# What do police pensions and child care have in common? CUPE



## Cloud Cover (14 Feb 2006)

LMAO: 
http://www.cupe.ca/www/media/19934?rating=-5

Reproduced under the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

CUPE is about to go on strike in Ontario, forcing thousands of disabled children out of schools and daycares. Looking for an answer, I went on their website and the reason is this- they want pension parity with the police. I agree with that, but overall they have to be the most hypocritical group in recent memory. The post at the end was funny, and well deserved, IMO. 

CUPE president protests PM’s plans to wipe out child care deals, writes premiers
[February 9, 2006 01:49 PM] 

CUPE National President Paul Moist has written directly to Prime Minister Stephen Harper urging sober second thought on the threatened cancellation of child care agreements with the provinces.

“These agreements give the provinces the resources they desperately need to assist all parents with their child care needs, whether those parents work in or outside the formal labour force,” Moist said in a letter sent Feb. 9.

“Canadians need and want a national early learning and child care system. The income support for families that you have promised is also needed. However, it cannot replace child care services aimed at supporting children and families.”

Referring to the prime minister’s announcement that he intends to scrap federal-provincial agreements signed by the Liberal government, Moist adds, “We are alarmed at this move, particularly since you promised a responsive and accountable federal government.”

Moist has also written to all provincial premiers urging them to work with other provincial governments to pressure the federal government to reconsider its position.

Full text of letter to prime minister:

February 9, 2006
The Honourable Stephen J. Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear Prime Minister Harper:

On behalf of the 550,000 members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, I offer my congratulations on your election as Prime Minister of Canada. As Canada’s largest union, representing one in 60 Canadians, we look forward to a constructive relationship with your new government.

I am writing to you today to express our grave concern about your announcement on February 6, that you will be cancelling the federal early learning and child care agreements with all 10 of the provinces. As you know, these agreements are an important starting point for a national child care program that will give Canadian children and parents the support they need to remain healthy and productive. These agreements give the provinces the resources they desperately need to assist all parents with their child care needs, whether those parents work in or outside the formal labour force.

To unilaterally terminate the agreements as your first act in office (prior to the opening of the newly-elected Parliament) signals to us, and to all Canadians, that you are acting without full and proper consultation with the House of Commons, or the provincial governments. We are alarmed at this move, particularly since you promised a responsive and accountable federal government.

Canadians need and want a national early learning and child care system. The income support for families that you have promised is also needed. However, it cannot replace child care services aimed at supporting children and families. CUPE will be mobilizing our members and Canadian parents to appeal to you not to move so quickly on this issue.

Families all across Canada and the new House of Commons deserve a chance to have our say on the future of child care in Canada. Please remember that the majority of Canadians voted for political parties that support a national child care program and the federal-provincial agreements.

Sincerely,

PAUL MOIST
National President

c.c: C. Généreux; Gilles Duceppe; Bill Graham; Jack Layton
cc*cope491


Comment on this article 

 Show all comments (Showing 5 of 5 comments) 
letter to PM
posted by Anonymous Poster on February 10, 2006 09:04 AM | Rating: 0 Report this comment

I'd hate to say it was a shock, but when you check the definition of Conservative it is a person skeptical of change. adly this doesn't suprise me and I'm sure I am not alone!

Cupe member from NS

Reply to this comment

Re: letter to PM
posted by Anonymous Poster on February 11, 2006 02:42 PM | Rating: -2 Report this comment

this action is a change in itself. I am not surprised that when the conservative government said they want change, it would be change for the rich, white, man. This is why the social servies are in jeporady- at least it is not a majority government, or we would all* be doomed!

*all but the rich, white, man, of course.

Reply to this comment

Re: letter to PM
posted by Anonymous Poster on February 14, 2006 10:13 PM | Rating: -2 Report this comment

"rich white man"- This sort of race based trash talk is exactly why unions are falling into such disrepute. Give your head a shake. Like millions of others, I belong to a union. Like millions of other union member, I am a white male. I work hard for my living to provide a decent quality of life for my family. I don't expect the government to raise my children, I can do that on my own - have been for years. The government owes me nothing and I am entitled to nothing. I pay my taxes for smooth roads and a strong military to keep riff raff out of Canada. I get neither, while others too lazy to work are busy thumping their chests, calling out for "more." Well, I have news for you- it's over. I voted conservative this time, because I am tired of being painted a villain. Enough is enough. If you want child care, pay for it yourself like I had to. Take on some responsibility, you might actually earn some respect rather than think you are entitled to it.

Asshole.


