Main Navigation

 

Just the facts

March 22, 2012

CUPE Toronto Winter 2012 Public Services/Labour Relations Survey (March 9-12, 2012)

CUPE Local 79 (City inside workers) and CUPE Local 4948 (Library Union) commissioned Environics Research Group to conduct a public services/labour relations survey in four waves (January 10-13, January 24-27, February 10-13 and March 9-12). The results of the most recent wave were released in part by Local 4948 and in part by Local 79; however, neither union fully released the specifics of the survey. Below is a brief commentary on the survey and its results.

Environics' questionnaire was conducted of residents, random households, by telephone survey of 600 adult Torontonians with the most recent survey conducted between March 9 and 12. The margin of error for a sample of 600 is plus or minus 4% at the 95% confidence level. The following are the labour relations type questions that were asked of the residents that apply to collective bargaining between CUPE Local 79 (Inside Workers) and the City of Toronto.

The survey questions, CUPE'S commentary and Just the Facts (City's commentary) - PDF version

CUPE questions CUPE's commentary Just the Facts
(City's commentary)

When you think of the City of Toronto services and programs you ever use, how important are the frontline workers providing the service to the quality of the service?

Are they:

  1. Critically important
  2. Somewhat important
  3. Not very important
  4. Not at all important
  5. Don't Know

Half of Torontonians believe that frontline workers are critically important to the quality of City Services

  1. Critically important - 54%
  2. Somewhat important - 37%
  3. Not very important - 4%
  4. Not at all important - 1%
  5. Don't Know - 5%

The City agrees that its frontline workers are critically important to the quality of its services. It is seeking a collective agreement, through the bargaining process, that fairly compensates those workers for the work they perform.

At the same time, it has to protect the interests of taxpayers to provide cost effective services. It is this balance that is the City is trying to return to its collective agreement.

Mayor Ford has promised to cut the number of frontline municipal workers by about 20%. If one fifth of the people providing municipal services were cut, what impact would it have on the quality of the services and programs offered by the city?

Would it have a:

  1. very negative impact
  2. a somewhat negative impact
  3. no impact at all

Most Torontonians believe that cutting 20% of frontline workers would have a negative impact on service quality

  1. Very negative impact - 35%
  2. Somewhat negative impact - 43%
  3. No impact at all - 15%
  4. Don't Know - 7%

The City has embarked on finding new efficiencies and on revising its services to modernize the services that it delivers to the public without impacting customer service. Part of the goal of collective bargaining is to reduce or eliminate highly restrictive, time-consuming and costly terms and conditions of employment.

The City does not intend to cut frontline workers by 20%. To suggest otherwise is fear-mongering, pure and simple.

What do you recall reading or hearing about the negotiations between the City of Toronto and the front line workers?

  • The unions are resisting the claw-backs to wages/benefits
  • Negotiations are ongoing
  • Union will call for a strike
  • Negotiations are at a stalemate
  • City wants to lay off workers
  • City not willing to concede anything/not acting in good faith
  • City wants to privatize/cut some services
  • Union demands unreasonable/financially untenable
  • The workers will be locked out
  • It will go to arbitration
  • Other (<2% each)
  • Don't Know

The most common perceptions about the negotiations is that they are ongoing and the union is resisting clawbacks

  • The unions are resisting the claw-backs to wages/benefits - 18%
  • Negotiations are ongoing - 17%
  • Union will call for a strike - 11%
  • Negotiations are at a stalemate - 9%
  • City wants to lay off workers - 7%
  • City not willing to concede anything/not acting in good faith - 6%
  • City wants to privatize/cut some services - 4%
  • Union demands unreasonable/financially Untenable - 4%
  • The workers will be locked out - 3%
  • It will go to arbitration - 3%
  • Other (<2% each) - 5%
  • Don't Know - 14%

The purpose or intent of these questions is unclear as they are only asking whether or not a resident is aware of the issue and not asking the resident for their opinion.

CUPE's comment that the most common perception is that negotiations are ongoing is based upon a response of 17%.

When there is a dispute between the City of Toronto and its frontline workers, whose side are you usually on?

Would you say that you sympathize more with the City or do you sympathize more with the frontline workers?

Torontonians are divided about the side to support in a City-worker labour dispute, with the city having a slight edge

City - 44%
Frontline municipal workers - 39%
Neutral/Both - 7%
Don't Know - 9%

The City's bargaining objectives are on the side of the public and the taxpayers of Toronto.

If the city follows through and cuts benefits and weakened job security for its employees, do you think front line workers would then be justified in going on strike, or would a strike not be justified under any circumstances?

A slim majority believe a strike would be justified if the City cuts benefits and weakens job security

Yes: strike justified - 54%
No: strike never justified - 38%
Don't know - 8%

The City believes the best deals, for employees and employers, are those negotiated at the bargaining table.

The City's bargaining proposals will still result in its employees receiving excellent terms and conditions of employment.

Currently, many of the frontline workers who provide municipal services are permanent part-timers part-timer workers who consistently work two or three days week.

Do you think that these permanent part-time workers should or should not have any access to benefits such as vacation pay and dental and drug plan coverage?

  1. Yes, should have access
  2. No, should not have access
  3. Depends/don't know

Most Torontonians support extending benefits to permanent part-time municipal workers

  1. Yes, should have access - 71%
  2. No, should not have access - 20%
  3. Depends/don't know - 10%

Part-time employees at the City of Toronto already receive vacation and benefits. This is a non-issue.

