 |
The Flat Rate Forums
CEP Union members against Flat Rating of pay increases.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Admin
Site Admin
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 33
Location: Regina
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: Flat rate wage increases [sent to cep.local.1@sasktel.net] |
 |
|
Hello,
Several of the members in my area have expressed concerns about the
following CEP contract proposal:
Section 6 ? Wage Schedules
32. Negotiate a substantial wage increase along with a COLA
clause. Such wage increases will be applied as a combination of flat and
percentage increase.
Why is our union constantly promoting the flat rate wage increase? (Please
don't give me the standard "A loaf of bread costs the same for
everyone...." answer - thar's not what I'm asking). I have never heard of
any other contract settlement involving flat rate increases across a broad
range of wage schedules - can the CEP and our local provide me several
examples of this happening within other unions? (Especially those
representing telecommunications workers where the collective agreement
spans a very wide range of job functions and duties)
Flat rate increases are unfair. If you keep applying flat rate increases
you soon reach a point where the wage differences between job
classifications is completely out of whack with the difference in duties,
responsibilities, accountabilities, required job knowledge, etc. between
the jobs. There becomes very little monetary incentive to move into more
'difficult' jobs or jobs that have harsh working conditions, higher levels
of danger / risk, require additional training / knowledge, involve more
accountability and responsibility, etc., and fewer people take on those
positions. When that happens how does the company respond? - by
contracting out of course because they need to get the work done. So, on
one hand we (as a union) are opposed to contracting out, but on the other
we support wage policies that are part of the problem(s) that cause it. I
just don't get it??
Also, I don't personally believe that the majority of the membership is in
favor of flat rate increases - why does it keep showing up as part of our
bargaining proposals. The bargaining commitee is supposed to represent the concerns of the membership, do they actually have enough factual data to support the flat rate proposal? - if so I'd like to see it.
Things like this notion of flat rate increases are what's causing rifts in
the membership - instead of promoting solidarity it's having the exact
opposite effect. And I repeat that this is not just my opinion, I am
merely conveying the message that I have heard from A LOT of people!
L - CEP Member |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Admin
Site Admin
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 33
Location: Regina
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Flat rate wage increases [sent to cep.local.1@sasktel.ne |
|
|
| Admin wrote: | Hello,
Several of the members in my area have expressed concerns about the
following CEP contract proposal:
Section 6 ? Wage Schedules
32. Negotiate a substantial wage increase along with a COLA
clause. Such wage increases will be applied as a combination of flat and
percentage increase.
Why is our union constantly promoting the flat rate wage increase? (Please
don't give me the standard "A loaf of bread costs the same for
everyone...." answer - thar's not what I'm asking). I have never heard of
any other contract settlement involving flat rate increases across a broad
range of wage schedules - can the CEP and our local provide me several
examples of this happening within other unions? (Especially those
representing telecommunications workers where the collective agreement
spans a very wide range of job functions and duties)
Flat rate increases are unfair. If you keep applying flat rate increases
you soon reach a point where the wage differences between job
classifications is completely out of whack with the difference in duties,
responsibilities, accountabilities, required job knowledge, etc. between
the jobs. There becomes very little monetary incentive to move into more
'difficult' jobs or jobs that have harsh working conditions, higher levels
of danger / risk, require additional training / knowledge, involve more
accountability and responsibility, etc., and fewer people take on those
positions. When that happens how does the company respond? - by
contracting out of course because they need to get the work done. So, on
one hand we (as a union) are opposed to contracting out, but on the other
we support wage policies that are part of the problem(s) that cause it. I
just don't get it??
Also, I don't personally believe that the majority of the membership is in
favor of flat rate increases - why does it keep showing up as part of our
bargaining proposals. The bargaining commitee is supposed to represent the concerns of the membership, do they actually have enough factual data to support the flat rate proposal? - if so I'd like to see it.
Things like this notion of flat rate increases are what's causing rifts in
the membership - instead of promoting solidarity it's having the exact
opposite effect. And I repeat that this is not just my opinion, I am
merely conveying the message that I have heard from A LOT of people!
L - CEP Member |
Response from Local 1-S
Hi L ,
Thank you for your comments concerning this issue. I will pass them along
to the Bargaining Committee.
Perhaps it would be of some benefit for me to try to explain the
bargaining process in some detail. As I am sure you are aware, the first
step in the bargaining process is the solicitation of contract proposals
from the membership. Each and every member has the right and the
opportunity to submit proposals for consideration. All proposals are
subsequently submitted to the Local 1-S Screening Caucus for review.
Proposals which are accepted by the Local Caucus are sent on to the
Provincial Bargaining Caucus, along with proposals from the other two
Locals. Proposals which are accepted by the Provincial Caucus form the
bargaining package which is forwarded to the Bargaining Committee for
negotiation.
As you may know, the Local 1-S Screening Caucus consists of the Local 1-S
Executive Board, along with two rank-and-file members from each of the 13
Group Rep areas of the Local, a total of just over 40 members.
Interestingly enough, a proposal was submitted to the Local 1-S Caucus for
all percentage-based wage increases. A motion was put forward to accept
this proposal, which was defeated. Subsequently, a motion was put forward
to reject the proposal, which was passed.
A motion was later put forward to accept a proposal for wage increases
based on percentage/flat/percentage (assuming a 3-year deal). This
proposal was accepted and sent on to the Provincial Bargaining Caucus. At Provincial Caucus, the proposal was amended to state that wage increases should be applied on an alternating percentage/flat basis. The proposal was subsequently accepted, and therefore became part of the final bargaining package.
As I am sure you can appreciate, there was a lot of discussion on both
sides of this issue. Ultimately, both the Local and Provincial caucuses
were of the opinion that the combination of percentage and flat increases
was the way to go. The Bargaining Committee is duty-bound to follow this
directive.
Should you have any further questions concerning the Local or Provincial
Caucus processes, please feel free to contact me.
In solidarity,
Peter Brandt
President, Local 1-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D_factor
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 24
Location: Regina
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: What's the Provincial Caucus up to? |
|
|
"At Provincial Caucus, the proposal was amended to state that wage increases should be applied on an alternating percentage/flat basis. The proposal was subsequently accepted, and therefore became part of the final bargaining package."
Does this mean the this contract will be ' % - flat - %' , but next contract will be 'flat - % - flat' ?!?
I think this is their intent!!
_________________
David Buchanan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RBF
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes that is exactly what it means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Generic
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does this mean the this contract will be ' % - flat - %' , but next contract will be 'flat - % - flat' ?!?
I think this is their intent!!
Addressing the above notation.
Regarless of the itent, each contract is bargained for as a seperate entitly.
My understanding is that there is no mandated carry over from one to the next.
The idea is as you have noted for the current contract to be a %, then a Flat, the a %.
There may be intent to have the next one as Flat % Flat, but the next contract will be a seperate negoation, with different proposals, and different ( I am sure ) members on the bargaining committee. There is nothing in the current CEP constituion that I can find that makes a carry over a firm and concrete item.
In truth, if this movement contiues to grow, and a large enough segment of the CEP members feel they are not being represented, the CEP itself could be taken to the Sask Labour board under Duty Of Fair Representation.
I do not think that this issue is one that would be viable for such a process myself, but I am not an expert in the area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D_factor
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 24
Location: Regina
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The danger is that it sets a precedent! An expectation of continuing on with the original intent!
If you have more information on "Duty Of Fair Representation" please let us know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
