CUPE’s Opposition Gets 33%, Offers Conditional 17.85%
Here’s a good article summing things up, from the SP in Saskatoon:
UofS admin gets 33% IN WAGES, and they offer CUPE a highly conditional “17.85%” wages AND BENEFITS. The UofR-CUPE benefits are actually cut, except for the eye glasses which go up $50. That’s wiped out if you get dental work done since CUPE will lose ~$350 in the UofR newly proposed package. They are offering a conditional boost of $150, IF CUPE takes a cut in dental, Short and Longterm disability! Hmm, $150 + $50 - $350 = -$150.
….”The [CUPE] speakers took shots at the university’s senior administrators whose salaries have increased, on average, 11 per cent per year for the past six years. In 2006, their salaries ranged from $122,437 to $242,348, not including the president’s salary of $320,000.
“Senior administrators receiving those big increases and salaries at this university never had to strike. They just got big increases and paycheques,” said Linda Reiber, a member of the CUPE bargaining committee, drawing boos from the crowd.
“And then they turned around and made us strike for modest gains. That’s disgraceful.”
The universities’ latest offer to CUPE Local 1975 includes a 17 per cent increase in wages and benefits over three years.
But the union says the wage increase is really 8.25 per cent because six per cent is based on acceptable performance.
The two sides also disagree on the funding and management of CUPE 1975’s benefits plan.
The employees have been working without a new contract since Dec. 31, 2006.
Friday’s half-hour protest was a rallying point for professors and other university employees who gathered about 2,500 names on a petition, asking the university’s board of governors to direct administration representatives to return to bargaining in good faith.
Those who organized the petition believe the CUPE strike is an example of poor labour relations at the university and they’re calling for an external review of the human resources department.”
- Strikers out in -35C wind-chill, looking for a “fair offer”, not a “final offer”
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
November 28th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Listen to CKRM Newsline today for more talk about the strike. Gormley was ranting about unions again yesterday, and apparently today as well.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Still spreading CUPE propoganda I see. There is nothing “highly conditional” about the 17.85. The only people who arent going to get 17.85 are people who don’t perform and then can’t even convince their own union to go to bat for them through the grievance procedure.
Here is some math for you: 17.85% is higher than this provinces average growth in wages and its GDP growth per capita THEREFORE CUPE is taking more than its fair share of this provinces economic growth. Im sure that 5.85% MORE than makes up for any minor reductions in benefits.
As for senior managers… there arent 1800 of them. I guess CUPE will continue to extort the taxpayers of this province and the tuition paying students at the University.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Looks like CUPE even wants to control the message too. According to that article “e-mail[ing]… CUPE employees hours before they hit the picket lines, providing details of the universities’ latest offer” is an unfair labour practice. Maybe if CUPE quit misleading its own members no one would need to talk over their head and say what the real facts are…
Christmas is coming… That tree is going to be awfully empty.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
KC, you’re wrong. Here’s how:
“The only people who arent going to get 17.85 are people who don’t perform”
That number includes one time payouts to employees who didn’t start the job this year, and don’t leave before October next year! What kind of calculation for wage increases uses one time payouts, AND INCLUDES benefits ‘increases’ (which actually result in a net loss)? I’ll tell you in case you don’t know. Deceptive calculations, which the University has FOOLED YOU with.
I’ve put the numbers in front of you, either refute them using logic, or go buy some coal for those employees you are gloating over, while they are standing up for their rights.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I am totally on the side of CUPE 1975 in regards to the strike, but someone really needs to adjust the percentage increases to upper management to truthfully show what the real increases are. Mr. McKinnon’s salary did go up by 60% in the 6 years from 2000-2006. However this does not equate to an increase of 10% per year. The wonders of compound interest actually indicate that he got 8.15%/year on average. If you compount 8.15%/year over 6 years you come out with the 60% change in salary. The other problem is the 11% total increase. The form that data sent out by the union shows an overall change in salaries of 11%/year, yet the highest individual increase was only 10% (Mr. McKinnon). Mathmatically this is impossible. When the union showd these numbers the included 3 new positions in the 2006 total that they had no prior history for. This made the 2006 total much higher and over inflating the percentage increase to 11%. So really the amount in salaries changed by 66% but mostly because three new positions were created. Once again the 11%/year is false. compounding the increase brings it down to approximately 8.8%/year and even less if you take out the 3 new positions.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Their rights Saskboy? What about the rights of the people of this province to decide how their tax dollars are spent? Or the rights of students who have shelled out for tuition? What about the rights of all the other Saskatchewan workers who are getting an average of 12% who will have to pony up for the 17% that is going to CUPE employees?
I really don’t care how the numbers are calculated. The facts are that CUPE employees would be accruing economic benefit (whether that be through salary, one time payments, or additional benefits) at a rate of 17% over the next three years which is ALMOST DOUBLE their share of this provinces economic growth. That is more than fair.
I have argued against you using logic. I fail to see the logic in one group of employees being offered double their per capita share of the provinces economic growth and saying its not enough. You have just approached this dispute with so little objectivity that you fail to see how ludicrous it is to demand more than your fair share.
