Decisions, Debate and Democracy
Jan 29, 2016
Last night, after nearly
two years at the bargaining table, members of the Civil Service ratified a new
five-year agreement. Not surprisingly, the result has garnered comments and
questions from the membership that I’d like to address as best I can.
Negotiating on behalf of
nearly 14,000 Manitobans across the province is always a complex and
time-consuming process ― members elect their bargaining reps from eight
different Components that include hundreds of different job classifications.
While this leads to some real challenges in reaching consensus both within the Bargaining
Committee itself and throughout the membership, it remains the best way to get
the best deal possible for the most Civil Service members.
In other words, the union
works best as a democracy. Members elect fellow members to represent their
interests. The representatives put in hundreds of hours going back and forth
with the employer, forwarding arguments and making tough decisions.
In the case of the Civil
Service Bargaining Committee, this meant deciding to file for arbitration last
spring when the employer refused to bring forward a satisfactory offer. It
meant keeping up the pressure on government to return to the table throughout
the summer and into the fall. When negotiations resumed in December, and a new,
improved offer was on the table, it meant deciding it was time to let the
membership have their say.
In the end, while a
majority of voting members decided to accept the tentative agreement, with its
mix of wage and benefit increases, job security, and special wage adjustments
for those classifications facing specific recruitment and retention issues,
others disagreed. Some maintain that in the short term, members would have
gained more through a binding arbitrated settlement. And it’s impossible to
know if they’re right. But what we do know is that when we go to arbitration,
there are no guarantees.
This is democracy in
action. The Bargaining Committee explained the options to the membership and
let the majority decide ― accept the tentative agreement or proceed to
arbitration.
Some have asked why the
union did not release the actual number of members who voted, or exactly how
many voted for acceptance. There are a number of reasons why many Bargaining
Committees don’t release detailed voting numbers, even when the results show
strength and unity.
Not releasing numbers for
any vote is a way to preserve the entire union’s long-term bargaining strength.
Often negotiations at various MGEU bargaining tables are connected. An employer
may choose to weaken or strengthen its offer at one bargaining table based on
the strength of a related group’s ratification vote result. Not releasing the
specific numbers, regardless of how strong they are, avoids these pitfalls.
In the case of the Civil
Service, members have decided to ratify, and we respect that decision.
Ultimately, the entire
negotiating process, with its debates and decisions, is all about respect.
Respect for the incredibly
hard work of the Civil Service Bargaining Committee who stepped up to immerse
themselves in the task, made the tough decisions, and never wavered in their
efforts to listen, learn and get the best deal possible.
Respect for your jobs ― for
the work you do and the vital role you play in keeping Manitoba going and
growing.
And respect for each other.
Our effectiveness as a union, and as union members, flows from a solid sense of
democracy and solidarity. Both in the short term, and the long, it’s what keeps
us strong.
Comments
Comments are now closed
I am thankful for the work that the bargaining committee put in to bring this agreement to the members and respect the decision of the majority. I am disappointed with the wage increase but understand that bargaining is a trade off and the civil service has made their decision.
Elaine Madill - 2016-01-29 17:45
All you have to do is look at the cost of vegetables! 1% might cover the additional cost of your produce for the year but what about the rest of the increases we see on all our other day to day items. The cost of living far exceeds the increases and should be the goal of the bargaining committees to at least achieve that number. Lastly, the amount of resolutions left on the table to except this offer is disgraceful.. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this BIG BROTHER mentality by the government to sway us from our goals. It appears the only motivation in this negotiation was the all mighty dollar and lay off protection. If this is acceptable to the union why even bargain for any of the other 32 items left on the table, we should ignore them from the start and go for the allBIG DOLLARS!
Robin Cadzow - 2016-01-30 09:02
It's disappointing that our union once again has let down the seasonal employees of Manitoba conservation. As in the early 90's with Filmon they have left us totally unprotected with a new conservative government on the way. For those who are unaware a large number of us were full time employees until Filmon and have not been brought back to full time since. Also I believe a true democracy would show the people the numbers after a vote, unless they are trying to hide something.
Randy Biles - 2016-01-30 09:02
Just remember if this is the best this bunch could get after 2 years of talking to a so called labour friendly gov maybe we should all give them a long rest and vote in people who will actually fight for us instead of lay down with their friends. When we went though something like this in the 80's and 90's the union was outraged at the PC's at the time. A union meeting then was no better then a NDP love in and we were told the PC's had to go if we wanted any fairness. We all just seen how that went just add up all our raises since 99 against inflation to see how we have been treated.No need to go on since I am in the minority, not that we would ever know with this bunch adding up the votes.
