INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO & CLC

10

6

IFPTE OUTLOOK is published quarterlyfor $12 per year by the InternationalFederation of Professional and TechnicalEngineers, 501 3rd Street, NW,Suite 701, Washington, DC 20001.

Periodicals postage paid at Washington,DC and additional mailing offices.

Publications Mail AgreementNo. 41493021 Return UndeliverableCanadian Addresses to PO Box 503,RPO West Beaver Creek, RichmondHill ON L4B 4R6

www.ifpte.org(ISSN 0745-2098)

Canadian Workers Under AttackElected leaders of all political stripes are taking direct aim atCanadian workers with race-to-the-bottom policies that havedestroyed good paying jobs and diminished workers rightsacross the globe. All of our Canadian brothers and sistersmore than likely will have to address these issues.

Sorcher on Public PolicyUpward Spiral Instead of a Downward One is StanSorcher’s take on the state of our public policy. Currentpolicies are particularly well-crafted to the goal of makinglarge multinational businesses succeed, and benefit thosebusinesses directly, while workers and small businessesmake a leap of faith that boon will trickle our way.

New Book Provides Management‘How-To’on UnionsBlaine Donias, Staff Officer of IFPTE Local 160 andPresident of the Workplace Fairness Institute, has authoreda new book, Engaging Unionized Employees: EmployeeMorale and Productivity.

Oct.-Dec. 2010Volume 67Number 4www.ifpte.org

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Gregory J. JunemannPRESIDENT

Paul ShearonSECRETARY-TREASURER

AREA VICE PRESIDENTS

Larry ChojnackiMIDWESTERN

Ron DicksWESTERN

Misty Hughes-NewmanCANADIAN

John G. Lowden Jr.ATLANTIC

Lou LuciveroWESTERN

Jimmie MathisSPEEA

Mark A. NelsonEASTERN FEDERAL

Joe A. NewberrySPEEA

Gerald NewsomeATLANTIC

Alan E. RiceSPEEA

Rodney G. SheppardCANADIAN

Benjamin T. ToyamaEXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

WESTERN FEDERAL

Charlie TrembleyNORTHEASTERN

EDITOR

Candace M. Rhett

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO & CLC

10

DEPARTMENTS President’s Editorial –3 Around The Federation –14

On the Cover:Parliament Hill is the heart of Canada’s

democratic system of government, andserves as the home of the Parliament ofCanada. “The Hill” contains a number ofarchitectural elements of national symbol-ic importance and is the focal point forexpressions of democracy and nationalcelebrations. In 1976, the ParliamentBuildings and the public grounds aroundthe buildings were designated as NationalHistoric Sites.

Parliament Hill was originally the site of amilitary base in the 18th and 19th centuries.Currently, it is an area of Crown land on thesouthern banks of the Ottawa River indowntown Ottawa, Ontario, and attractsapproximately 3 million visitors each year.

1212

f workers in Canada and in the US ever needed con-vincing that they need a union, the events following the2010 US election should be enough to convince them.

Looking at the political climate in both nations, it’s quiteobvious that workers have been abandoned by the majorpolitical parties, if indeed the interests of workers everwere in the minds of the lawmakers.As the dust settles on the year 2010, one declaration

remains steadfast: Our only means of building power isthrough a unified, collective voice.And, the only means ofachieving that voice in the workplace is through a union.For better or worse, political parties have their own

agendas. Sometimes,workers’ issues are included on theseagendas; sometimes, not. Occasionally – okay, frequently –we get caught up in party politics as we work to get labor-friendly politicians elected to office.We don’t always findthe ideal candidates, but they appear better than theiropponents.Then,we find ourselves frustrated, disappoint-ed,outraged,you-name-it,when these same politicians thatwe worked to get elected ignore our issues.Yet, every political season,we join our well-intentioned,

hard-working members who go out and work for politi-cians. We make phone calls, we hand out flyers at theworkplaces, we visit members at their homes, and so on.Then, after the politicians get elected, they rush out andwork out deals with the same people they ran against—tothe detriment of the working class.

It wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’thappen so often,but it does—andit’s time it stopped.In his comic strip, Pogo,

Walt Kelly’s lead charactermade his famous quote,“Wehave met the enemy, andthey is us.” I’d like to modifyPogo’s line a bit to say, “Wehave met our strongest ally,and they is us.” Here’s what Imean,and what we need to do- both differently and better.We need to continue to build

the strength of our union—ourLocals and our movement—from

the ground up. Regardlessof where a Local is

located, thepolitical land-scape, or the

lawmakers who happen to be running the government at anygiven time,the one constant is that the union is only as strongas itsmembers.Our success restswith you,just as it always has.There is no action that your mayor can take that will

strengthen your Local beyond where you, the member,canhelp to build it.The same is true of your provincial premieror your state governor.President Barack Obama can’t do asmuch to build your Local as you can, nor can PrimeMinister Steven Harper. Those people can increase our bur-dens as workers and as union members, but they can’tstrengthen our Locals.You can.When our backs are against the wall,we need to focus our

efforts on internal organizing.That goes beyond recruiting newmembers.Internal organizing alsomeans reaching out tomem-bers and getting them involved in the Local’s activities - or atleast making sure they’re informed. It means building a solidsteward body. It means creating committees and subgroups toensure the interests of all ourmembers and potential membersare addressed.It means getting involved in the local labor com-munity and supporting the actions of other unions.To build the strength of our Locals,we will need to vol-

unteer some of our time and talent to support the Local’saction, and of equal importance, to encourage others tojoin and take action.We need to turn potential membersinto participating members.And then,we need to turn par-ticipating members into activists.We do this by getting involved ourselves.We need to take

ownership of our Locals, to learn what activities the union isinvolved in, to offer our own ideas and suggestions forimprovement,and then,to roll up our sleeves and get to work.Through the dedicated involvement of our members,