To the extent that CUPE suggests that those employees don't enjoy those benefits, they are misleading the public.

Do you have any close friends or family members living in City of Toronto long-term care facilities?

About one in ten Torontonians have a close friend or family member in a City long-term care facility

No - 90%
Yes - 9%
Don't know - 1%

The issue at bargaining is not about whether a person has friends or relatives in a long-term care home. The issue at bargaining is an unnecessary and redundant 30 minute administrative/non-care shift overlap that costs the city an extra $2.1 million per year.

Operations at the City's long term care facilities will be unaffected by any potential labour disruption.

Currently, when staff who work in long term care facilities start or finish their shifts there is about a half an hour of overlap time when they brief each other on patient care and transfer responsibilities.

The City would like to eliminate this overlap time between staff shifts.

Do you think;

This is a good move because it will save the city money

This is a bad move because it will lead to a deterioration of the quality of care in long term care facilities.

  1. Good move -will save money
  2. Bad move - will lead to deterioration of care quality
  3. Don't know

Close to eight in ten are against eliminating shift overlap time as it will lead to a deterioration in care

  1. Good move-will save money - 18%
  2. Bad move-will lead to deterioration of care quality - 78%
  3. Don't know - 6%

The survey question is a leading one. The question puts forth a premise that the elimination of the shift overlap will result in the deterioration of care. This is false. It is yet another example of Local 79 misleading the public.

Back to top

February 2, 2012

The City of Toronto has been bargaining with the Toronto Civic Employees' Union (TCEU) Local 416 (CUPE), the union representing "outside workers" and paramedics since October 2011. To date, the City has been unable to negotiate a new collective agreement over the past four months.

There are now three days left (12:01 am Sunday February 5th) until the end of the 17-day "No Board" period when the union can commence a strike, the employer can lock out its employees or either party has other alternative legal options.

What Local 416 says Fact

...they [Local 416 members] could still report on Monday but find their workplace conditions changed so radically that they're prevented from delivering the services we need.

False.

The City has stated that the reason it wants to negotiate changes to terms and conditions of employment are in fact to improve City services. If the City were to change employees' terms and conditions of employment there would be no meaningful purpose for the City to change them to prevent employees from delivering services to the public.

Our members aren't seeking any major gains to our contract

That's why we've offered a three-year wage freeze, freeing up $25 million for services Toronto residents depend on

True.

While it's true that the Union's rollover proposal would not give rise to major gains, it's also true that there are no cost savings in forgoing something you do not have. The Union's offer is predicated on no changes to their collective agreement which is not the City's bargaining goal.

It's why we have proposed ways to improve shift schedules.

False.

The Union has proposed changes to one shift schedule that will make some improvements to it. However, the proposed changes do not meet the operational requirements.

It's why we have tabled a way to make redeployment of staff when positions are eliminated more efficient for everyone

Partially True.

The Union has made modest proposed changes. However, the City has one of the most complex and costly redeployment processes; there is a need for significant changes to improve the process and reduce costs. Modest changes are insufficient.

When more than 1,000 positions were lost during the budget, it put to rest any speculation about "jobs for life" at city hall.

False.

The number of Local 416 positions to be deleted is 525. Forty per cent of them are vacant and 31are temporary positions. The jobs-for-life provision applies to contracting out; it has never applied to budget cuts. It is also a provision that is attributed to an employee, not to a position. Since 1999, there have been no permanent employees laid off in the Local 416 bargaining unit.

Our contract protects workers in the case of job deletion, but this doesn't tie the employer's hands. The city still sets staffing levels. It can still choose to stop offering certain services. And there would be layoffs. Management would simply have to allow for seniority - which is actually very common. Most of CUPE's 250 municipal bargaining units across Canada contain similar protections.

True.

The City's current proposal does not eliminate redeployment, layoff, or recall processes and it respects employee's seniority. The proposal is comparable to similar provisions in place with numerous large private or public sector employers. With the current process, the City's analysis has been that, since 2007, the 145 employees who went through the redeployment process cost the City $10 million. Since 1999, the number of permanent employees laid off is zero.

This has been called "job security," but really, it's employment security. No one owns their job. They just remain available to put their experience to work where needed.

True.

However, while employees who retain employment bring their experience to a new position, they perform different work and should receive the same wage as other employees performing that same work, not a wage tied to a job that they no longer perform.

Collective bargaining is a process of give and take, but this bargaining table has been marked with a departure from that approach. We have come to the table with virtually no proposed additions and have addressed many of their concerns to increase efficiencies and cost savings.

True and False

It takes two parties to negotiate. The City believes the current collective agreement is full of excessive provisions and that it needs to be returned to a reasonable level. If you already have a collective agreement that has more excessive provisions than any other union, where would you go from there?

The City's view is the union has proposed minimal efficiencies and cost savings.

For instance, we think there are ways to make emergency medical service less costly and more effective by making it an essential service and changing shift schedules to better match paramedic availability to call demand. The city has rejected this offer.

False and True

EMS has been trying to change paramedics shift schedules since 1999 including hiring an external consultant to help; however, the current schedule is the same one that the parties started with. The current collective agreement requires obtaining Local 416's approval to make changes to the shift schedule.
Back to top