2009

The following email poll was sent:

The Mayor has asked that Council be polled for its'
direction on a further negotiation issue with regards to
CUPE Local 543. As you know, Council approved offering
an incentive payment to all Regular Full Time CUPE 543
members in the amount of $1000 and $500 to Regular Part
Time Members. As the full membership will be aware of
this offer the negotiating team would like authorization to
offer an incentive payment of $250 to each member of the
following remaining employee groups
-Temporary Full Time (41 employees)
-Temporary Part Time (55 employees)
- Seasonal Recs (445 employees)

70
■ All of these employees are voting members with equal voting
rights.
■ The total additional cost to offer this payment, in addition to
the approx. 1.2 million approved last night is $135,250.00.
■ Please indicate if you are in favour or opposed to this payment
by return email at your earliest convenience.
■ The following were the replies:

All in favour except Councillor Brister

71
May 19, 2009

Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by

Councillor Jones
THAT the City’s negotiating team BE SENT
BACK to the bargaining table with the flexibility to
negotiate the best deal possible on behalf of the tax
payers and to bring that deal back to City Council for
ratification.

CARRIED.
Councillors, Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac voting nay.
Francis does not vote.
Why no questions about this vote?

72
Special note - George King
At one point I made the suggestion that the City bring in
George King. This may surprise people as George King is
usually the representative of choice by employers throughout
our region. The thought process behind this suggestion George
has the experience to get a deal done and get to the point with
the least amount of pain. I also think he could provide much
needed advice to City Councillors with little to no experience
in collective bargaining.
Although this suggestion was not supported, George did play a
role working with administration and the Mayor, where I firmly
believe his skills were not utilized towards achieving a
collective agreement.
Dilkens was absent for the vote.

73
 Rita Poliakov Windsor Star May 24 2009

Jim Wood, he added in one of the offers,

the union proposed a cost sharing plan for
post retirement benefits, but both parties
could not come to an agreement.

- 50/50 cost share or benefits to 71.

74
 May 25, 2009

Moved by Councillor Gignac, seconded by Councillor

Halberstadt

THAT City Council DOES NOT AGREE to submit

to binding arbitration in the current labour
negotiations and that City Council continues to support a
resolution made in Windsor, for Windsor.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Councillor Jones absent for the vote.

75
At this point I did not support arbitration because I
was under the mistaken impression that the City's
economic position would not be taken into
consideration. Also from my knowledge it is
always better to get an agreement that you can live
with vs turning your destiny over to an arbitrator.

76
 Moved by Councillor Gignac, seconded by
Councillor Lewenza,

THAT City Council MAINTAINS its current

position on the offer of job security for additional
years mirroring the term of the contract but
emphasizes that there is no discussion or consideration on
the issue of a guaranteed work force.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councillor Jones absent for the vote.

77
 June 1, 2009
Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by
CouncillorPostma:
THAT the City PROCEED to interest arbitration
pursuant to section 40 of the Ontario Labour Relations
Act, as amended provided that the issues to
be discussed and the parameters for resolution be
agreed upon between the City and CUPE Locals 82
and 543.

MOTION DOES NOT CARRY.

Councillors Postma, Lewenza and Jones voting aye.

78
Arbitration

79
 ARBITRATION
Mayor Eddie Francis:

Francis said he's aware of the growing irritation among Windsor taxpayers
about the lack of service.

"But at the same time, I don't want a group of irate taxpayers knocking on
our door saying, 'Why'd you give away the farm?'

“We have a financial responsibility to the corporation..."

“It is my opinion not to leave this in the hands of a third party that's 400 or
500 kilometres away… "It is the responsibility of the parties to reach an
agreement. The city of Windsor is prepared to sit down and reach an
agreement."

"The history of arbitrators is one of giving away the farm -- they're known
to give away the farm."