we can build local union leadership development pro-grams, we can ensure that our union operates under aresponsible set of governing documents with oversightprovided by our own elected officers, and create a systemof stewards and contract administrators to police our col-lective bargaining agreements.In my address to the 1997 Convention in Toronto, I told

the delegates,“It’s really all up to us to make change happen.We cannot depend on electing the right politicians.We’vetried that many times.They have short memories. Give thelabor movement to the politicians and they’ll screw it upevery time.We must take control of our own destinies.”I stand by those words, now, more than ever as well as

these:“We have seen our strongest ally, and they is us.” O

YOUR PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

IFPTE OCTOBER– DECEMBER 20103

Pogo RevisitedI

4 OCTOBER– DECEMBER 2010 IFPTE GO GREEN

Paul ShearonSecretary-Treasurer

nger over high unemployment, job outsourcing,WallStreet bailouts and the budget deficit drove the out-come of the 2010 elections.On November 2nd,voters

tossed dozens of incumbents out of office and sent an armyof new faces toWashington D.C.—all promising change.One big question remains:Will the newly elected repre-

sentatives help solve the problems that generated voteranger in the first place or just make them worse?Will theycreate jobs and encourage investment or promote out-sourcing and revitalizeWall Street’s criminality?There’s reason to be skeptical. Rather than insisting on

fair trade policies that stand up for American companiesand workers, candidates across the country who ranagainst the Obama administration’s record largely opposeefforts in Congress to close loopholes in the U.S. tax codethat encourage job outsourcing, address unfair foreigntrade practices,or that support small businesses strugglingto market their goods and services overseas.Now that they’re elected, will they stand idly by while

our trading partners violate existing trade agreements andsteal our best jobs?The new Congress faces a serious test of its fair trade

bona fides in an ongoing battle over illegal European aero-space subsidies that threaten U.S. jobs.Over the last threedecades, Europe provided billions of subsidies to France-based aerospace giant Airbus to steal tens of thousands ofAmerican jobs from U.S.workers.Seemingly unsatisfied with the jobs it’s already stolen,

Airbus is attempting to win a $35 billion Pentagon contractto buildAir Force refueling tankers with the help of $5 billionof the illegal subsidies.If they’re successful,more than 50,000American jobs that would be supported by a U.S.-built tankerwill head overseas to France,Germany and Spain.In Congress, a broad bipartisan coalition of leaders from

across the country has gone on record demanding thatAirbus stop using illegal subsidies to get a leg up onAmerican workers.Will the newly elected Congress pro-tect 50,000 U.S. jobs and a $35 billion government con-tract by demanding that the Pentagon account for Airbus’illegal subsidies in the tanker competition?Some in Congress hope that the answer is no. Airbus

has promised a handful of jobs on the project, amountingto little more than a pork-barrel inducement to a smallgroup in Congress, convincing them to carry water forthe Europeans. If they can persuade this year’s crop ofpolitical newcomers to look the other way on illegalEuropean aerospace subsidies, they’d be in a strong posi-

tion to help Airbus to victory.They might be able to sellout tens of thousands of workers just for the right tostand at a press conference announcing hundreds of newjobs in their districts.If that weren’t bad enough,anAirbus victory would also

be bad news for the budget deficit and for our troops.Compared to its competition, the Airbus tanker is largerand heavier, which means it would cost upwards of $36billion more to operate. It’s so large, it wouldn’t even beable to land and operate out of many smaller airfields inthe Pacific and the Middle East without billions in infra-structure upgrades.At a time when the Pentagon needs tofind budget savings, the Airbus tanker would bust the bot-tom line and cost taxpayers billions.Riding a wave of voter anger intoWashington, the newly

elected Congress now must prove that it can do better:create jobs, stimulate the economy,promote fair trade, andmake good on a slew of other campaign promises.Ensuring that American workers get a fair shot at the AirForce’s tanker contract should be a top priority.If they can’t get the job done,the wave of voter anger that

swept them into office will sweep them back out. O

YOUR SECRETARY-TREASURER’S MESSAGE

Agenda Item for Congress – Fair Trade

A

Outlookonline@ifpte.org IFPTE OCTOBER– DECEMBER 20105

he IFPTE Canadian Region met inWashington DC onNovember 9th,2010 giving the International staff andelected Local officers an opportunity to meet and

interact with the staff at Headquarters.The four Canadian Locals, Society of Energy Professionals

(Local 160), theTelecommunications EmployeesAssociationofWinnipeg (Local 161), theWinnipegAssociation of PublicService Officers (Local 162), and IFPTE Local 164 werepresent.All Locals reported issues with workload and work-life

balance, pressure from employers to increase productivityand pressures from various levels of government’s legisla-tive agenda.The IFPTE Canadian Region agreed to develop a legisla-

tive and political agenda around the following items:

Privatizing Waste-Water in WinnipegThe City of Winnipeg has entered into a secretive 30-

year contract with Veolia Canada to design and upgradethe sewage treatment plants and to help the City optimizethe long-term operations.IFPTE will continue to seek details of the contract and

advocate for transparency between the City of WinnipegandVeolia.

Foreign Ownership of Canadian Telecommunications ServicesIn its March 3rd, 2010 ‘Speech from the Throne’, the

Conservative Government, under Stephen Harper,announced its intention to “….open Canada’s doors fur-ther to foreign investment in key sectors including thesatellite and telecommunications industries…”

IFPTE believes that there is little evidence to supportthe government’s claim that further opening the marketwill result in lower prices for consumers and has implica-tions for Canadian jobs, national sovereignty and security.IFPTE will work with MPs on Parliament Hill to blockchanges to the foreign ownership cap.

