Conciliation Report
Report on conciliation
By Bradford McKaig, Chair of the CUPE 1975/1975-01 negotiating committee
Conciliation talks ended last night when the universities rejected CUPE’s last proposal for settlement.
Conciliator Doug Forseth adjourned proceedings, stating “the two parties are simply too far apart.”
The universities contend the union showed lack of movement on key issues, which is completely false. The union has moved significantly on virtually every issue on the table, including monetary items.
At the end of the day, we simply could not accept the employer’s position regarding benefits, as the funding that was offered became contingent on accepting yet another “… revised and rebalanced Employee Benefit Program.” There are already concerns that the proposed funding may be insufficient to maintain current coverage.
Simply stated, this means revisiting the process that last time around resulted in significant reduction in benefits. The surplus the universities are reporting probably exists due to the reduction in coverage as a result of the last “review.” We believe that without additional funding, this surplus will deplete prior to the expiration of the agreement.
The other key issue involved the arbitrary and subjective attachment of Performance Reviews in order to “qualify” for increments that our members are currently entitled to by the last CA.
The universities have represented their wage proposal as 17% over 3 years. This is misleading at best. There are NO guarantees that anyone would receive their increments. As such, the ACTUAL wage increases as proposed by the employer would be 2.5%, 2.75% and 3% over the 3 year agreement. It should also be noted that the improvements to Pension and Benefit funding should not be reported as “Wages” and comes at a cost… Other union proposals fell by the way in favour of this funding.
Barb Daigle (Associate VP of Human Resources at the U of S) is quoted in the University press release as saying “WE entered the conciliation process…” and “WE are disappointed at the Union’s refusal to entertain compromises or work with us to find solutions.” Barb Daigle did not consider bargaining with CUPE 1975/1975-01 enough of a priority to even attend at the table. Instead, she once again deferred to a contracted consultant to stand in for her and represent the interests of the universities.
The universities would have us believe that they are “listening carefully to the union,” yet it was only after our membership gave us the 89% strike mandate that they moved at all on any of the concessions they had on the table. Furthermore, at conciliation, they only moved on items after the union led the way. In the end, the employer refused to meet the minimum requirements for our negotiating committee to recommend a deal to our membership.
By Bradford McKaig, Chair of the CUPE 1975/1975-01 negotiating committee
Conciliation talks ended last night when the universities rejected CUPE’s last proposal for settlement.
Conciliator Doug Forseth adjourned proceedings, stating “the two parties are simply too far apart.”
The universities contend the union showed lack of movement on key issues, which is completely false. The union has moved significantly on virtually every issue on the table, including monetary items.
At the end of the day, we simply could not accept the employer’s position regarding benefits, as the funding that was offered became contingent on accepting yet another “… revised and rebalanced Employee Benefit Program.” There are already concerns that the proposed funding may be insufficient to maintain current coverage.
Simply stated, this means revisiting the process that last time around resulted in significant reduction in benefits. The surplus the universities are reporting probably exists due to the reduction in coverage as a result of the last “review.” We believe that without additional funding, this surplus will deplete prior to the expiration of the agreement.
The other key issue involved the arbitrary and subjective attachment of Performance Reviews in order to “qualify” for increments that our members are currently entitled to by the last CA.
The universities have represented their wage proposal as 17% over 3 years. This is misleading at best. There are NO guarantees that anyone would receive their increments. As such, the ACTUAL wage increases as proposed by the employer would be 2.5%, 2.75% and 3% over the 3 year agreement. It should also be noted that the improvements to Pension and Benefit funding should not be reported as “Wages” and comes at a cost… Other union proposals fell by the way in favour of this funding.
Barb Daigle (Associate VP of Human Resources at the U of S) is quoted in the University press release as saying “WE entered the conciliation process…” and “WE are disappointed at the Union’s refusal to entertain compromises or work with us to find solutions.” Barb Daigle did not consider bargaining with CUPE 1975/1975-01 enough of a priority to even attend at the table. Instead, she once again deferred to a contracted consultant to stand in for her and represent the interests of the universities.
The universities would have us believe that they are “listening carefully to the union,” yet it was only after our membership gave us the 89% strike mandate that they moved at all on any of the concessions they had on the table. Furthermore, at conciliation, they only moved on items after the union led the way. In the end, the employer refused to meet the minimum requirements for our negotiating committee to recommend a deal to our membership.
<< Home