And the pay of university execs is irrelevant vis-a-vis the labour dispute. A 17% hike is MORE THAN SUFFICIENT compensation for the CUPE workers. There is only so much wealth in this province to go around. Even if there hadn’t been the pay hikes for the execs I wouldnt support giving that money to CUPE. The offer on the table is more than adequate and if we were to review the pay given to the execs the savings should be returned to tution paying students or the government of the province.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Thanks Bill for the note about the details of the “11%/year”. It wouldnt’ surprise me that the numbers weren’t accurately depicted in the paper, since they mischaracterized the CUPE “17%” and confused poor KC.
“What about the rights of all the other Saskatchewan workers who are getting an average of 12% who will have to pony up for the 17% that is going to CUPE employees?”
Apples and oranges. Yes 17% is a lot, and if they were offering that I’d have wanted CUPE to take it. But that isn’t what CUPE members will get, because at the end of the day there’s a benefit cut, and the UofR is being dishonest in their negotiations. Don’t you wonder why that is? Doesn’t that concern you enough to wonder why CUPE isn’t taking the offer.
The negotiations aren’t about money at this point, they are in how the money being offered is conditionally dangled on a string so it can be yanked away. Don Puff today on CKRM said that if the University removes those conditions, “there will be a deal in 10 minutes”.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
“I fail to see the logic in one group of employees being offered double their per capita share of the provinces economic growth and saying its not enough.”
Personally I think it IS enough. Even too much compared to others in society. But the conditions, including the senseless benefit cut give me that creepy feeling that there’s an agenda at work much worse than a union getting a little more than their equal slice of a pie.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
You guys really need to get your information straight on the 17.85%. It is highly conditional. 1.5% is towards benefits and this is not guaranteed as it is pending a review of the benefit plan. 1% of that 1.5% was negotiated in the previous contract and was never implemented. The UofS is trying to make that look like new money when it isn’t and as I stated, it is not guaranteed. .85% is BS number tacked on by the UofS for the retention bonus they are now offering. This bonus is a one time payout of $750 and should not be shown as a percentage. In addition it is only payable to employees who were employed prior to Jan 1, 2006 and work through Oct 31, 2008. Once again, not everyone will get that .85%.
6% of that is based on performance reviews. That means that those at the top of their pay scale will not get the 6%. In addition that also means that at HRs discretion many other people won’t get it no matter how hard of a worker they are. That is truly what this strike is about. The additonal 8.25% is considered a cost of living increase meant to keep up with inflation. The UofS also wants to tie this to performance and that is not right. The UofS is a public, non competitive, not for profit institution trying to implement a business model consistent with a competive for profit private business. HR consistenly shows a disrespect for their staff and hard work is rarely rewarded with performance increases they already have in place.
If you really want to educate yourself on the real problems, please read the blog here titled Academics’ Critique U of S Human Resources Policies, Practices & Procedures. This is a critique of how HR has tried to implement an inappropriate business model at the UofS. This critique is done by those members of the UofS who are experts in the area of HR and economics.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Sorry typo in my last comment, that should have said employed prior to Jan 1, 2007
November 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Forgot the link to the blog….here it is:
http://blogs.usask.ca/concernedacademics/
November 28th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
I have noticed some other minor flaws in your math in addition to what Bill has pointed out.
I am not completely sure where the loss of ~$350 comes from. The proposed changes to benefits like you said would add the $50 in eyeglass coverage every 2 years, as well as the $150 of flex money per year that could be used on anything that our plans cover. It also includes an additional $100 of paramedical coverage, which is a rarely used but nice to have benefit. However it does as mentioned reduce the dental coverage for all dental work outside of regular cleaning and checkups from 80%(to a $1500 max) to 50%(to a $1500 max) not including any orthodontics. Now to receive the $1500 cap at 80% requires spending $1875. Under the 50% cap if you spent the same amount on dental work, you would receive only $937.50. That’s a potential loss of $562.50 per year.
On top of that, with the reduction in the length of short term disability coverage (employer payed) and the extension of the coverage of the long term disability plan (employee payed), we have been informed by our carrier that the long term plan would look at increasing in cost by a MINIMUM of 1.22% of wages (nearly half of the first years guaranteed wage increase). Now based on the lowest wage in the 04-06 agreement, this would make an additional cost to a member of $249.84 per year. On the highest wage that amount would increase to $761.76 per year.
As you can see, there is a lot to lose if that deal were to be accepted. So the difference that a member could potentially see is:
$150(flex money)+$25(per year additional eyeglass)+$100(additional paramedical)-$562.50(cut in dental benefits)-$761.76(additional longterm disability cost)= -$1049.26
Now mind you, this is the hypothetical maximums. The real numbers would be much lower, but still enough to be significant impact an individuals wage. This becomes even worse if you consider the cost over the entire career of an individual.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Chris, thanks for the correction.
“Now to receive the $1500 cap at 80% requires spending $1875.”
I’d taken the briefing to mean that it was 80% of the cap or .8 * 1500 vs. .5 * 1500.
Now that you have the numbers, and with Kevin’s information that some of the promised money in this contract is actually what was won last negotiation, could you put the facts up on the main page of the CUPE website so more people understand what’s going on, and being fought over? This isn’t about every CUPE employee getting 17.85%, because they WON’T GET IT. The Universities are content letting people like KC spread the misconception. Time to fight back with the facts.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Actually the breakdown of the 17% was on the website. It is down for repairs at the moment. As soon as I find a link for it I will post it here.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Also if I understand correctly, the 6% that is based on performance reviews is not new money. This was also negotiated last contract.