----------



## HDE (19 Feb 2006)

What makes me laugh is how the so-called "national child care and early..." is tarted up as if it actually exists.  Basically the Liberals committed $1 billion per year to what promises to cost many times that amount per year.  The provinces signed on in order to get the Fed's money, however if you check the various "agreements" they're all based on the "...if federal funding is provided".  There's no commitment on the part of the provinces to cover off the several billion per year above and beyond what the Feds provide.  Reportedly the Quebec model cost $7,000 per child per year beyond what parents cover.  Given that most provinces are crying poverty and cities here in Ontario aren't even covering their obligations about the last thing we need is another bloated social program. :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Feb 2006)

Sure.  Give them pension parity.  They most certainly deserve it.

Oh, and adjust my work schedule so that crime doesn't happen for three months during the summer, two weeks as Christmas, one week in the spring, and on weekends.  

Hmm, and maybe they can teach their classes on a 24 hour rotating schedule, where they teach from a moving vehicle and they have to get out to talk to the kids in the wind and the rain.  Then they can go to the kids houses to collect the assignments, and risk getting shot or attacked.  

Perhaps, instead of giving kids Ritalin, get them hooked on crack, then create a situation where the teachers have a lawful responsibility to protect the non-crack students, but keep completed assignments that could provide an easy pass for the crack kids in the desks of the non crack kids, and put them together in rooms far away from the teachers.  

Hey, I know!  Instead of gym, give the kids stolen cars, and make the teachers "it" and have a game of car tag throughout the city, but still make the teachers responsible for any damage caused, even if it is the kids fault.  

Yeah, we gotta work harder to get those teachers more good stuff.   :


----------



## Hunter (21 Feb 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> this action is a change in itself. I am not surprised that when the conservative government said they want change, it would be change for the rich, white, man. This is why the social servies are in jeporady- at least it is not a majority government, or we would all* be doomed!
> 
> *all but the rich, white, man, of course.



Yeah all those rich white police and firefighters racing around town in their ferraris, sporting their jacob and bling-bling....

Zipperhead I support you guys 100%.  I hope McGuinty does what Ronald Reagan did with the air traffic controllers if CUPE members go on strike.  I hope he fires the lot of them.  If he did, he would have my vote for the rest of his political career.  The stupidity of the left never ceases to amaze me.   Of course police and fire services should be allowed to negotiate and manage their own pensions, the same way the teachers unions negotiate their pensions.  I would support the daycare workers and all other CUPE member grooups to negotiate their own pensions as well.  Is there any other unionized occupation that entails the same risk to their employees as police and fire?  Do daycare workers ever have to be concerned about getting shot or being bitten by an HIV-infected junkie?  Not by a mile.  

The only reason I have ever seen offered by those opposed to the move is that it discriminates against women.  I find that hard to accept, considering how much easier it is for women to become police and firefighters.  Furthermore, firefighters and police cannot go on strike, but other union groups can do so whenever they want in order to improve thier working conditions.  Since police can't walk off the job and hold the province hostage in order to negotiate a better deal for themselves, why shouldn't they be allowed to manage their own pensions?  I would really like to hear a response from someone who supports CUPEs threats of job action.   

Fortunately here in Ottawa the local union executive said that they will not be supporting any job action, and any employees who do so will be on their own time, and at their own peril.


----------



## Danjanou (21 Feb 2006)

You'd be surprised  at how many individual CUPE members and locals didn't know this was coming and were shcoked when Sid started this johnson waving contest with Fibber McGinty.

Despite the reports of 80-90% of members voting to support this illegal strike, Sid may be surprised at how few of the 120,000 actually follow him out. Those percentages are for the numbers of persons who actually voted. In my local (yeah I'm a member, recluctantly) that was something like 500-700 out of 15,000 or so I'm hearing. Todate Mississauga workers, Ottawa workers and Toronto inside workers have all said nope.


----------



## HDE (21 Feb 2006)

I heard Sid interviewed today and he mentionned that there was an "x" billion dollar surplus in their plan a few years ago and they should be able to negotiate how the surplus is spent.  How in the h#ll do you negotiate an increase in pensions based on a surplus in a given year?  The value of thwe assets go up and down, based on performance of stocks, bonds, etc.  What happens if the stock market tanks and there's not now enough to cover the payout?  Who covers the deficit?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2006)

One guess,....make it good.

Though , if I remember right from our little OPSEU spat......the surplus is the "cash, money, moola" that is above the "cash,money, moola" that is needed to meet all the pension requirements.

In our case Mr Harris wanted it all to go to his "general coffers" so he wouldn't have to sell off something else to balance the books......


----------



## Danjanou (21 Feb 2006)

Yeah the last thing I want is for Sid or any of his cronies to get their mits on my 40 billion plus pension fund. I’m looking forward to my retirement and it doesn’t include eating a little bit of Purina cat chow every day now to get used to the taste.

