posted on CEIU website Jan 29/14:

Some of the files from the four thousand five hundred Service Management Structural Model “SMSM” job description (JD) grievances at ESDC are moving on slowly, very slowly. Here are the details on the few files that have moved:

• A Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) Arbitrator heard the SMSM-1107 Citizen Services Specialist JD grievance last June. We are still waiting for the result.
• Last November, PSLRB rendered its decision on the SMSM-1113 Team Leader JD grievance. It was denied.
• Last November, ESDC released three revised PM-01 job descriptions covering the Payment Services Officer, Citizen Services Officer and Integrity Services Officer positions. The employer was under the impression that this would resolve PM-01 job description issues, but this led to nearly 1500 new job description grievances and a similar number of classification grievances.
• There were additional communications between ESDC JD review committee members and a National Union Representative (NUR) and its grievance team on the review of the Program and Service Delivery Clerk (CR-04) JD. However, the NUR and his team are waiting for the revised JD.

At the PSLRB, there is no other SMSM JD grievance hearing scheduled for the next 6 months. Neither CEIU nor PSAC has any control on the PSLRB hearing schedule.

CEIU anticipates that ESDC will release reviewed PM-02 JDs in the near future. CEIU asked the employer to be involved before their release.

Here is a recap of the current situation with all these job description grievances:
Grievances denied

• CR-03 Support Clerk
• PM-01 Payment Services Officer
• PM-02 Integrity Services Investigator
• PM-02 Citizen Services Specialist (heard by an arbitrator, waiting for a decision)
• PM-02 Services Canada Benefits Officer
• PM-03 Business Expertise Advisor
• PM-04 Business Expertise Consultant

Grievances allowed

• CR-04 Program and Service Delivery Clerk (at the ESDC review committee)
• PM-01 Integrity Services Officer

Grievances partially allowed

• PM-01 Citizen Services Officer
• PM-02 Program Officer

Grievances withdrawn

• PM-03 Senior Integrity Services Officer
• PM-05 Senior Citizen Services Specialist
• PM-05 Business Expertise Senior Consultant
• PM-05 Project Manager
• PM-05 Service Manager

Grievance denied at PSLRB

• PM-03 team Leader (2013 PSLRB 145)

Revised JD in November leading to new JD and classification grievances

• PM-01 Citizen Services Officer
• PM-01 Integrity Services Officer
• PM-01 Payment Services Officer

Occupational group structure review has stalled

At a meeting on January 17, after being pressured by national president Robyn Benson, Treasury Board finally admitted they will only complete the group structure exercise for the PA and TC groups by 2017-18 at the earliest.

Work on the occupational group structure review has been at a standstill for over 18 months. There have been changes in personnel at Treasury Board responsible for the occupational group review. It also appears that there was a lack of long-term commitment of resources, given the government’s focus on deficit reduction and job cuts.

Treasury Board also confirmed they will allocate long-term resources to classification reform. However, the union is still not convinced the employer has a realistic plan in place. We have demanded that the employer provide a clear plan and timetable for the work that needs to take place and wewill continue to push Treasury Board to meet its negotiated commitments.

The review so far

Progress on the review looked promising in 2012 when Treasury Board outlined its proposal to divide the PA group into three new occupational groups. At that time PSAC expected the new occupational group standards would be adopted by the fall 2012 and work on the new classification standards for the three new groups would follow. None of this work has been done.

Treasury Board and PSAC had also begun to discuss timelines for the occupational group review of the TC bargaining unit, and to begin consulting with departments and Components. We also agreed that the SV and EB groups are supposed to follow once the PA and TC groups are completed.

It already has been five years since PSAC negotiated a commitment from Treasury Board in the PA agreement to engage in a meaningful process with the union to update the classification system in the federal government

JANUARY IS MENTORING MONTH! THIS YEAR’S THEME IS “MENTORING WORKS”!

The ESDC Mentoring Program offers a readily available learning opportunity to all ESDC employees across Canada.