Ontario- The Restraint Act (Bill-16)Queen’s Park introduced legislation to save $750M by

freezing the compensation of up to one million public sec-tor employees for two years while giving Corporations$2.4 billion in tax breaks.IFPTE will vigorously oppose any legislation that shifts

the burden of the economic crisis from corporations toworking families.

Changes to Canada Pension PlanIFPTE supports the efforts of the Canadian Labour Congress

to improve retirement security for all Canadian workers.

Mandatory Long Form CensusThe Government of Canada has proposed scrapping the

mandatory long form census. Many communities rely onthe data and a voluntary long form census form prejudicesthe data. IFPTE will send a letter to Minister Clement sup-porting the long form census.The Canadian Region’s meets annually; the next meet-

ing will be held in May 2011.For more in-depth information relating to the issues in

this article, read our legislative issue starting on page 12 ofthis issue. O

T

6 OCTOBER– DECEMBER 2010 IFPTE GO GREEN

By Matthew BiggsLegislative Director

hether federal, provincial or citylevels of government,elected lead-ers of all political stripes are taking

direct aim at Canadian workers,with mem-bers ofThe Society of Energy Professionals/IFPTE Local 160; TelecommunicationsEmployees Association of Manitoba(TEAM/Local 161);WinnipegAssociation ofPublic Service Officers (WAPSO/Local

162);and Local 164 being potential targets.The race-to-the-bottom policies such as theprivatization of public services, attacks onpublic sector workers,and globalizing criti-cal Canadian industries like telecommuni-cations services-policies that havedestroyed good paying jobs and diminishedworkers rights across the globe-alreadyhave or will likely be something all of theseLocals will have to address.As the parent union of nearly 10,000

highly-skilled technical Canadian work-

ers, IFPTE will work aggressively todefeat these reckless policies.These initiatives are not new to

Canadianworkers,particularly thosework-ing in the Energy industry. In 2004, Local160 led the fight among Ontario labour indefeating the infamous Bill-100, whichaimed to privatize most of Ontario's ener-gy industry.Such privatization would havebeen great for private industry, with cor-porate interests from outside of Canadareaping the monetary windfall. However,

CANADIAN WORKER

In what was expected to be his lastrun for office, in late October Sam Katz

won re-election for Mayor of the cityofWinnipeg.High on thepriority list of Mayor Katzare public-private part-nerships, one of whichhe achieved with the hir-ing of Veolia Canada to

design and build two upgradedsewage treatment plants and helpthe City to optimize the long-termoperations. While there has been

plenty of discussion and concern overthe years about the impact of such a move, the

Mayor’s re-election has opened the door for him to move fullsteam ahead with this long awaited waste-water privatizationinitiative.However,Winnipeggers are waiting for answers to the

many lingering concerns they have expressed over thisissue. Will privatization mean achieving efficiency for aprivate sector company by replacing highly-skilled, union-ized workers with less experienced lower paid workers?Will privatization result in reduced staff and reduced serv-ices in the name of increased profits for a corporate enti-ty? Will it mean that water and sewage rates will increasewhile services decrease? Will safety be sacrificed inexchange for high profits? Based on experiences with pri-vatization across the globe the logical answer to all ofthese answers is ‘Yes’. Yet, Mayor Katz has avoided anddeflected these questions for years.IFPTE continues to seek details of the unholy and non-trans-

parent alliance between Mayor Katz andVeolia Environment,the company that the Mayor has partnered with to ‘manage’the design and build of Winnipeg’s waste water treatmentfacilities.One can easily be fooled by the word ‘environment’ in the

company’s name.Veolia has little to do reducing one’s carbonfootprint and more to do with,along with a company namedSuez, controlling two-thirds of private water services acrossthe globe.Veolia is well known throughout the world for dra-matically increasing water rates in some of the poorestnations in the world, cutting off services to those who can’tpay the bill,and breaking contractswith various governments.In fact, Maude Barlow, the National Chairperson of theCouncil of Canadians and Chair of the DC based Food andWaterWatch, said the following ofVeolia during a Septemberspeaking event inWinnipeg last year:

“Themost recent case isAdelaide in SouthAustraliawhich is suing the company (Veolia), its subsidiaryUnited Water, for raising the rates astronomically inthe city of Adelaide in order to promote its businessinterests internationally.“So this is a very well documented story about how

these companies, and this company in particularoperates. Once they come here they are not cominghere to provide cleanwater for the People ofWinnipeg.“They are coming here to make money, they are in

fierce competition with other corporations, and theyhave one motive to be here and it’s very clear andimportant that we understand that.”Despite its reputation, Mayor Katz has nonetheless estab-

lished a partnership withVeolia in one form or another to bea major part of the Mayor’s effort to privatize Winnipeg’swaste water services.IFPTE believes that privatization ofWinnipeg’s waste water

services is misguided.It will result in higher rates and reducedservices, and will eventually lead to the replacement of thehighly skilled unionized workers necessary to adequately pro-vide this service.Furthermore the City ofWinnipeg is handingover a public entity that is of extreme value to the public forpennies on the dollar.As such IFPTE and its affiliated Localswill work to block any further privatization of Winnipeg’swater and waste services.