In their hands any surplus would disappear pretty damn fast, and I can see where it would go to “arts grants to the homeless” or whatever cause of the month the birkinstock brigade are into this week,

I was surprised about 40% of the staff here in my office are actually taking a vacation day as part of the protest, about 55-65 people. I seriously doubt most are going to march/demonstrate with Sid, they’re doing it because otherwise they’d be stuck here doing twice as much work as usual.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Feb 2006)

Just try to make sure they don't pull the donkey move that OMERS did.  They froze our payments, so for five years we didn't have to pay a cent.  Seems like a great idea, but when the market shifted, and the surplus was gone, here's us paying around $275 per pay for our pension.  I would have rather been paying $50 a pay all along, and have the surplus trickle out at a controlled rate.


----------



## HDE (22 Feb 2006)

Apparently there's a government rule that a pension plan can only have a certain amount above and beyond whatever it needs to be "fully funded" and that's why most plans, including mine, had a few years of "pension holidays".  When the markets perform well the plans hit the wall and can't go any higher so there's a freeze.  Now, fortunately  , our plan has required us to start paying in again and things are back to normal once more. :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Feb 2006)

Someone needs to explain how the @#$% a pension plan can have too much money?!  It must be a big sin to have too much stability for your pensioners :threat:


----------



## Spanky (22 Feb 2006)

Zipperhead_cop, this issue has nothing to do with teachers.  Our pension plan is similar in management to OMERS, if I understand OMERS correctly.  We manage it jointly with the province.  If there is a surplus above above a certain level, the teachers can determine how it is to be spent.  In the past it has been used to to reduce the reduction caused when CPP kicks in.  Now if we can only get benefits upon retirement......


----------



## HDE (22 Feb 2006)

I believe, although I can't swear to it, that the issue is that money put into a pension plan receives pretty favourable tax treatment and so the government doesn't want to allow excessive funds to flow into pension plans, much above what is required to cover outlays.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Feb 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> I believe, although I can't swear to it, that the issue is that money put into a pension plan receives pretty favourable tax treatment and so the government doesn't want to allow excessive funds to flow into pension plans, much above what is required to cover outlays.



Okay, that makes sense.  So why not have a cut off point that funds above that become like any other business capital?  Then you can treat it like regular investments.  

Spank, I wasn't ripping on the teachers, but my own pension fund.


----------



## HDE (23 Feb 2006)

Apparently the CUPE strike over pensions is a non-starter.  McGuinty agreed to review the impact of the new plan in 2012 and Sid backed down.
There seems to be some indication that various CUPE locals made it clear that they wouldn't be participating in any strike so the onus was then on determining a way of letting Sid save a little credibility.  A good day in Ontario ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Feb 2006)

Yup, I think the cancellation was more that the majority of his members weren't going to walk, than anything McGuinty was offering. It would've proven Ryan's death knell when only he and a handful of supporters were carrying signs and the rest were at work doing business as usual. To bad he blinked. I would have paid 10 bucks to watch that.


----------



## mariomike (2 May 2009)

Sorry for the late addition to this thread. 
I was not a Milnet subscriber back then. 
For Paramedics, the battle for NRA60 is still not over:
http://ambunit416.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=2
http://www.omers.com/AssetFactory.aspx?did=8126
http://www.opseu.org/bps/health/ambulance/NRA60campaignindex.htm
http://www.opseu.org/bps/health/ambulance/NRA60/paramedic_brochure4.pdf
Toronto Star 22 Feb 2006:
Toronto Firefighters Feel Resentment From Paramedics Over Retirement Bill
KERRY GILLESPIE
Toronto Star
At 48, Brian Parsons' knees are shot and he doesn't see how he'll stay on the job long enough to retire with a full pension.

He's the guy racing up the stairs - carrying a 35-kilogram stretcher and medical equipment - to try to save someone's life.

Parsons and other paramedics don't understand why they're being treated differently in proposed pension legislation than firefighters who race up ladders to put out fires.

"They've always been recognized as the heroes going into the flaming building and pulling people out," said Parsons' partner Steve Henderson, 41.

"But we're risking our lives, too," Henderson, said, referring to paramedics who get ill on the job from contact with diseases as deadly as SARS.

Then there's the emotional toll.

"Our last two patients were both very sick and there's a good chance both of them will die," Henderson said.

"It's terrible to have to come in and do a job like this, knowing other people are doing a lot less work and getting better benefits and getting treated better."

At issue is Bill 206, an act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS).

It is designed to put municipalities in charge of OMERS $40 billion pension plan.

But there is controversy over amendments that give police, firefighters and, to some degree, paramedics, supplemental plans allowing them to retire earlier with full benefits, while at the same time requiring a hard-to-achieve two-thirds majority vote to make pension improvements for everyone else.

Union leader Sid Ryan has promised that more than 100,000 Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) members will walk off the job at midnight on the day the government begins final debate on the bill.