Becoming a mentor or mentee expands professional networks, facilitates the transfer of knowledge and exposes both parties to new perspectives and experiences, while promoting personal and professional growth.

Want to get involved? Visit the ESDC Mentoring Program site.

 http://dialogue/grp/MENTORING-MENTORAT/default.aspx

Elections for National Vice President’s (NVP’s) -Ontario Region, Women’s Issues NVP and CEIU National Convention Delegate are being held in your offices. There will also be an election for the CIC NVP (voted by CIC employees only)

Election date is Wednesday, February 5 and there will also be advance polls.

Elections will take place in the 6th floor lunchroom at 457 Richmond St. in London 11:30am-1pm Jan 30 and Feb 5.

The smaller offices will also hold elections, so that everyone has an opportunity to vote!

Even if you don’t know the candidates personally, please come out. There are resumes and other information to help you make a decision. It will only take a few minutes.

Thank you.

Where? Orange boardroom @ 457 Richmond St. London

When?  Thursday, February 20, 2014 starting at 4:30pm

One of our PSAC regional reps will be attending and speaking briefly.

There will be food and drink and an opportunity to discuss important issues.

We hope you can come – we are all the Union!

***If you require conference call info. to call into the meeting, please contact one of your Executives

The Chicago Teachers’ Union is a fighting union and the city’s strongest advocate for children and youth.

And according to Michael Harrington, the union’s director of operations, this didn’t happen by accident.

The union built support from its members and the public by focusing on the social model of unionism – empowering members to take action and be involved politically.

In Harrington’s opinion, too many of the unions in the United States treat their members like they’re their customers. He calls this the service model of unionism.

The members in this model are dependent on what the leadership has to say, and decision making is pretty much top-down. Staff members are responsible for providing the “services” such as collective bargaining, grievances and negotiating benefits.

“Our union took this model and turned it around,” Harrington declared during a presentation at the PSAC building on January 21, 2014.

Social unionism

Harrington calls the CTU’s model the social organizing model, and its success was exemplified in the well-publicized massive mobilizations of union members and community supporters during the Chicago teachers’ strike in 2012. Harrington said they continue to use this approach in the “millions” of campaigns they are currently carrying out.

When Karen Lewis was elected president of CTU in 2010, she came in as part of a caucus of CTU members who wanted to reform the leadership and make the union be more a part of the movement for global social change.

“We saw our rank-and-file as the foundation, the starting point,” said Harrington. “We have an enormous amount of time invested in two-way communication between the union members and the officers and staff. We tell our members, ‘I may be an elected officer or I may be part of the staff, but I am here to enable, inspire, encourage, support and provide you with resources. Because, really, the union is you.’ And we try to make that real and honest, difficult as it may be.”

Democratic decisions

While expanding the role of the membership in the union is key, CTU’s brand of unionism also means a flatter model in decision making. In the 2012 negotiations, they had an unprecedented 60 members on their bargaining team facing off with the school board.

The 2012 teachers’ strike was one of the few recent labour struggles that became high profile due to the fact that it had widespread public support. Harrington also attributes this to the social organizing model of unionism, which he says must have a strong component of civic education.

“Our actions right now are all aimed at educating the public on why unions exist and why matter. We spend a lot of time working with the communities,” Harrington said. “We never talk about pay. We never talk about benefits. The public is not interested about that. They’re interested in who your job touches. Who your job affects.”

Saving schools

It is by design, therefore, that the 2012 teachers’ strike is widely credited for preventing some school closures in Chicago and winning some gains in the contentious issue of standardized testing that has been deemed detrimental in student learning.

“We want to be and be seen as Chicago’s chief advocates for children,” said Harrington.

Op-Ed: Public sector pay promotes equality

By Toby Sanger and David-Alexandre Leblanc, Ottawa Citizen

January 13, 2014

With the passage of Bill C-4, the Conservative government not only “stacked the deck” in terms of collective bargaining process, but it will also eliminate the only independent federal organization that provides comparative information on the compensation of federal public service workers.