Privatizing Waste-Water in Winnipeg

W

as is already the case in the United States,privatizing the energy industry and all buteliminating government oversight wouldhave led to reduced services (includingblackouts in some cases) at a higher costto consumers. However, the public ulti-mately rejected the privatization of thiscritically important and valuable publiclyowned utility.Unfortunately, similar effortselsewhere have not subsided.Currently on the globalization wish list

of lawmakers are efforts to privatize valu-

able public services such as waste waterservices toWinnipeg taxpayers,and liftingthe current 20% cap on voting shares heldby non Canadians in telephone compa-nies. In addition, the retirement securitythat Canadian retirees have becomeaccustomed to is becoming an increasing-ly risky proposition for Canadian workers.For example, last December's passage ofBill C-51 increases early retirement penal-ties on the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP),the guaranteed defined benefits pension

plan for Canadian workers.IFPTE believesthat increasing penalties is not the answer.In addition,increasing CPP benefits versusfurther reliance on alternative risky retire-ment plans is paramount to Canadianretirement security.Finally,Bill-16,current-ly before the Ontario Legislature atQueen's Park, calls for a two year payfreeze for public sector workers, all whilegiving huge tax give backs to big business.Below are statements of union policy

describing each of these items:

The Cap on Foreign Ownership of Canadian Telecommunications ServicesAfter promising a quick lifting of the foreign ownership cap

in the Canadian telecommunications industry,the Harper gov-ernment announced on November 22nd that it was delayingany final decision. According to Industry Minister TonyClement, the delay is to give the Harper government time todetermine how to administer a planned 2012 auction of newwireless frequencies (spectrum) for mobile phones.However,the delay should not fool anyone into believing theGovernment of Canada (GoC) is not serious about liberalizingthe ownership rules that govern Canadian telecommunica-tions. In its March 3, 2010 speech from the Throne, the GoCpromised to“open Canada’s doors further to…foreign invest-ment in key sectors, including the satellite and telecommuni-cations industries giving Canadian firms access to the fundsand expertise they need.”Also, Clement stressed that by thespring of 2011,when the details of the 2012 spectrum auctionare finalized, a determination on lifting the cap on foreignownership will be completed.Local 161,TEAM,which represents workers in Manitoba at

MTSAllstream Inc. are very concerned with efforts to lift theforeign ownership cap.Canada already has more competitionin the telecommunications industry than any other countryexcept the US.Furthermore,there is little evidence to supportthe Harper government’s claim that bringing foreign compa-nies into the market will result in lower prices for consumers.TheTelecommunicationsAct of 1993 currently governs the

Canadian telecommunications industry. It mandates that nomore than 20% of an operating company,such as MTS or BellCanada, can be owned by a foreign company.Also, when itcomes to a holding company like Bell Canada Enterprises(BCE),the limit on foreign ownership is 33%. The Harper gov-ernment has proposed the following three possible optionsfor lifting the current foreign ownership prohibitions:1. Increase the limit of foreign ownership in telecommu-nications companies to 49% - Current law,which IFPTEsupports, requires the maximum number of votingshares from any foreign interest in a telecommunica-

tions company to not exceed 20%. In other words, theprotections guaranteeing Canadian telecommunica-tions entrepreneurs at least 80% ownership rights inthis industry would be reduced by 29% to only 51%.

2. Lift restrictions on telecommunications common carri-ers with a 10% or less market share – Unlike today, asmall telecommunications company with less than 10%of total industry revenues would be exempt from for-eign ownership restrictions.

3. Completely remove all foreign ownership restrictionsapplicable to telecommunications common carriers.

IFPTE rejects all three of the possible scenarios outlined bythe Harper Government.While the government contends thatallowing unlimited or increased foreign ownership to enterthe industry will lead to reduced prices and better service forconsumers, they have provided no evidence to support thatassertion. Furthermore, the allegation that Canadian con-sumers suffer from a lack of competition is simply not true. Infact, there are 11 Canadian companies taking advantage ofavailable spectrum,so there is no need to open it up to foreigninterests. Even the Mulroney government understood theimportance of maintaining a strong domestic hold onCanadian telecommunications, saying that,“the government’slongstanding view that domestic ownership ofCanada’s telecommunications infrastructure isessential to national sovereignty and security.”IFPTE believes that lifting the cap at all would

be bad for consumers, and could lead toupheaval for tens of thousands ofCanadian telecommunications work-ers. For these reasons the union isopposed to lifting the cap on for-eign ownership of Canadiantelecommunications companiesand will work with MPs onParliament Hill in an effort to blocksuch an effort.

Outlookonline@ifpte.org IFPTE OCTOBER– DECEMBER 20107

RS UNDER ATTACK

8 OCTOBER– DECEMBER 2010 IFPTE GO GREEN

With last December’s passage of Bill C-51, several changeswere made to the CPP – Canada’s defined pension plan for allCanadian workers. While some were good, most of themincreased penalties on retirees.The one positive change adopt-ed was to allow workers to collect their CPP benefit at age 60without having to stop working or significantly reducing earn-ings.This will allow aworker whowishes to continueworkingpart-time between the ages of 60-65 to do so,while requiringthem and their employer to continue contributing to the CPP.In other words, they can continue to increase their CPP bene-fit after age 65, while concurrently working and collectingalready earned CPP benefits.This is a good change that willallow workers to better budget for retirement while workingpart-time and phasing in greater CPP benefits.The problematic changes begin in 2012 and are phased in

over a five year period.These changes call for increased penal-ties for early retirees.The new lawwill mandate that if a work-er collects CPP benefits prior to age 65 their monthly alloca-tion will be reduced by 0.6%, compared to the current 0.5%.If a worker starts to collect at age 60, for example, they couldlose a maximum of 36% of their allocation, compared to the30% loss that would be experienced today.The clear intentionof this is to force older workers to stay in the workforcelonger, a policy that is suspect given the economic recessionthat has impacted the Canadian job market.While the changes that have been called for in Bill C-51 are

problematic,the larger concern causing IFPTE to joinwith theCLC in calling for a CPP overhaul is that the retirement secu-rity that Canadian retirees have become accustomed to con-tinues to be a risky proposition. IFPTE believes that nationaland provincial lawmakers should seriously consider adoptingCLC proposals to shore up the CPP.Why do we say this?A major element of Canadian retirement is attributed to

Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSP). RRSPs are pri-vate retirement savings accounts used by many Canadianworkers to supplement their CPP.If taken at age 65, the max-imum CPP benefit is a bit more than $11,000 a year,meaningthat most retirees also rely on other sources of retirement

income like an RRSP. However, like otherdefined contribution retirement pro-grams, RRSPs are very risky and canleavemanyworkers out in the coldduring their retirement years.

