It was one of the longest filibusters in the history of Canada's House of Commons, but Bill C-6, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, is now the law of the land.
As ever, debate on the bill was intense as well as prolonged. But how much of the argument was based on fact? I'll be looking at five statements from each of the official parties in the House that I feel needs some verification.
While I have tried to ensure that what I have provided is accurate, I may have missed something: please let me know if there are any corrections to be made here.
All quotations are from Hansard, the official transcript of the Parliament of Canada, unless otherwise noted. Statements are arranged in the order they appear on Hansard.
Wayne Easter (LIB-PE): “[T]he increases in wages that are in the bill are less than the wages that were already negotiated.”
Rating: Barely True
Comparing the “final offer” displayed on Canada Post's website from May 19, the legislation sets out a lower wage increase in year two of the agreement (1.5% vs 1.75%), however it is higher for year three (1.9% vs 2%). My calculations, based on a $22/h wage, puts the difference at around $260 over the four years.
Lisa Raitt (CON-ON): “The [arbitration] process [of 1997] took over two years and indeed, at the end of the day, was a great cost to Canadian taxpayers and we had to proceed to ensure that we paid for those costs associated with it.”
Rating:Probably True
Hard to find anything online to verify this, but I found something on the CUPW website citing a “1997-1999 round of negotiations”. As the 1997 Postal Services Continuation Act mandates a mediator-arbitrator to settle the dispute, it would likely cost a couple hundred thousand dollars to finally settle it.
Denis Coderre (LIB-QC): “A rotating strike is not a strike.”
Rating: False
Merriam-Webster defines a strike as “a work stoppage by a body of workers to enforce compliance with demands made on an employer”. In this case, the body of workers would be one or more local chapters of the CUPW, even if for 24 hours. Therefore, the rotating strike does meet the definition of a strike.
Wayne Marston (NDP-ON): The union "offered to the company to return to work under the old contract rules."
Rating: True
Quoting a CUPW press release from June 15: “We want Mr. Chopra to agree to reinstate our contract and we will return to work and keep negotiating. We have already made this offer.”
Peter Stoffer (NDP-NS): “The workers did not go on strike.”
Rating: Pants On Fire
Even CUPW called it a strike prior to the lockout.
Dean Del Mastro (CON-ON): "[Layton's] motion, which would suggest a hoist motion, to move this in six months, unlock the doors of Canada Post, for what? Is it so we can have more rotating strikes?"
Rating: Half True
CUPW has offered to return to work if the expired contract was put back in place. If the government were to order Canada Post to agree to extend the contract, which they can, CUPW would have ended their rotating strike, according to a June 10 press release.
Mauril Belanger (LIB-ON): "[T]he government showed up with a bill to force workers back to work after a lockout. That makes no sense."
Rating: Half True
The bill would force the union to go back to work and end the rotating strikes. It would also force Canada Post to allow their employees back to work.
Chris Charlton (NDP-ON): "[A]n email that simply says "end the lockout" [...] is precisely the Conservative government's responsibility."
Rating: Mostly True
The government does have the power to give orders to Canada Post, pursuant to the Canada Post Corporation Act 1981. However, simply ordering Canada Post to end the lockout would not necessarily end the rotating strikes.
Peter Julian (NDP-BC): "The pension element of this Conservative sledgehammer on the letter carriers and on the mail sorters at Canada Post means that for many of the younger people joining Canada Post, they cannot hope to retire at 65."
Rating: False
The legislation uses Final Offer Selection Arbitration, which means the mediator must select either Canada Post's final offer or CUPW's final offer. Though one of the guidelines for the arbitrator is to maintain the solvency of the pension plan, if Canada Post offers a pension plan available to employees at age 60, which was included in their “final offer” of May 19, that's the worst they're going to get.
Hedy Fry (LIB-BC): "Let them go back to work, let them negotiate for a limited period of time with a timeline and then go to mediation or arbitration. What the bill will do is not allow that to happen, because it is going to set complete limits on any arbitrator trying to come up with some way to facilitate an agreement."
Rating: Barely True
The “complete limits” are only guidelines for the arbitrator to consider in making their decision. In addition, the law does allow for Canada Post and CUPW to come to their collective agreement before the arbitrator comes to an agreement. The only exception to this is the wage icnreases, which are now set in law.
Jean Rousseau (NDP-QC): An orphan clause “was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada"
Rating: Probably False
An orphan clause is one that sets different terms for new employees than current employees. My attempt to search the Supreme Court database for such a ruling turned up nothing.
Judy Sgro (LIB-ON): The legislation is "full of clauses that will clearly tie the hands of any arbitrator or mediator."
Rating: Barely True
It contains guidelines that the arbitrator will have to consider, but the only clause that will “tie the hands” of the arbitrator is that they must choose one offer.
Lynne Yelich (CON-SK): "70% of Canadians are in support of the back-to-work legislation"
Rating: True
A poll conducted by Forum Research found 70% in favour, with a margin of error of 2 percentage points 19 times out of 20. Support was lowest in Atlantic Canada, at 63%.
Blaine Calkins (CON-AB): The "union is not giving [the workers] an opportunity to vote on the offer that is on the table."
Rating: Barely True
The rank and file did not get to vote directly on the proposed contract. However, they did vote 96.5% in favour of a series of demands, according to the CUPW website. As these demands were not met, particularly the two-tiered wages, it would likely have been a waste of time and effort to put the contract to a vote that would have likely been voted down.
Andrew Saxton (CON-BC): "25% of the annual increase is lost every day that the NDP delays the postal workers getting back to work."
Rating: True
Assuming $22/h, which is halfway between the proposed starting and maximum wages proposed by Canada Post, an employee would be losing $176 per day. He calculated the net difference is $825 per year, I calculated $260 over the four years. Either way, the point is correct in that employees have lost more in the strike/lockout than the difference in salary over the course of the contract.
No comments:
Post a Comment