Hidden among the dozens of measures targeted at undermining unions and public sector workers, the elimination of the Compensation Analysis and Research Services of the Public Sector Labour Relations Board went somewhat unnoticed. This means the Conservative government can just rely on the results it gets from hand-picked private sector firms before it embarks on bargaining wages and benefits for tens of thousands of federal public sector workers whose collective agreements expire this year.

So why is this a problem — and why should anyone who isn’t a federal public servant care? Aren’t these comparisons straightforward and shouldn’t public sector workers be paid the same as private sector workers?

In fact, pay comparisons are not straightforward and how public sector workers are paid affects all workers, but in different ways than most might immediately think.

There’s a lot of misinformation about differences between public and private sector pay, with the general perception that all public sector workers are overpaid, fuelled by flawed reports produced by business lobby groups. If the federal government just relies on their analysis, we’re all in trouble.

CUPE conducted rigorous analysis of public and private compensation using the most detailed occupational data available from the census. These results, published in detail in the Battle of the Wages report, found that when similar occupations are compared, overall average pay for public sector workers is very similar to the private sector (higher by just 0.5 per cent). While overall averages are very similar, pay scales are very different with public sector pay much more equitable than the private sector. There’s a smaller pay gap for women and pay is also much more equitable by age, region and occupation.

Lower paid occupations tend to do better in the public sector while those in higher paid occupations don’t make as much in the public sector.

Pay for women in the public sector is more equitable largely because of pay equity laws that rarely apply in the private sector. Men in the public sector are actually paid on average about five per cent less than men employed in similar occupations in the private sector.

Other detailed comparisons of public and private sector pay, such as those conducted by the Institut de la statistique du Quebec, have also found no evidence for a public sector pay premium.

Public sector pay is more equitable than the private sector largely because unions advocate and achieve more equitable pay scales — but also because the public would be unlikely to tolerate multi-million executive pay packages or the poverty wages much more common in the private sector. But that’s exactly where we’ll go if private sector pay is used as the model for public sector pay.

Attacking the more equitable pay scales of public sector workers is a tactic used by the federal and many provincial governments to undermine public services, create jealousy and divide workers — and one that would lead to lower wages for all workers, especially the lowest paid. That would have negative social repercussions — and would also be bad for our economy.

The Conference Board, OECD and IMF have all identified growing inequality as a major problem with our economy and as a barrier to stronger economic growth. Many, including those at the IMF, also consider it one of the factors responsible for the recent financial and economic crisis.

More equitable public sector pay should be a model for the private sector and not the other way around. This won’t happen overnight, but we can and should work toward achieving it in a number of ways.

Steps that would help achieve this include: increasing minimum wages; requiring governments and their contractors to pay fair wages and living wages, allowing shareholders to have a say on CEO pay, restricting tax incentives that reward excessive CEO pay, improving public pensions such as the CPP and other social benefits, providing adequate funding for public services, and strengthening instead of undermining unions and workers rights.

We should be under no illusions. The present federal government has shown little interest in measures to boost pay for workers or to improve income equality and in fact has gone in the opposite direction. But measures to improve wages and income equality are supported by a majority of Canadians — and that’s who our governments must ultimately be accountable to.