This concern is not onlyshared by labour, but alsoamong many Canadianworkers. For example,even though there issome opposition toCLC sponsored CPPfixes from such placesas the Alberta govern-ment and Canada’s

financial industry (an industry that benefits handsomelyfrom the fees generated from RRSPs),it is clear that Canadianworkers support increasing the benefit, this being con-firmed by an October 2010 Environics poll in which 78% ofrespondents supported increasing CPP benefits.Even the Calgary Herald weighed-in with a November

27th editorial that stated:“Private RRSPs and employer pension plans have

proven much riskier than initially billed. Those whoare in company pension plans are likely in a definedcontribution scheme, where the amount that goes inis predetermined, but the payout is based on howwellthe fund is invested and ultimately performs.…ThoseCanadians who want to retire in comfort will stillneed more to live on than the CPP.But by raising thestandard of living for all retirees, today’s taxpayers aresaved from shouldering the burden of tomorrow’s sen-iors living in poverty.In the long run, it ensures peoplepay their own way . . .”IFPTE agrees that the CLC effort to shore up the CPP is an

effort worth supporting.The CLC proposal includes the fol-lowing elements:1. For Increasing the CPP Benefit, Federal and Provincialgovernments must:� Phase in a doubling of payouts from the CanadaPension Plan (CPP) and the Quebec Pension Plan(QPP).

� Immediately increase Old Age Security (OAS) andthe Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) for allretirees.

2. For RRSPs and Employer Defined Pensions,Governments must also:� Create a national pension insurance fund to ensurethat workers’ defined benefit pensions aren’t at riskwhen employers go under or speculative bubbles gobust.The United States has a pension guarantee fundcovering up to about $50,000 of pension income.

� Regulate financial products to ensure that risks arereasonable and clear to all investors, and to ensurethat rating agencies are truly independent.

� Regulate pension fund investments in risky financialinstruments and prosecute any cases of fraud.

� Regulate pension funds for solvency in order tosecure promised pension benefits.

� Provide any temporary solvency funding relief toemployers in serious financial trouble on a case-by-case basis only. Applications must be approved bythe workplace bargaining agent (the union) or amajority of pension beneficiaries (in a non-unionworkplace).

In the coming year IFPTE looks forward to working withour Locals and members, and the CLC in moving towardsound CPP reform that will benefit all of Canada’s workers.

Canadian Pension Plan (CPP)Needs to Work for Workers

Outlookonline@ifpte.org IFPTE OCTOBER– DECEMBER 20109

Earlier this year, the Ontario Liberal Government intro-duced Bill-16,The Public Sector Compensation Restraintto Protect Public Services Act, 2010 as part of the 2010provincial budget. Bill 16 is aimed at impacting the com-pensation of up to one million public sector employees inOntario, by freezing their total compensation for twoyears starting this year.Non-union employees in the Ontario Public Service,

hospitals, boards of health, schools, colleges, universi-ties, Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation, and manyother provincial agencies, boards and commissionswere subject to the freeze provisions of the Act as ofMarch 25, 2010. Employees who are part of a union willsee their current collective agreements honoured.When these agreements expire, the Government is

expecting unionized employees to “do their part” andrenew their contracts without increases to wages orbenefits. While the government faces constitutionalchallenges for interfering with free collective bargain-ing by legislating a freeze for unionized workers, it hasannounced that it will not fund compensation increas-es to “transfer partners”.The Provincial Government says the two year wage

freeze is necessary to protect services and save jobs.TheGovernment claims it will save $750 million per yearfrom the freeze. According to Finance Minister DwightDuncan, the money saved will go towards protectingschools and hospitals, offsetting the province’s recorddeficit.At first glance, the intentions of the Act seem straight

forward: implement a two year wage freeze to save jobsand public services. However, the equation doesn’t endthere. The Liberal government has also committed toproviding companies with cuts to corporate incometaxes, to the tune of 2.4 billion dollars a year. So while,public sector workers are being told to tighten theirbelts, the Ontario government is allowing corporationsto pay less tax.In fact, the cost of the tax cuts is considerably larger

than the anticipated saving from the wage freeze, mean-ing the Ontario government will actually be decreasingthe funds in their general coffers, further increasing thedeficit and as a result jeopardizing public services. Inessence, the government will be taking money out ofthe pockets of public sector workers and giving it tocorporations.The Ontario government argues that it needs to pro-

vide additional tax cuts to attract new investment andexisting companies can use the money they saved toreinvest and create jobs to help our economy.However, corporate taxes are already low and in fact,Canada has one of the lowest income tax rates in theindustrialized world even compared to our US friendson the other side of the border. Secondly, corporate tax

incentives only account fora small percentage ofinvestment location deci-sions. Conversely, accessto an educated work-force and goodpublic health aremajor factors thatdo help compa-nies decide whereto set up business.In addition, by

their own calculation,the Ontario governmenthas worked out that everydollar given in corporateincome tax cuts would boost theeconomy by 30 cents. In comparison, every dollar spenton “other measures” like public services would boostthe economy by $1.40. In terms of doing what’s best forthe public’s interest and to stimulate the economy, themath seems simple.Yet, the government has chosen togo with the less cost effective route. It is difficult not tosee the connection; public sector workers are beingasked to take a cut so that corporations can keep moreof their profits through increased tax breaks even whenOntario cannot afford it.There’s no doubt that Bill 16 has broader implica-

tions as it will likely have a ripple effect on govern-ments in other jurisdictions and further motivate pri-vate sector employers to freeze compensation foremployees unionized or not. The good news is, thelabour movement in Ontario has banded together tospeak out against what’s happening. Newspaper edito-rials have been written, membership and communityoutreach meetings have been held and countless otherinitiatives implemented.IFPTE Local 160 is actively involved in this campaign

and they have been working closely with other unionsto counter the impact of this Bill. For the members ofLocal 160, Bill 16 is a particularly senseless measure, asthe employers the majority of members work for areself-funding agencies, meaning that their employers arenot “transfer partners”, and member compensation haszero impact on the budget or deficit. Despite this, incurrent rounds of bargaining, employer after employerhas placed “net zero” compensation packages on thetable, arguing that their hands are tied by the govern-ment policy.While a tremendous amount of hard bargaining lies

ahead, members of the Local are unified. They aredetermined not to accept this scheme to shift the bur-den of the economic crisis from corporations to work-ing families.

