No. 31
September 25, 1998
TREASURY BOARD OFFER EXPOSED
The following is the proposal presented by Treasury Board to Table 1 for a settlement of ongoing pay equity adjustments, except for the Hospital Services (HS) Group. The figures for the HS group are in the process of being analyzed.
What Treasury Board gives, Treasury Board takes away
The proposal presented by Treasury Board is yet another attempt to peddle something less than the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision. As with every offer made in the past, there are winners and losers. And these change, offer by offer. This time, for example, CR-4s are being offered less than TB’s last offer in 1997. Is it just a coincidence they are the largest sub-group in the CR category? Another example is the LS group. TB’s latest amounts are down by at least 50% from their last offer.
And, in all the discussions to date, there has been no mention of interest payments, in spite of the Tribunal’s Order that interest continue to accumulate until payments are made.
Last, but not least, the economic increases being proposed by TB at the negotiating table are being calculated on base salaries, rather than on salaries including the interim ongoing adjustments.
Does it make any sense? Not really, unless you consider the bigger picture. The employer is trying to do a number of things with this offer. The one thing they’re not trying to do is implement the Tribunal decision.
Game 1: Try a backdoor attack on the Tribunal decision
Many of the objections Treasury Board raised about our complaint and the joint equal pay study were either lost in Court or rejected by the Tribunal. They can’t take them any further because they couldn’t make their case before the Tribunal in the first place. So they’re now trying to raise objections which should have been abandoned long ago.
Job values were established in the joint pay equity study and jointly agreed upon. The government lost it’s attack on their validity in the Tribunal’s 1996 decision. Mind you, Treasury Board has never worried about playing around with the study results. In 1990, they arbitrarily raised the scores of male jobs and reduced the scores of women’s jobs in order to calculate the interim payments they issued at that time. The government didn’t like the results of the equal pay study. It doesn’t like the Tribunal decision. Now it’s trying other avenues to get what it wants.
Game 2 - Use the offer to slide into the Universal Classification System (UCS)
Treasury Board President Marcel Massé and others have made a point of touting the fact that a new, gender-neutral classification system will soon be in place. It’s being used to undercut the reliability of the joint study.
There are some very significant differences. The UCS is a management-only exercise. It’s unilateral and it’s being done quickly, regardless of the consequences. Evaluations will be done on the basis of mass, generic jobs with broad band job descriptions.
The joint study on the other hand included training for the individuals involved, the review of job descriptions for actual jobs, joint ratings as a result of the review, and joint committees at all levels. Which would you trust?
Game 3 - Ignore two-thirds of those affected by the Tribunal decision
The government’s proposal on interim ongoing payments only affects those currently working. They’re conveniently ignoring retroactive and interest payments for both current and former employees. Many of these former employees are equally needy if not more so - particularly our retirees. How many more members will die before they see a dime of the money they’re owed?
Payment for Indirect Wages
Another feature of the TB offer is the annual payment of $250.00 in lieu of the many allowances which make up indirect wages. These include, for example, supervisory differential, inmate training plan allowance, danger , diving and dog handler allowances. These allowances are considered pay for all purposes. In 1997, the Alliance had reached an informal agreement with TB on a figure of 13 cents an hour as compensation for indirect wages. TB has ignored this agreement and is now proposing an allowance which would not be included in salary.
The Alliance’s position?
Stop the unilaterial, condition-ridden offers. Sit down with the union and work out an application of the Tribunal decision in order to fairly benefit all affected persons. Do it now and do it right. If the government wants to make interim payments as a down payment, it can go ahead and do so, without delay, as it did in 1990.