Toby Sanger is senior economist for the Canadian Union of Public Employees. David-Alexandre Leblanc is senior research officer for the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Public service unions brace for coming showdown over sick leave
BY KATHRYN MAY, OTTAWA CITIZEN JANUARY 1, 2014
OTTAWA — A big issue in the Conservative government’s upcoming showdown with federal unions
over a plan to eliminate accumulated sick leave is what to do with the $5.2 billion in unused leave that
public servants have already banked and rolled over.
Treasury Board President Tony Clement has a few options to choose from when he sends his
department’s negotiators into 2014’s round of collective bargaining with orders to attain a new shortterm
disability plan to replace accumulated sick leave.
By all accounts, he has been presented with proposals that range from generous and reasonable
compromises to a hard-line approach the unions would never accept.
Many suggest that the one he picks will reveal how big a battle the government is willing to wage with
its unions.
But the government’s sweeping amendments to the Public Service Labour Relations Act will so
dramatically weaken the bargaining power of 17 unions that many expect Treasury Board will pretty
Public service unions brace for coming showdown over sick leave
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=9340490&sponsor=[1/8/2014 10:07:03 AM]
well get whatever concessions it wants. And if it can’t, the government has the ultimate weapon: it can
legislate.
Andrew Graham, a former senior bureaucrat and now a professor at Queen’s University, says the sick
leave negotiations could have been among the most divisive and intractable in years — until the
government changed the ground rules.
With those changes, he says, the government can effectively call the shots on which unions get to
strike and which go to arbitration to resolve disputes. On top of that, it will have the exclusive right to
decide which workers are essential and not allowed to strike.
The amendments also reduce the independence of arbitrators and ensure they base their awards on
the government’s budgetary priorities and that the recruitment and retention of talent are done at
current pay rates.
The amendments mark the biggest overhaul of the law since it was passed by the Pearson
government in 1967, giving public servants the right to unionize and to bargain collectively. Clement
has said he wanted the changes in place for the 2014 round of bargaining.
The big question is what the unions will do.
They had a bargaining strategy before learning of the reforms, which were included in the omnibus
budget bill. Their leaders have since closeted themselves in secret strategy sessions, exploring the
options, implications and repercussions — not only for this round of bargaining but into the future.
So far, they have vowed to try to get the government to remove the amendments from the omnibus
bill and discuss new legislation.
“The deal this government makes will depend on how much they want labour peace,” says Graham.
“And what will the union position be? Are they going to fight what I think is a losing fight? Despite
their public and private protestations, they should look around and see how alone they are in this ball
game with sick leave and try and cut the best deal they can for their members. They can be stubborn
or have a sweetened transition.”
But Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the union-management National Joint Council, says that while the
government may have the power in this round, it still has an obligation to bargain in good faith.
“The omnibus bill tilts the bargaining in favour of the Harper government but it continues to be
governed by the duty to … make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement,”
Cochrane says.
The government will approach the talks with a basic design that’s built around three critical factors:
the number of sick days per year public servants will get, the amount of time the short-term disability
plan will cover 100 per cent of salary, and the contribution rates for a revamped long-term disability
plan.
An early draft of the business plan obtained by the Citizen shows options that would give public
servants between five and seven paid sick days before going on short-term disability. Short-term
Public service unions brace for coming showdown over sick leave
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=9340490&sponsor=[1/8/2014 10:07:03 AM]
disability typically covers employees for 26 weeks, offering graduated incomes that drop the longer
employees are off work. Long-term disability kicks in after that.
The parties would have to decide whether to allow the carry-over of unused days, but clearly the
government wants to stop the accumulation of unused sick leave.
The government’s plan has been years in the making. In fact, unions were warned changes were
coming when Treasury Board launched a $5.6-million disability management initiative several years
ago to get a handle on the government’s record-high absenteeism rates and soaring disability rates,
led by an epidemic of mental health claims.
The project team set up to lead the initiative developed a strategy for departments, along with a
guidebook, manual and training, and was supposed to provide cabinet with a business plan on next
steps last year.
The new strategy is aimed at preventing injury and illness in the workplace and getting managers to
actively support workers who are on sick leave by ensuring they get early care and return to work as
quickly as possible. The team came up with a four-year plan which would cost $26 million to unroll
and could generate hundreds of millions in savings by 2018.
One of the big changes is early intervention by third-party case managers who would step in to
monitor and support sick and ill employees as soon as they go on short-term disability.
But scope of the proposed four-year overhaul is sweeping.
Along with negotiating with unions, the government has to seek tenders for new short- and long-term
disability plans. The labour minister has to hammer out new arrangements with the various provincial
workers’ compensation boards to improve the timeliness and handling of injury-on-the-job claims. At
the same time, the Employee Assistance Program has to be retuned and expanded and Health
Canada’s role in conducting the fitness-to-work evaluations could be shifted to the short- and longterm
disability insurers.
The unions are in a tough spot. They have been a part of the disability management initiative and
they also have concerns about the way sick leave and disability is now managed. Many, however,