Ontario Public Sector WorkersThe Restraint Act (Bill-16)

Four policy ideas— among many others.We should design policies that benefit communities.We can let

multinational businessesmake the leap of faith that boonwill trick-le their way.We have at least four large opportunities to rebuild oureconomy.One is access to our domestic markets.Another is pub-licly funded R&D.A third is tax policies at the local state and fed-eral level.The fourth is purchases by governments.1. Access to our domestic markets. I am 100% in favor of a

trade policy that raisesmy standard of living.The onewe have nowdoesn’t.We let any goods come into the country,even if they comeat the cost of practices that we would forbid in our own country.We should hold imported goods to standards similar to ones we

follow at home.For instance, we don’t allow sweatshops in America. We

should insist on sweat-free goods in our domestic markets. Ifour domestic producers must meet minimum standards forenvironmental controls, human rights, and health and safetyrules, then foreign producers should meet comparable stan-dards, before they can sell in our domestic markets.We areinsulting our domestic producers by forcing them to competeagainst foreign producers who undercut the values we expectat home.In the jargon of trade, such conditions are known as “non-eco-

nomic barriers to trade.”Free trade advocates say these are bad. Infact, they are necessary.We are doomed without them.If we don’tinject our social and political values into our trade policy,we willcontinue to flail and decline.As it is,market forces look at us (figu-ratively) and say,“Your standard of living is unjustifiably high.”Wecannot let that continue.

Let’s be clear.The goal of trade policy is not maximum possibletrade. It is not lowest possible prices.The goal of trade is mutualgain,which basically means our exports and imports are roughlyin balance.Free tradewill never be in balance,until the race to thebottom is near the finish line.The sweet spot in trade could easi-ly be at a lower level,overall, than we have,now.2. We mismanage our investment in R&D. We fund hun-

dreds of billions of dollars in R&D, and then assume that newinventions will create jobs inAmerica.Everything we know aboutglobalization says that is no longer true. Globalization means bil-lions of dollars in new investment flow out of America, to buildnew facilities in low-wage countries.The right thing to do is continue to fund R&D,and for each new

publicly-funded invention,we should recognize that the new intel-lectual property is ours,at least in part.We should require that newpublicly-funded inventions be licensed for 10 cents per unit (let’ssay) if production stays inAmerica,or four dollars per unit for pro-duction overseas.Any foreign business that wants to create jobs inAmerica is welcome to the lower licensing fee.That’s commonsense and a good return on our public investment in R&D.3. Tax incentives. A lot has been said about tax policy. Let’s

add one new idea.Businesses are very successful in demanding taxincentives to locate a new facility in a particular taxing jurisdiction.Whichever jurisdiction offers the biggest tax cut gets new jobs.One jurisdiction competes with the others togive away public resources. This is self-destructive.Instead, we could create a limited

pool of public funds, such as thebiotech development funds in

Upward Spiral Instead of ahen I was young, the purpose of public policy was to raise ourstandard of living. Not so much, anymore. Now, public policyis designed to make business succeed, or be “competitive.”

Our current policies are particularly well-crafted to the goal of makinglarge multinational businesses succeed. Our policies benefit those busi-nesses directly, while workers and small businessesmake a leap of faiththat boon will trickle our way. Corporate profits are at historic levels.

This has not raised our standard of living. Wages, adjusted for infla-tion, are stuck at 1975 levels, even though productivity has doubled inthat time.

Years ago, public goals were inspiring. We believed in the promise ofshared prosperity. We sent astronauts to the moon. Parents assumedtheir children would have opportunities to flourish economically andsocially.

Now, public policy is all about a Lesser America, where we cling towhatever we have, invest little in our future, and irritably accept a shab-biness creeping over the country.

It’s not that hard to make big businesses succeed. They will suc-ceed if we lower wages, cut pensions, shift medical costs to

employees, grant tax subsidies, and pay for R&D with publicresources. Multinational businesses will succeed by moving pro-duction offshore to pursue lower wages and relaxed environmentalrules, or to ignore labor rights and human rights. Businesses willsucceed, at least in the short term, if we let them forego their shareof investment in our education, public infrastructure, health care oraffordable housing.

Policy-makers are trying. The stimulus was intended to “prime thepump,“ as we used to say. Unfortunately, the pump leaks. To the extentthat it works at all, our economic waterworks pump most of the jobs tolow-wage countries. That won’t rebuild our economy.

Quantitative easing seems to be a heroic effort to reduce interestrates. That policy is completely unconnected to me, my family’s well-being, or the well-being of anyone I know. I’m sure the banks love it.After all, it was designed to help banks succeed. That won’t rebuild oureconomy, either.

It is worth noting that credit does not create new jobs. Demand cre-ates new jobs. Businesses, large and small, will grow and hire whenthey have prosperous customers. It comes back to the question HenryFord asked nearly a century ago — which would you rather have, lowwages or prosperous customers?