Anonymous - 2016-02-01 13:52
This was a garbage offer that I can't believe was put to a vote. Two years of negotiations and this was the best that could be done? The bank of Canada's target for inflation is 2% per annum. How can you put an offer with two 1% annual increases to vote especially after we had to eat two zeros an the last contract. And $100 total increase to cover all health benefits over 5 years? Unreal. Again, there's no way this keeps pace with inflation. Anyone who has been around the government over the past number of years knows that the no-layoff clause is a joke with how easy it is for the employer to cut jobs through attrition. Never mind the fact that it's mainly an attempt to preserve the union's dues base. And if you really want to do something for the dues paying membership, how about you stop protecting all the dead weight employees that every single one of us who do our jobs are carrying? All said, this is an embarrassment, not a victory.
Anonymous - 2016-01-31 09:20
In reading everything in this thread plus other threads I will end my discussion with one last thought! There are some serious accusations and harsh words cast within these threads. I believe that the people bashing the bargaining committee and union should know the facts before making assumptions. Being on the bargaining committee for the first time was an eye opening experience because I grew up in a union household where I knew more than most about the movement. Now that I can say that I have been through my first collective agreement I fully understand what the negotiating committee has to deal with when dealing with the employer and with the membership. It is not easy. To put it in perspective, imagine someone walking up to you and demanding that you pay them $100 or even $10! Or maybe going to Tim Hortons knowing a coffee is $2 on the menu but the employee says give me $2.50 for that $2 coffee! What would be your reaction?? My guess is piss off or something much worse. Well this is what the civil service bargaining committee is and was up against. The union and bargaining committee does the best they can with what they have to work with. For those with the negative comments, I recommend thinking about when the last time you went to a union meeting was, or have you been to a meeting ever, are you involved with any type of committee, are you active within the union, did u put forward bargaining proposals for bargaining??? Thank you for your time and I hope that some of the negativity can go away.
Grady Hunt - 2016-02-03 11:42
Nice to see Mr. Hunt step up to defend the bargaining committee. Just to answer some of your questions yes I do go to union meetings in fact I am the president of my local. Yes I did put bargaining proposals forward but they never made it past the bargaining committee or if they did they were so watered down they didn't make sense anymore. With a contract like this one I do not see the negativity going away until all of our components can bargain separately and fairly.
Randy Biles - 2016-02-03 15:33
To the folks that made up the Barganing Committee, I appreciate your time that you put into this process. That being said I for one can not understand how the membership did not vote down this offer. It is the membership that ultimately accepted the offer. It was the membership that did not give the strong mandate to the Barganing Committee to ask for more, to negotiate for a better offer to hold fast and go to arbitration. It was the membership that voted with a majority to accept what is plainly a very week and wholly inadequate offer. In time those that voted for this offer will see how poor it really is. As for the Barganing Committee, I say dispite your efforts you did not represent as a powerful force of a Union of more than 14,000 members. I did not see you as a Barganing Committee engage your membership for support, I did not see you utilize any strategy that would have given you any reason for support of the membership. I did not see the Barganing Committee or the Union Excutive put any true effort to get message out to Manitobans, our MAL's or the Media. Frankly I say shame.
Anonymous - 2016-02-14 23:56
As one who sat at the bargaining table for 10 years and three contracts I can say with complete honesty that that if you name an emotion, it could be found at that table....from frustration to anger to hopelessness to happiness (not too much) and everything in between. Manitoba's civil service is extremely diverse, including positions ranging from clerks to nurses to scientists, pilots, geologists, lab techs, etc. All of these members have different needs and it is extremely hard to try and get something for everyone and to make everyone happy. If members are unhappy what they need to do is rally together and get their fellow workers to take a stand. Strength in many unions has come from the members and their ability to stand together and demand a fair contract. The bargaining team has their hands tied if the members will not support them. Because sometimes that support means a strike vote or in this case arbitration, a sometimes more lengthy process. In the end the vote is what makes the final decision, and frankly in the past a large majority of members didn't even bother to vote, and that is the only shame here.
D.S. Navitka - 2016-02-23 16:54