feel the existing system is workable and can be fixed rather than charging ahead with a wholesale
overhaul.
Many of the problems with the existing system are embedded in the design of the plan, which has
remained unchanged for 40 years. Managers are failing to monitor and track the use of sick leave like
they should, a weakness that when combined with a generous sick leave benefit has invited abuse.
Canada’s public servants now get 15 days of fully paid sick leave a year. They can carry over any
unused days and roll them over year to year, which they do at a cost of $325 million a year. A big
question is what will happen to all that banked sick leave that many public servants feel they earned.
The government is worried about a run on banked sick leave from public servants who may want to
use it before they lose it. Steps are being taken to ensure that doesn’t happen.
Public service unions brace for coming showdown over sick leave
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=9340490&sponsor=[1/8/2014 10:07:03 AM]
But the government also has a fiscal imperative to deal with banked sick leave, which if reported as
an ongoing employee benefit that could be payable in the future would be worth $5.2 billion for the
core public service and separate agencies. The government is under pressure to record its total
compensation costs, including sick leave and disability costs, in its books.
“They want to get rid of it from two perspectives,” says Graham. “First, as a contingent liability on the
books and as a residual entitlement. They could let it die out but that would take a long time — it
would be years — or they could do what Ontario did and make a deal with unions which essentially
gave a lump sum for earned sick leave.”
The joint council’s Cochrane says the unions want to see a business case for the overhaul. They
have long suspected the reforms are driven by getting the $5.2-billion liability for accumulated sick
leave off the books to help reduce the deficit before the 2015 election. Treasury Board officials say
that amount isn’t officially on the books and acknowledge the liability is much less than $5.2 billion
because not all public servants will use their banked leave and whatever is left can’t be cashed out.
But some critics say the Conservatives don’t want to shell out more money to public servants,
especially when they’re still paying them billions of dollars for buying out of the accumulated
severance pay for voluntary departures the government eliminated during the last round of bargaining.
Rather, the government could kill unused sick credits or it could compromise and offer to carry them
over to be used only to top up the 70-per-cent salary typically guaranteed by short-term disability
plans.
But banked sick leave is just one of the many variables that will be up for discussion.
The number of discretionary sick days will also be a contentious issue. The government would like to
limit those 15 days to between five and eight a year. It also wants no further year-over-year
accumulation of unused days.
Once those days are used, a short-term disability plan would kick in that would be managed by a plan
administrator. With short-term disability comes case management — done by a third party — to help
all workers get the rehabilitation, support and medical care needed to get back to work faster.
Another big issue on the table will be the sick leave formula to replace salaries while on short-term
disability. The task force recommended a graduated scale that starts at 100-per-cent salary and
would fall to between 70 and 75 per cent the longer an employee remains on disability. The parties
will have to negotiate the number of days that will be on full pay.
Short-term disability is typically about 26 weeks before long-term disability begins. The hope is that
earlier intervention will mean fewer employees will have to resort to long-term disability.
The government will have to call new tenders for its two existing long-term disability plans — one for
unionized workers managed by Sun Life Assurance and another managed by Industrial Alliance for
executives. The plans could be merged into one and the waiting period would be extended from 13
weeks to 26 weeks that someone could be on short-term disability. Public servants now get 70 per
cent of their salary under the existing plan. That’s unlikely to change.
Public service unions brace for coming showdown over sick leave
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=9340490&sponsor=[1/8/2014 10:07:03 AM]
Contribution rates for long-term disability will also be up for discussion. Employees now pay 15 per
cent of contributions and the government covers the rest. A move to shift half or three-quarters of the
cost to employees could also be on the table.
The unions did have input into the disability initiative and the government is well aware of their
concerns, which could be addressed as trade-offs or “inducements” to help reach a settlement.
Unions have long raised concerns that young or new employees can’t bank enough sick leave to
cover recurring or chronic illnesses. At the same time, healthy older workers who have built up lots of
sick leave have to exhaust it all if they fall ill before getting the rehabilitation they need. And then the
bank is empty if they relapse. Others simply abuse sick leave and feel entitled to use it as they ease
into retirement.
The government would prefer to negotiate with all unions, representing employees in both the core
public service and separate agencies, all at once. It wants a uniform transition to a new system and to
avoid having two systems with some still operating under the old system and others under a new one.
Unions expect the government will approach negotiations similar to the special round of bargaining it
called several years ago to get rid of severance pay for voluntary departures.
In that case, the government targeted the largest union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, struck
a deal and then offered the same take-it-or-leave deal to all the other unions. Many objected and
took it to arbitration, which eventually sided with the government because the largest union had
accepted the deal.
But PSAC President Robyn Benson has been unequivocal in her refusal to negotiate sick leave in
this round: “We won’t trade it, sell it, swap it, lose it or give it away.”
Cochrane agrees: “The fact that this government is so anti-employee and will go to the extreme to get
its way makes it the bully in the schoolyard that needs to be put in its place. Hopefully the employees
will recognize the bully and stand up to it.”
kmay@ottawacitizen.com
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