WBy Stan Sorcher, Local 2001

10 OCTOBER– DECEMBER 2010 IFPTE

Downward OneCalifornia andWashington State.Any employer seeking the publicgood (money) explains what wonderful things they will do withthe money, including how many jobs they will create,what bene-fits they offer,and so on.Employers can then compete against eachother for the limited public resource,voluntarily stating what theyexpect to accomplish forAmerica.To make this stick, any employer receiving public resources

should report annually on progress toward their voluntary goals.Any shortfall in public benefit would trigger recapture of the pub-lic resources,which would go back into the pool for the next year.The key features are:� competition among employers for limited public resources,� public reporting of progress toward voluntary goals, and� recapture in the event an employer falls short of goals.Here’s a simple variation on that theme.Each year, we issue about 150,000 H-1B visas for temporary

high-tech workers.We could treat that as a limited public resource,and let employers bid for them. Instead of handing out visas (tohelp business succeed), we could assign them to the bidders —starting with the highest bid, then working down.When the visasare gone, employers who failed to bid high enough must wait fornext year. Each year, employers would report W-2 earnings andbenefits. If a successful bidder failed to pay the voluntarily statedwages and benefits,they would pay penalties and go into the“will-ful violators”category.4. Government procurement. “Buy American” has a bad

name. It shouldn’t.There is a proper place for local procurement.In the boisterous Air Force tanker procurement, it made perfectsense to favor a domestic supplier. In fact, both major biddersboasted of their domestic footprints.Elsewhere in the aerospace industry, “offsets” are common.

When a foreign customer pays $3 billion for military or commer-cial products, they insist that we invest millions or billions in theirindustry, or give them a major work package, or buy somethingfrom their domestic economy.We accept these foreign offsets as a matter of course.Why not have domestic offsets?Universities and government agencies can set a standard for

procurement practices.Many are already leading the way insweat-free procurement policies.We want green industries. Germany, China and

Denmark favor their domestic industries.Wewonder why we fall behind.

Lower pricesLet’s think for a moment, about our obsession with low prices.

Cheap goods come at a price.The costs are there,if not in the pricetag itself, then in the long term consequences.Suppose, for the purposes of discussion, that China had

remained a closed Communist economy for the last 25 years.Whatthen? Our prices would be a little higher, and we would still bemaking things.We did OK before China flooded us with cheapgoods. It wasn’t that bad.Japan grew dramatically with national industrial policies and

higher prices at home in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. Korea,Taiwan and most of Europe have industrial policies andmaintain high living standards.America industrializedunder strong industrial policies.Canada paysmorefor gasoline than we do,and it’s not the end ofthe world.We can have an upward spiral of

wages and prices, or a downwardspiral of wages and prices. Thekey difference is whetherworkers have any lever-age in their labor markets.With our current policies, work-ers have no leverage, and ourliving standards are goingdown. With real industrialpolicies, we will makethings at home,andwewill begin to rebuildthe connectionbetween jobsand pros-perity.O

IFPTE OCTOBER– DECEMBER 201011

12 OCTOBER– DECEMBER 2010 IFPTE GO GREEN

Author: Blaine DonaisStaff Officer IFPTE Local 160President of the Workplace Fairness Institute

ost employers in unionized work environmentsthese days seem to have a revolving-door policy fortheir managers, directors and CEO’s. Often these

new management actors come from non-union workplacesand have very little understanding of how to work withunions. Many of us in the union movement wish we couldjust hand the new management actor a book and say “readthis before you come and talk to me.” This book wouldexplain:

Why it is important to consider therole of unions in the workplace

� How involving the union leadership in the operationsof the organization will help build trust, morale andproductivity among employees

� How unions operate as democratic organizations� How to build trust with the union leadership andensure that positive working relationships are institu-tionalized in the organization

� How to work with union leaders to reinvent relation-ships and processes in the workplace that respect andhonor the role of unions in the workplace

� Why unions should not be seen as obstacles but asimportant partners in change management in anyorganization.

Engaging Unionized Employees, is that book. It is builton the principle that unionization is a positive (and infact preferred) state for employment relationships inNorth America. Through democratic and effective repre-sentation of the needs and interests of employees, union-ization can lead to increased voice and loyalty in theworkplace. It can also lead to innovation and increasedprofits for employers.This book is based upon 15 years of research and experi-

ence with the concept of“employee engagement” in a union-ized environment. It covers six essential topics:

� Why involve unions in employee engagement?

� The role of unions in the workplace

� Understanding how unions operate

� Five levels of union involvement

� When does involvement work?Getting started with engagement through involvement

Chapter 1 - Why InvolveUnions in EmployeeEngagement?The first chapter explores both

the downside of failing to involveunions and the upside of choosing toinvolve them. On the downside,research has consistently shown thatemployee engagement attempts inunionized workplaces are a com-plete failure when the union is notinvolved. The legal and social posi-

tion of unions in the workplace and the trust they enjoyamong their membership, makes it nearly impossible for anemployer to do a “work around”when it comes to employeeengagement. Employees will view any “engagement” attemptswith suspicion unless the union blesses the process.Employees expect their union to look after their interest, andby in large, no longer trust employer actors to do so.But this is the very reason why it can be easier to engage

employees in a unionized environment than a non-unionenvironment.The upside of involving unions relates directlyto the union’s relationship with their own membership.Through union involvement there will be:

� better communication with employees,� more trust placed in the efforts because the union hasvetted the process to ensure no improper motivationsfrom the employer, and

� process feedback from the unions that will be useful toimproving the quality of the program.

