Go CUPE go. Hey hey, ho ho, up those salaries have to go, hey hey, ho ho. I bet you never thought you'd see the day when yours truly was cheering on organized labour. But in the spirit of Ottawa's forthcoming labour dispute, this not-so-humble columnist wishes to now be referred to as Brother Robinson as my fellow brethren and the sisters in the proletariat struggle strive to ratchet up salaries at city hall much to the dismay of Czar Bob and his capitalist sympathizers around the council table.

Oops …sorry about that, my keyboard was briefly infected by this vicious "lose touch of reality virus" making the rounds on the Internet. (Note to self: Don't open apparently harmless Christmas and New Years attachments from national union leaders.)

Getting to the issue at hand, those who fought against amalgamation and the one city governance model are now saying: "I told you so." We have word out of city hall that the negotiations between CUPE (representing some 7,000 city workers) and management are not going well. Indeed sources tell me the two sides are so far apart that the union has requested conciliation.

In fairness to our organized labour friends, they will naturally try and have all salaries harmonized up to the highest level so workers (both inside and out) are making the same wage. This is their historic and predictable role. The catch here is that once a new salary grid is decided, union leaders will no doubt look for retroactivity back to January 1st, 2000, the day the new City was born.

This is what happened in Halifax, Toronto and even Winnipeg, which amalgamated almost 30 years ago. Of course, to lay all cards on the table, I was a one-city proponent if not antagonist. But in my own defence, I argued for wages to be dealt with in legislation (along with mandatory alternate service delivery levels) or in a worst-case scenario, to be dealt with by the transition board.

Unfortunately, neither happened. So the city has been left holding the bag. Thankfully, it's good to see that management is taking a tough stand on wage harmonization … in so far as it means moving things to the highest common pre-merger denominator.

In addition, there are some other rules that the city should follow as it seeks to bring closure on the labour file.

First, key distinctions should be kept between inside and outside workers and perhaps, even various sub-distinctions of outside workers. The new Ottawa cannot afford to lump all these workers together in restrictive schedule grids.


This would only repeat the mistake made by at least one predecessor municipality back in the 80s when recreational workers were lumped in with office workers with the consequence being more overtime for the outside workers for shifts on weekends, evenings, etc.

Second, city officials and our elected leaders must make it abundantly clear that large wage settlements (and retroactivity if the unions are adamant) have a consequence. That consequence being workforce reductions above and beyond current attrition and merger savings plans.

Third, the city should not use the threat of further contracting out or alternate service delivery to ward off union demands. This should simply be understood as a reality that will transpire. Translation: Senior management should get a move on (and be pushed by council if necessary) with an identification of candidate services to be put to the competitive test.

Some services may be contracted out, others kept in house and indeed, some in-house teams may wish to bid against private sector proponents as happened - and very effectively so - with the National Capital Commission a few years back. Despite protests from union brass, you can rest assured that there are some very entrepreneurial city staff itching to break away from their labour masters.

Fourth, transparency should be elevated as a principle to be espoused throughout negotiations. An informed public that understands the positions both of the unions and the city can more effectively register its wishes to councillors on what should or should not be done.

While Mayor Chiarelli is understandably staying out of the fray at this point in time, he must speak up and the sooner the better. There is no doubt that city staff are extremely important to the functioning of our metropolis and they should be compensated fairly to reflect their value.

However, the collective wage bill for labour (both unionized and non-unionized) is ultimately determined by our collective tolerance and ability to pay a set load of property taxes. And given public demands for infrastructure, transit and a host of other priorities, exorbitant (read: Highest common denominator) and unrealistic (read: Retroactivity) wage demands are just not on. Mayor Bob should say so!