80
■ One of the approaches that could have shortened the bitter dispute
between the City and CUPE was arbitration. Here's what Windsorites
did not hear.
■ There are at least four active arbitrators from this area whose names
appear on the Ministry of Labour’s approved list of Arbitrators. To be
on that list these people have had to demonstrate expertise in the area
of Labour Arbitration
■ While a settlement between the parties is preferred, where the parties
are unable to find a settlement, arbitration is a responsible way to end
a particular dispute
■ The parties determine the terms of reference for the arbitrator and
within that process the parties can still negotiate a settlement before a
decision is reached. Here are terms of reference as an example from
the City of Toronto Labour Disputes Resolution Act 2002:

81
■ The mediator-arbitrator is required to take into consideration all factors
that he considers relevant, including:
■ The city’s ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation;
■ The extent to which services may have to be reduced if current taxation
levels are not increased;
■ The economic situation in Ontario and the City of Windsor;
■ A comparison between the employees and other comparable employees
in both the private and public sectors of the nature of work and the
terms and conditions of employment; and
■ The city’s ability to attract and retain qualified employees.
■ The city and union will still be able to negotiate their own agreement
during this 60-day period. If they should reach an agreement, they are
required to inform the mediator-arbitrator and the arbitration process
will automatically cease

82
 Here is a local arbitrated ruling that was delivered recently between
Windsor Regional Hospital and the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, local 636. Compare that result with what CUPE
received:

"Additionally, the board has considered the general economic

conditions in Canada and Ontario, and the specific economic situation
of Windsor. With respect to the latter point in particular we are of the
view that the local economic difficulties, and the influence they will
have on the funds available to the employer, aside from Provincial
funding, must seriously be considered."
Accordingly, the Board Awards and Orders as follows:

Wages
March 31st 2008. An across the board increase of 3%
March 31, 2009. An across the board increase of 0.5%
April 1, 2009. An across the board increase of 1%
October 1, 2009 An across the board increase of .75%·

83
AM 800 Lynn Martin Show - June 2nd 2009

On June 2, 2009 I did a three hour live call in show, two days prior to the
June 4th ward meeting with constituents.

One of the issues that were raised was arbitration.

Donald McArthur June 5th 2009

Constituents urged council to end the strike by sending it to binding third-

party arbitration.
Lewenza held out hope for a negotiated settlement.

The reason for this change of position once again was it was very clear that
their would never be enough votes around the council table to entertain this
direction. I also think by continuing to raise this issue would have been a
distraction from both sides focusing on working towards a collective
agreement.

84
“We're very close to a made in Windsor Solution" said Lewenza. A very small
contribution from the employee and a very small contribution from the
corporation and you have an agreement. The solution is a lot easier than the
craziness that's gone on."

Barry Suszek, a striking building inspector who described himself as a "proud

city of Windsor worker," said the concept is definitely worth exploring. If that's
what it takes, lets get it done," he said. "This strike is killing me and everyone
else in the city."

July 18th 2009 Donald McArthur CUPE Urges arbitration:

City sees opportunity in mediator

"There was good progress and an admission that both sides have made
tremendous mistakes throughout the process" said Ward 4 Coun. Ken Lewenza
of the meeting. "There's a feeling of cautious optimism that we can get a deal
once we tone down the rhetoric."

85
 At this meeting I spoke about the urgency to get a deal done.
We had 1800 hundred people not collecting a pay check and 3 to 4 spin off jobs
for every public sector worker.

Fox called on Francis to step aside and send the issue to arbitration because
negotiations have been "severely flawed and tainted."

She received backing from an unlikely source--- Catherine Swift, president of the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business. In a news release expressing her
"outrage" at the union's rejection of the city's offer, Swift called on the province to
legislate the striking workers back on the job.

"Before the nay Sayers try to dissuade you from taking a stronger position, citing
arbitration as a more costly option, the province can and does set parameters
around arbitrated settlements, including the ability of the employer to pay," she
wrote. "As we have pointed out to you before , the City of Windsor has a strong
case in protecting its taxpayers from the gold-plated demands of unions."

**Side Note--Maybe a little late for this contribution

86
Windsor Star Editorial CUPE strike A look at the
claims June 6 2009
Tension continues to rise around the CUPE strike. Tax dollars are
involved and many have entered the discussion. Our views on the
strike outlined below in an effort to stimulate further thought and to
advance the discussion. We acknowledge that in these matters, our
positions usually come from a business perspective.

