2011 summer of strikes

[Byrns]

Yay, the city union wants in on the strike fun!

City's biggest union plans rotating strikes

The more than 4,000-strong union — which includes city planners, bylaw officers, 311 operators and other inside workers — rejected the city’s latest offer of a three-year deal with a 2% pay hike this year, 2.5% in 2012 and 3% in 2013.

Union officials said the offer provides them less over the first two years than “what council took for themselves this year.”

Council members received a 4.7% pay hike.

I've had a 0% raise in 2+ years...

[4X4]

Sweet. The bylaw officers can strike all summer, plz and thx. Parking free-for-all at Sandy Beach!

[DownhillGoat]

Drinking on the bow!

[4X4]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Drinking on the bow!

That's the CPS and the CFD enforcing that. You'll still have to keep the booze on the DL and your lifejacket handy.

[Misterpants]

I'd be so pissed if I was in a union that voted to strike. You will never recoup the money you lose from a lost pay check or two from any percentage point you end up gaining.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

I'd be so pissed if I was in a union that voted to strike. You will never recoup the money you lose from a lost pay check or two from any percentage point you end up gaining.

Few things wrong with that line of thinking. First is that if the City union members did negotiate on the City's bottom line and took their bare minimum raise each year, then it would most certainly have a negative impact on your yearly earnings. Why should front line workers accept a 2% raise when city council voted themselves a 4.7% raise?

Then they don't just strike if the vote passes. They continue to negotiate with the city with "__% of members voted to strike" on the table. After that they may do rotating strikes for a while in certain departments just like the postal workers.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

I'd be so pissed if I was in a union that voted to strike. You will never recoup the money you lose from a lost pay check or two from any percentage point you end up gaining.

My wife works for the City and is in the union (not by choice; it's required for her position). She intends to continue working in the event of a strike.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

My wife works for the City and is in the union (not by choice; it's required for her position). She intends to continue working in the event of a strike.

I wonder how often this is the case now. I am in a union not by choice, and may be facing the 'strike or scab' position later this summer as well. I have a feeling, if it comes to that, I'll just quit and find non-union work. I've never had a choice about joining a union though, it's always been "if you want to work here, you will be part of the union."

I wonder if that's how unions are still going these days. I've been told that once a union is into a job/shop, they are almost impossible to get out. If folks weren't forced to be in a union for some work, I wonder if they would have died off a while back.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

Few things wrong with that line of thinking. First is that if the City union members did negotiate on the City's bottom line and took their bare minimum raise each year, then it would most certainly have a negative impact on your yearly earnings. Why should front line workers accept a 2% raise when city council voted themselves a 4.7% raise?

Then they don't just strike if the vote passes. They continue to negotiate with the city with "__% of members voted to strike" on the table. After that they may do rotating strikes for a while in certain departments just like the postal workers.

How are those two related? They are completely different sectors.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

How are those two related? They are completely different sectors.

Not only that, but aren't council salaries decided by an impartial third-party committee?

[Misterpants]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

Few things wrong with that line of thinking. First is that if the City union members did negotiate on the City's bottom line and took their bare minimum raise each year, then it would most certainly have a negative impact on your yearly earnings. Why should front line workers accept a 2% raise when city council voted themselves a 4.7% raise?

Then they don't just strike if the vote passes. They continue to negotiate with the city with "__% of members voted to strike" on the table. After that they may do rotating strikes for a while in certain departments just like the postal workers.

I see what you are saying and where the sentiment comes from to want more of a raise, given the optics of council voting in a larger raise for themselves. All I'm saying is that the entire process is a giant farce meant to justify your union dues and allow management to save some money by any variety of creative negotiating ways. At the end of the day it's always the same story. Union goes in with outrageous demands, management goes in with outrageous demands, contract ends up somewhere in the middle. In the meantime, there is no way that the extra 1% that the union touts as a huge victory will ever replace the 1 or 2 paychecks you've had to forego.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by Misterpants

I see what you are saying and where the sentiment comes from to want more of a raise, given the optics of council voting in a larger raise for themselves. All I'm saying is that the entire process is a giant farce meant to justify your union dues and allow management to save some money by any variety of creative negotiating ways. At the end of the day it's always the same story. Union goes in with outrageous demands, management goes in with outrageous demands, contract ends up somewhere in the middle. In the meantime, there is no way that the extra 1% that the union touts as a huge victory will ever replace the 1 or 2 paychecks you've had to forego.

True, but as of now a vote is just a negotiation tactic. The city has voted to strike a number of times over the years and the only time that I remember them actually striking was in 1978.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by 4X4

That's the CPS and the CFD enforcing that. You'll still have to keep the booze on the DL and your lifejacket handy.

Yeah, I know. Just couldn't think of anything I'd do with a lack of bylaw officers.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

How are those two related? They are completely different sectors.

I'm not sure I get it. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by Sectors, could you clarify this?

[Ozy_Flame]

I used to work for the City, and the Union was never really in my face about anything. Only thing I didn't like was paying union fees, although I suppose that's because I never had to go to them for anything.

There was a level of comfort knowing that you are backed by them though. You definitely don't get that in the private sector.

[WilsonFourTwo]

2011: A Strike Odyssey

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

There was a level of comfort knowing that you are backed by them though. You definitely don't get that in the private sector.

As a private sector employee, I can safely say that I don't miss this "comfort" they offer. If I want better wages, I make my own case.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Yeah, I know. Just couldn't think of anything else I'd do with a lack of bylaw officers.

Grow your weeds really long and piss off your neighbours.

[WilsonFourTwo]

^^ I gotta go with Mazrim on this one. In all my years, I've never once thought "I wish I had a Union behind me".

I've never been dramatically underpaid, overworked or abused. If something isn't the way I want it, I make the change (fix the issue or move on).

To each their own.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Grow your weeds really long and piss off your neighbours.

Stop picking up dog poop.

Btw......are Bylaw Officers the ones in charge of investigating Hobo Murders?