That could be as early as today or as late as March 2.

The bill gives paramedics the same right as police and firefighters to negotiate such enhanced pension benefits as a higher accrual rate or basing a pension on the best three years of wages instead of best five.

But the government did not give paramedics what they wanted - normal retirement at 60.

Police and firefighters have this already, but paramedics were left at 65 so they will not benefit as much from the supplemental plans.

"We're enraged as a group. We don't even feel that CUPE is working for us. Our little fight isn't their focus," Parsons said.

If paramedics want an earlier normal retirement age, they will have to get a two-thirds vote from the new OMERS board or a simple majority to get it to mediation and arbitration.

Union leaders say they likely won't get this.

The government says it's only fair.

"That would directly impact on municipal costs and that's something we think should be negotiated. It shouldn't be imposed," said MPP Brad Duguid, parliamentary assistant to Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen.

Firefighters have succeeded in getting the government to take up their cause, in granting the supplemental benefits they wanted in the first place.

But paramedics haven't been so successful.

Part of that is because they do not speak with one voice.

About half of the province's 6,000 paramedics are represented by CUPE, said Mike Dick, CUPE ambulance committee chair. The others belong to a variety of different unions.

Fred Le Blanc, president of the Ontario Professional Firefighters Association, cannot believe how the debate over pension reform has, in some ways, become an attack on firefighters.

"It's been frustrating for our members," Le Blanc said.

That's why Le Blanc held a news conference last week and brought 300 firefighters to the Legislature.

They got a real boost, he said, from hearing Premier Dalton McGuinty.

"We recognize that these men and women assume special responsibilities, that they assume great risk and danger every day as part of their job. When we rush out of burning buildings, they rush in to help us get out. We've created a provision in this bill that recognizes the work they do on our behalf," McGuinty said on Thursday.

That kind of statement leaves Parsons cold.

"We're not anti-firefighter. But, most of their calls now, they come and assist us on (medical) calls. It's like the helpers are getting a better deal than the workers."


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 May 2009)

> referring to paramedics who get ill on the job from contact with diseases as deadly as SARS.



 :rofl: Or swine flu.  Because hepatitis, HIV, tuberculosis and others are such lame diseases in the mighty face of SARS.  

I never have understood why the paramedics are not on the same playing field as the bucket boys and us.  In general, I think they work harder than the other two emergency services.  Maybe they need more paramedic TV shows.


----------



## mariomike (9 May 2009)

We have a TV show: "The Six O'Clock News". "If it bleeds, it leads!" 
What we do not have is a separate bargaining unit -SBU- so we can advocate on behalf of our profession and patients. In Toronto, Paramedics are in the garbagemen's ( and other "outside workers" ) union. We are their "atomic bomb" come strike time.  In between, our 800 voices are outshouted by our 6,000 "brothers". It's hard to ask for Retention Pay, or NRA60, if our union brothers in the local will not be receiving it as well. Paramedics don't even have Essential Service status.


----------



## alexk (9 May 2009)

hey mike I was doing my rideouts with TFS last june when you guys were wearing those yellow shirts on certain days... what happened to that. yeild any results? Got to go on a number of calls with you guys, and learned alot.  Its a total shame that you guys are in the same union as garbagemen your role is clearly underestimated my the city.


----------



## mariomike (9 May 2009)

alexk said:
			
		

> you guys were wearing those yellow shirts on certain days.



June 19, 2008 
Toronto Paramedics launch public awareness campaign 
Yellow t-shirts will shine light on response time problem  

TORONTO, Ont. – Paramedics with Toronto EMS will wear bright yellow t-shirts on Tuesdays and Fridays as part of a public awareness campaign highlighting the problems they face meeting standard response times for emergency calls.  

“Our members are proud to be part of Toronto EMS, one of the finest services of its kind, but having an insufficient number of ambulances on the street is taking its toll on both Paramedics and their patients,” said Brian Cochrane, president of Toronto Civic Employees Union Local 416 (CUPE).  

With at most 90 ambulances on call to serve a daytime population of about three million people, the average response time for serious emergencies is 12 minutes – well short of the industry standard of just under nine minutes, Cochrane said. Toronto paramedics are able to reach the standard just 69% of the time.  

“Each Paramedic serves more than 4,000 people compared with 1,100 for each city firefighter and 645 for each police officer,” he said. “We need more ambulances and more paramedics so that more lives can be saved.”  

As part of their campaign, paramedics will no longer voluntarily sign on to staff events such as Taste of the Danforth, Toronto Pride Parade or the Canadian National Exhibition because that further reduces the number of ambulances on call, Cochrane said.  

“We have been talking to the politicians at City Hall about the problem. Now it’s time to take it to the public to try to get the modest increases in ambulances and paramedics that will allow our members to meet standard response times and improve patient care.”


----------