What is the stake of the strikers in retiree benefits for future hires?
They are the only ones without a stake in benefits for future hires.
Almost everyone else is a potential hire.It seems unreasonable that
current employees should take such a strong position when they are
the only ones without a real stake in the issue. In this particular case, it
is likely most stakeholders would prefer that they worry about
themselves and let us worry about ourselves.

If CUPE were to accept this logic, all the terms and conditions of
employment would be under attack for new employees, not to mention
create a division in the workplace.

87
 Moved by Councillor Valentinis, seconded by Councillor
Gignac:
THAT the verbal update respecting labour
negotiations BE RECEIVED and that the negotiating
team be directed to proceed on the verbal direction of
Council.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

June 15, 2009

Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by Councillor
Brister:
THAT the verbal update respecting labour
negotiations BE RECEIVED and that the negotiating
team be directed to proceed on the verbal direction of
Council.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

88
June 17, 2009
A Critical and substantial shift!
The leak occurred on June 17, 2009. The numbers that the City's Negotiating
Team reported to City Council on that date were from an offer from CUPE,
which they wanted presented to City Council:

Three year deal.

Current ODA each year of the collective agreement.

No post retirement benefits for new hires.

Lump sum payment in 2009 of $3,000 for full-time and $1,500 for part-
time employees.

Wage increases: January 1, 2010 = 1.75%

- January 1, 2011 = 2.65%
- 4.4% wage increase over 3yr agreement
or
-1.46% average wage increase per year

89
Moved by Councillor Postma, seconded by Councillor
Marra:
THAT the verbal update dated June 17, 2009 from the
Negotiating Team respecting Labour negotiations
with CUPE Local 82 BE RECEIVED.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Moved by Councillor Postma, seconded by Councillor

Marra,
THAT Council NOT ACCEPT the latest offer presented
by CUPE Local 82, and further, that the Negotiating Team
BE DIRECTED to go back to the negotiating table with the
City's last offer as the base for continued
negotiations, both as outlined below:

90
The City's last offer:
■ $1800 lump sum for full time
■ $ 900 lump sum for part time
■ January 1, 2010 = 1.5%
■ January 1, 2011 = 1.8%
■ Post Retirement Benefits capped at age 65 for new hires and self-
funded after that.
■ - 3.3% wage increase over 3yr agreement

or
■ - 1.1% average wage increase per year

MOTION DOES NOT CARRY.

Councillors Postma, Lewenza, Hatfield, Marra and Jones voting aye.

Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Valentinis, Dilkens and Mayor Francis

voting nay.

91
 Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by Councillor
Gignac,

THAT the Negotiating Team BE DIRECTED to go

back to the negotiating table with CUPE Local 82 and
to ask the Union to review the City's last offer and to
respond.

CARRIED.

Councillor Postma was absent from the meeting when the

vote was taken on this matter.

92
■ CUPE's proposal is not much different than what is achieved a month
later.
■ In fact the overall percentage increase went from an average of 1.46%
increase over three years to an average of 1.7% increase over 4years -
one month later. A increase of 1% more than what CUPE was looking
for.
■ On the issue of a signing bonus, Council was unanimously prepared to
offer $1800 as a starting point to continue negotiations.
■ Had negotiations resumed, and even if both sides had met in the middle,
this framework would have represented an agreement that was fair to our
employees and cheaper for tax payers than what we eventually agreed to
five weeks later.
■ What is critical on this date is the unanimous admission by council that
net zero was a failed approach.
■ This substantial shift also identifies that this dispute may have been more
about politics than it was about economics.
■ Because the money provided here is more money than what was needed
to pre fund Post Retirement Benefits for new employees in their entity.

