Questions and Answers

Q| Eric, Vancouver:
Will city council refund all the garbage collections fees collected from taxpayers, [who have had] no pickup services for the past eight weeks ?

A| On July 25th Vancouver city council passed a motion to give any money saved as a result of the strike back to homeowners. NPA Councillors Suzanne Anton, Kim Capri, Elizabeth Ball, and Mayor Sullivan opposed the motion.

According to a staff report, in 2000 a seven-week strike involving more than 4000 workers resulted in net savings of $1.3 million to the city. Not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.
And refunding the cost of garbage collection alone may not amount to much for an average homeowner.

An average homeowner, with a medium garbage container (180 litres) pays $99.00 per year for garbage removal. So if the strike continued for two months, the owner would be owed a refund of $16.50.

Q| Johnny McVough and family, Mount Pleasant:
My wife talked to Elizabeth Ball, yesterday complaining about how much this strike is affecting our two children. The labour bureau seems proud that this strike is saving the taxpayers so much money. So I have two questions is saving money on workers wages the main reason for this strike? And who will feel the benefits of the savings?

A| The city says this strike is not about saving money. It is about negotiating a collective agreement with its workers that taxpayers can afford. The mayor's office claims any savings that are a result of the strike will be minimal.

True, the city may not by providing many of its usual services, but it is also losing a significant amount of revenue.

As well, exempt staff who are doing the work of striking workers are getting paid significant bonuses for doing their own jobs, as well as extra work.

The other side of the coin is that in 2006, the city's total payroll added up to more than 330-million dollars.

It only makes sense that after two months of not issuing pay cheques, the city would realize significant savings.

Q| From Bill Lee, Vancouver:

Should or can Judy Rogers be held responsible for the initiation of the strike and its prolongation?

A| City Manager Judy Rogers is answerable to the mayor and council. Any concern about the way she is doing her job should be directed to the mayor and council.

As for whether Judy Rogers initiated the strike: the union and management had been talking for nearly a year by the time the strike vote was taken.

As you are no doubt aware, sometimes unions take strike votes to strengthen their position at the bargaining table, demonstrate their resolve, and to convince employers to bargain.

In this case, after the union took a strike vote, the city went to the Labour Relations Board and forced the union to vote on what it called, at the time, "its final offer." That offer was rejected and the union went on strike.

Some union people believe the city purposely tabled a sub-standard offer so the union would have no choice but to strike.

Many people also believe Judy Rogers has taken a clear partisan position in this dispute. It is true that some of her correspondence has attacked the union leadership. At the same time, she is ultimately responsible for the operation of the city, and making sure taxpayers are provided with services.

Q| From Bill Lee, Vancouver:

If the union is willing to meet, does the city have to meet with them?

A| The city has no obligation to meet with the union.

Several times over the course of this dispute, the union has invited management to resume negotiations. (In the first weekend of the strike, they booked hotel rooms and waited for city officials. The union admitted then this was largely about optics, and that there was little expectation management would actually show up).

In the week preceding the current round of negotiations there were informal talks and letters exchanged before negotiations resumed. So getting to the table can be a pretty delicate dance, with neither side wanting to appear weak, or too eager.

Q| Eric F., Vancouver: Do we know how much money the city is saving during the strike? At what point do they have an incentive to settle?

A| Please see above. So far, no one has come up with an amount. Opposition councilors are trying to calculate exactly what the city has saved, since they've suggested the amount should be deducted from the property tax bills. Many union members suspect this strike is all about the city saving money. So far there is no evidence to support that claim.

As for an incentive to settle, presumably, the city would like to restore services to citizens, and workers would like to go back to work and earn a pay cheque.

Q| Nadine, Vancouver: How long was the longest strike in Vancouver history? I've heard that garbage has been declared an essential service in the past -- why isn't it now? How bad does it need to get?

A| According to CUPE BC, the longest civic strike in Vancouver history occurred in 1981 while Michael Harcourt was mayor of the city. It lasted for 90 days.

In 1997 a strike by CUPE 1004 lasted for 6 weeks. Inside workers represented by CUPE Local 15 were picketed out. In 2000 CUPE 15 struck for 7 weeks, picketing out members of 1004.

Regarding garbage, the city's public health officer has the power to declare garbage a health hazard and order that it be picked up.

Provincial medical health officer Dr. Perry Kendall said a few weeks into the strike, that "rotting garbage itself doesn't contain any harmful pathogens, but if it attracts seagulls or scavenger birds, and they're pooping all over the place, their feces can contain organisms that cause illness." Kendall said that while it may smell and be unpleasant, it's not necessarily a health concern.

I'm afraid I can't find any reference to the last time the city's health department ordered the garbage to be picked up during a strike.

Main | Next Post »