OTTAWA — The computer system that hosts the federal employment insurance program will go offline in 2016, giving the responsible departments about 28 months to find a replacement in a complicated process that has no room for error.

Two departments — Shared Services Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada — have until the end of 2016 to buy, install, test and flip the switch on an entire new platform to host the EI program under a plan approved in 2012.

When the project is finally done, all program applications and the database will have been moved to a new platform along with other key programs, including the registry of social insurance numbers and the annuities program, which helps Canadians prepare financially for retirement.

But there is little wiggle room in the project.

According to an internal presentation to the president of Shared Services Canada, the government’s IT super-department, any errors along the way could see costs rise and deadlines missed. A bullet point in the presentation also notes that there is “no plan B.”

Compounding the risks identified early in the project’s history was that previous failed attempts to update the system “leaves staff skeptical.” The project itself has created “some resistance to change” because workers fear the new technology as a “threat” to their jobs.

As well, the presentation notes there were no other instances of the government using the type of computing platform being considered to run the EI program.

Internally, having the right people with the right skills is expected to be a challenge. Ongoing retirements, for instance, and competing projects are expected to draw the attention of staff at Shared Services Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada, according to the presentation that also warned that workers “plates are full,” meaning “resource contention is inevitable.”

“Of the 36 months until May 2016 implementation date, 15 months are scheduled for procurement, leaving 21 months to execute the project leaving barely enough time to build and implement if all goes well. Little room for contingency,” reads one slide covering the overall assessment of the project.

A copy of the presentation, dated April 18, 2013, was released to Postmedia News under the access to information law. The presentation suggests that the procurement is more complicated because of the multiple departments involved — a situation that wouldn’t have happened before the creation of Shared Services Canada, which centralized IT services across more than 40 departments under one roof.

“Procurement (is) always challenging in (government of Canada). Not all vendors likely to perform equally well. Effective selection process is required. Can’t afford to compromise the procurement strategy in order to slavishly adhere to the timeline. Staff will feel compelled to report being on time and OK if left no option.”

It was 40 years ago that the government began building the computer system that runs EI. In some respects, the “key systems supporting Employment Insurance . . . still reflects the system models of that time,” the department wrote in an email to Postmedia News.

According to the department, the contract for the current mainframe system ends in December 2016. After that time, the company that developed the system won’t support it any longer — meaning a whole new system will be built to ensure the software “work exactly the same as the original applications and produce exactly the same results,” the department said in an email to Postmedia News.

“There will be some internal processes and technology changes, but no changes to Canadians are expected, including to how benefit claims are processed as a result of the migration,” the department said. “The program functionality currently provided by the system will not change.”

The department also said that the work and migration of data and programs will be done with “no disruption of service to Canadians.”

The new computing platform will be “modern, market-competed and non-proprietary,” the department said, meaning the government won’t be asking for specially designed products, but rather products already available in the market that combine to fit its needs.