93
■ Or it identifies that Councils failure in recognizing lost opportunities
going back to 2006 or the failure to pursue motions that were lost on
April 15, April 24, and Councillor Hatfields motion on May 11.
■ Which in hind sight all represent a better deal for tax payers and our

Employees .
■ For weeks we were hearing in our local paper that there were four or
five council members that were prepared to sell taxpayers down the
river.
■ The question that must be asked to the so called hard liners is what
happened in the span of an hour that caused such an enormous shift.
■ Why did five Councillors and the Mayor reverse their vote on
Councillor Postmas motion?

What happened in the span of an hour that caused such

an enormous shift?

94
 June 18, 2009

Moved by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Brister,

THAT no member of Council or Administration, other than Mayor

Francis and/or Helga Reidel, are to comment on, or do anything
pertaining to, labour negotiations.
CARRIED.
Councillor Postma absent for the vote.

June 22, 2009

Moved by Councillor Lewenza, seconded by Councillor Marra,

THAT the verbal update from the General Manager of Corporate

Services regarding labour negotiations BE RECEIVED for
information.
CARRIED.
Councillor Jones absent for the vote.

95
 July 13, 2009

What was CUPE asking for in it's final offer to the city?

On July 10, 2009 CUPE provided the City's Negotiating Team with a final offer.
This final offer was presented to City Council on July 13, 2009:

■ Four year deal.

■ Current ODA each year of the collective agreement.
■ No post retirement benefits for new hires.
■ Lump sum payment in 2009 of $2,500 for full-time and $1,250 for part-time
employees.
■ Wage increases: January 1, 2010 = 2%, January 1, 2011 = 2% and January 1,
2012 = 3%.
■ 7% total increase:
■ Two years of job security for each year of the collective agreement (2009 =
1993, 2010 = 1995, 2011 = 1997, 2012 = 1999).

96
The difference between what was in CUPE,s final offer
dated June 10, and the eventual agreement is 0.4% in base
wage increases.

And 1150.00 less in lump sum payments.

97
 Moved by Councillor Jones - No Seconder – as a result the
motion was never on the floor for consideration and is
included here only for sake of completeness:

THAT the final offer presented to the City’s

negotiating team by CUPE Locals 82 and 543 BE
ACCEPTED by the City of Windsor.

NO SECONDER FOR THE MOTION.

98
Doug Schmidt July 14th 2009
City makes counter offer; Talks to resume Tuesday

Francis then met with reporters to announce today's talks.

He said council vote on CUPE's final offer had been 8-3
against. He said council formulated a new position which
was accepted unanimously, 11-0The union has refused to
to disclose the substance of it's so called "final offer" -- an
offer that was rejected 8-3 a week ago Monday by city
council -- but some details have emerged.

99
 Moved by Councillor Hatfield, seconded by Councillor
Lewenza,

THAT the City’s bargaining team BE

DIRECTED to return to the bargaining table with an
offer to be shaped by the expertise of the bargaining
team with flexibility to continue the negotiation process.

MOTION DOES NOT CARRY.

Councillors Postma, Lewenza and Hatfield voting aye.

Councillors Brister, Halberstadt, Gignac, Dilkens, Valentinis and Marra
voting nay.
Councillor Jones was absent for the vote.

100
 Moved by Councillor Brister, seconded by Councillor Dilkens.

THAT the final offer presented to the City’s negotiating team by

CUPE Locals 82 and 543 BE NOTED AND FILED.
CARRIED.
Councillors Postma and Lewenza voting nay.
Councillor Jones was absent for the vote.
■ I voted against this motion because I was very concerned that Council was going
to note and file and then go home. My concern which I spoke to was predicated
on the fact that the community and our employees felt a settlement was near. My
fear was had we went home it may have set off a whole chain of unpredictable
events that may have erased the progress that had been made. I remember saying
that we had a responsibility to prepare a counter offer no matter how long it took.
■ I also feel that by the mere suggestion that we note and file then go home speaks
to the fact that some around the table felt no urgency to get a deal done.
■ Their was still lots of sentiment in the community that the majority of council was
fighting on their behalf, and that city council should not accept CUPE's
outrageous demands.
■ But when you look at all the details, is that really the case?

101
 Moved by Councillor Marra, seconded by Councillor Brister,
THAT the City of Windsor MAKE a last offer to the
membership of CUPE Locals 82 and 543, via a mechanism to
be determined, to include in form and content all material
positions advanced by the City’s negotiating team on previously
reported relevant matters and with the financial package to be
presented to include:
■ $2000.00 lump sum payment to all full time employees
and $1000.00 lump sum payment to all temporary, part-time
and seasonal recreation employees in exchange for the
loss of employer paid post retirement benefits beyond
the age of 65 for all new employees hired on or after
April 17, 2009.
■ 1% wage increase in year 1 of a 4 year contract
■ 1.5% wage increase in year 2 of the contract
■ 1.8% wage increase in year 3 of the contract.
■ 2.0% wage increase in year 4 of the contract.

102
■ · 6.3 % total cost -
■ $160,000,000 over 35 yrs in wages
■ · $ 2.8 Lump sum compounded @ 5% = $15.4 m
· Which is more expensive than the option to explore the April 24th motion.
And more expensive than Councillor Hatfields motion on May 11, 2009.

AND THAT no return to work protocols be entered into;

AND THAT no overtime be afforded to members of CUPE Locals 82
and 543 on the return to work to complete strike related
work backlog, except in the case of essential services.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
 
Moved by Councillor Dilkens, seconded by Councillor Brister,
THAT, in the event that CUPE Locals 82 and 543 refuse
to present the City’s final offer to their memberships, or
in the case that the said final offer is rejected , that the
City will immediately make a request to the Ministry of Labour
to conduct a ministry supervised vote on the City’s final offer.
 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

103
 July 17, 2009
Moved by Councillor Postma, seconded by Jones,
THAT the verbal update from the General Manager
of Corporate Services regarding labour negotiations BE
RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
　
July 23, 2009
Moved by Councillor Postma, seconded by Councillor Hatfield,
THAT City Council RATIFY the labour settlement with
CUPE Locals 82 and 543 as recommended by the City’s
negotiating team.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

104
Selling this agreement to the Public

By Chris Vander Doelen, The Windsor Star July 25, 2009

If a struggling corporation can't cut costs during bad times, when can it? But
taxpayers should thank their councillors today -- well, most of them, anyway
-- for sticking to their guns during a strike that turned into a nerve-racking
stare down for both sides.

An overwhelming majority of the city's residents decided they had had enough
of perennial tax increases driven by the rising costs of their so-called servants,
and ordered local politicians to fix the problem -- or else.

Mayor Eddie Francis and council responded by delivering the first significant
reduction in city labour costs in memory: $35 million in unfunded liabilities
for post-retirement benefits will be off the city's books within 10 years. To
which no citizen will see a dime of savings
That means Windsor will eventually be able to reduce its taxes relative to
other cities so it can compete again for investment and jobs.

105
That day is probably five years away, when the real savings to taxpayers from
the new CUPE contract start to kick in.

Again not a dime in real savings

Taxpayers should give themselves a loud cheer for that. They showed
unprecedented solidarity. Instead of submitting like sheep to CUPE's demand
for "more," they stood up to what clearly were unreasonable demands from the
public sector during the city's catastrophic loss of jobs and tax assessment.

Were CUPE demands any different than any other unions that the city was
dealing with? Did City Councils Hard line position go on for to long?

City negotiators tell me pressure from taxpayers is what really settled the
strike. The overwhelming tide of public sentiment was against the strikers, and
everybody on both sides of the negotiating table knew it: they felt buffeted by
the anger, which propelled them all whether they liked it or not.

106
Now labour costs -- a trend line which has done nothing but climb for
decades, accounting for 60 per cent of property taxes -- will start
dipping by about $1 million per year. Not True!

And Windsor has done it without taking anything away from its
current employees in terms of wages or benefits or job loss. Isn't that
the very definition of win-win?

Yet we've all heard people complain that given Windsor's dire
economic circumstances, council should have insisted on a complete
freeze on its workers' wages for two years or more. And/or massive
contracting out.

Cutting wages or jobs simply isn't possible in Canadian labour

negotiations -- especially not in government. Not when CUPE
members across Ontario have been winning average annual contract
settlements worth 2.4 per cent per year. Not true

107
 By Chris Vander Doelen, The Windsor Star July 25, 2009

If a struggling corporation can't cut costs during bad times, when can it? But taxpayers
should thank their councillors today -- well, most of them, anyway -- for sticking to
their guns during a strike that turned into a nerve-racking stare down for both sides.

The deal Windsor won this week will cost taxpayers an average of 1.75 per cent more
during each of the contract's four years, including the $2,000 signing bonus, which will
not be rolled permanently into base salaries.

■ Excluding the bonus -- which is the way accountants are tallying up the cost of the new
contract-- the members of Windsor's two CUPE locals will only cost taxpayers an extra
1.3 per cent per year over the next four years.

Although very creative this figure is not supported by City Hall administration or other
Windsor Star reports.

■ For those who wonder why council didn't hang tough to extract greater savings from
CUPE, given that citizens were coping easily with the strike, there are two simple
words of explanation: Dalton McGuinty.

Not at all true!

108
■ Windsor's negotiating team had to secure a deal with CUPE before Ontario's
labour-friendly premier stepped in with a back-to-work order for Toronto's
striking CUPE workers, with arbitration to follow. Not True

■ That would have doomed Windsor to arbitration, too. That would almost
certainly have preserved the post-retirement benefits for life that were the crux
of the strike. Most likely true

■ Windsor taxpayers would have been stuck forever paying gigantic PRB costs
estimated at $96 million over the next 20 years -- a risk council couldn't afford
to take. Not True as $96 million liability did not include new workers. This
deal provides no savings on existing workers or retirees.

■ Instead the city gets a labour deal that won't kill what's left of its still-bleeding
economy. I agree but it was not the best deal!

109
Gord Henderson Local CUPE members should jump
ship June 20th 2009

Oh sure. There'll be lots of militant talk about

solidarity and fraternity and CUPE forever. And
yada, yada, But when the dust settles and the
water cooler post mortems begin, clear-headed
workers will have to ask themselves the obvious
question: What the hell was that all about?

110
Imagine for a moment if CUPE Members at any
point during this agreement decide to apply 1% of
their wage increases to a PRB plan for new
employees. This would be no different than the
benefit in lieu of wages approach where Transit
Windsor Employees applied 1% of their increases
to enhance their benefit plan.

If CUPE followed this same approach citizens to

would be scratching their heads as well wondering
what this strike was really about?

111
So what was this strike all about?

Was it really about wages and PRBs, or was it a political strike?

Did the City and Taxpayers get the best deal possible?

Did the City achieve what they led citizens to believe relative to long and
short term cost savings?

Was elimination of PRBs the core issue for Citizens,

Or did YOU the Citizens just want us to get the best deal possible?

Were we well served by our major news outlet, The Windsor Star?

112
Was the public given proper information about the role of arbitration?

Were the consequences to you and the city worth a 101 day strike?

Why did City Council continue to follow through with the hard line
stance of net zero with CUPE and not other bargaining units?

Why did the so called hardliners on Council fold in a one hour span on
June 17 that caused such an enormous shift in the City's position?

Did the City reduce its leverage to reach a negotiated solution with the
remaining 70% of its workforce?

Does anyone really know what the strike settlement was especially in
relation to PRBs for new hires?

113
 Conclusion
I personally agree with Eddie Francis that this unanimous deal supported
by City Council at 6.3% over four years, or $160,000,000 over 35 years
represents a fair deal to our employees and to the people that pay them.

My issue however with this deal is it took 101 days longer than it should
have, and the consequences of this dispute were far greater than anything
achieved.

We have been able to settle contracts at WUC, Enwin, now Transit

Windsor that are very similar in nature, minus the 101 day strike and all the
theatrics that went with it.

For the hardliners out there, this deal is clearly not the best that was
available, their were less costly options for every one.

The only question that remains is, what approach will CUPE take to
finding the 50 cents needed per hour to ensure that new employees have a
fully funded Post Retirement Benefit Plan?

114