Chapter 2 - The Role of Unionsin the WorkplaceAfter setting out why it’s a good idea to involve the union

leadership, the book describes the various roles that unionsplay both in the workplace and in our societies. In additionto the obvious functions like bargaining and enforcing termsand conditions employment,unions play a more subtle socialrole.They encourage the inclusion of democratic principlesinto the workplace. This makes unionized employees morevocal, but also more aware of the conditions around them.This is an important parallel to our greater societies.We allknow that democracies are more productive than tyrannies.The same principle applies to workplaces. By bringing con-cepts of democracy (justice and voice) to the workplace,unions make citizens out of employees – citizens with civicduties and responsibilities who are engaged in a way that notunion employees could never be.This chapter also explores the role unions play in the sus-

tenance of our entire liberal and social democratic political

BOOK PREVIEW:

Engaging Unionized Employees:Employee Morale and Productivity(Aurora:Canada Law Book, 2010)

MBlaine Donais

Outlookonline@ifpte.org IFPTE OCTOBER– DECEMBER 201013

systems in the Western world. Unions act as a balance tocorporate power, both in the workplace and in our largersocieties. Understanding this greater societal role shouldlead employers to consider the value of unions in dictatingsocial and economic policies. Often smart employers askunions to participate in economic and industry policydebates. This is because they realize the value of unionvoice in such matters.

Chapter 3 - UnderstandingHow Unions OperateMost employer actors are mystified by the operations of

their unions. Many don’t understand the political pressuresthat their union counterparts face.They assume that a goodmanagement idea speaks for itself. But theydo not comprehend the political risks thatunion leaders take in appearing to cooper-ate with their employer – no matter howgood the idea is. This chapter offers adetailed exposure into the internal work-ings of unions as democratic organizations.It explores the roles of various union actorsall the way from the shop steward/delegateto the national or even international presi-dent. It also sets out how decisions are typi-cally made, and the challenges that localleaderships face.

Chapter 4 - Five Levels of UnionInvolvementMany employers and union leaders see

involvement as akin to “co-management”and both have a generally strong aversionto such an idea. In reality, however,“involve-ment” is a natural and expected part of anyunion-management relationship. For exam-ple, “joint decision-making” is requiredunder all grievance processes.The decisionto settle a grievance is a joint decision.There are a number of forms of involve-

ment that do not include “co-management”.As set out in the diagram below, involvementcan include information sharing, consulta-tion, recommendations and decisions in addition to co-man-agement. This chapter explores the difference between thefive levels of involvement.Based on research and experience,different levels of involvement might be more appropriate indifferent circumstances. For both unions and employers, it isimportant to distinguish between these different levels ofinvolvement so that involvement in general is not dismissedas “co-management”.

Chapter 5 - When Does Involvement Work?Why do so many attempts at involvement and engagement

fail? And why do some succeed? These questions areexplored in this chapter.After a review of most of the highprofile involvement processes like Saturn, Corning, KaiserPermanente, Magna, Harley Davidson and other groups, a

number of principles for success have been uncovered.Theseprinciples fall into three broad categories: ProcessManagement, Relationship Management and ChangeManagement.This chapter explores each of these areas andarrives at a list of advice for the reader who wants to engageunionized employees.

Chapter 6 - Getting Started withEngagement through InvolvementWhere there are some employers who don’t even want

to bother, there are others who would like to improvemorale and productivity but don’t know how to get start-ed.This chapter sets out a simple four step process for anyunion and employer who would like to get started. This

process includes designing goals, definingthe existing state of involvement, and mov-ing toward the desired state. The appendixat the end of the book, takes this process toa much deeper level for larger workplaces.It sets out how to charter teams and sets outfour phases for any strategy includingassessment, design, implementation andmonitoring.There are a number of conven-ient check-lists and tools to help the partiesmake the most of this effort to engageunionized employees.Engaging Unionized Employees, offers

employers a different perspective on howbest to get the best out of their employees ina unionized workplace.The book encouragesemployers to stay away from the traditionalcarrot and stick approach and to recognizethat dignity, respect, fair treatment andinvolvement are the real keys to effectiveemployee engagement. Unions can play afundamental role in achieving these results.Any employer that recognizes this fact willhave a considerable advantage over thosewho do not.So the next time an employer asks you how

to engage their employees, try handing themthis book.

About the AuthorBlaine Donais B.A., LL.B., LL.M. (ADR), RPDR, C. Med.,

WFA author of Workplaces That Work, and EngagingUnionized Employees, both published by Canada LawBook, has spent many years working with public and pri-vate sector professionals. He is President and Founder ofthe Workplace Fairness Institute, Conflict ManagementSolutions. He has represented professionals as a labourlawyer since 1995 as a Staff Officer at the Society of EnergyProfessionals – IFPTE Local 160. He is Adjunct Professor ofWorkplace Dispute Resolution at York University andUniversity of Toronto (Centre for Industrial Relations andHuman Resources) and is Visiting Lecturer for La TrobeUniversity, Melbourne Australia and Queensland University,Brisbane Australia. O

About the BookEngaging Unionized

Employees: Employee

Morale and Productivity

(Aurora: Canada Law

Book, 2010) can be

ordered by visiting:

http://www.workplacefair

ness.ca/press.html

14 OCTOBER– DECEMBER 2010 IFPTE GO GREEN

Meet IFPTE’s Newest Vice Presidents

In October, IFPTE elected two new vice presidents –Western Area Vice President Lou Lucivero, and SPEEA AreaVice President Jimmie Mathis.Lou Lucivero started his career in manufacturing,work-

ing at the NewYork Naval Shipyard (Brooklyn NavyYard) asan apprentice Machinist.He continued his Federal career atAlameda Naval Air Station in California.He has over 30 years experience in manufacturing engi-

neering and is currently working for United Airlines wherehe was instrumental in organizing the only group of engi-neers and technical workers in the airline industry.Vice President Lucivero served on the negotiating team

for the first contract and was elected as the first presidentof the United Engineers’ chapter, a position he currentlyholds. He is also a Vice President of Local 20, representingthe United Airlines Unit and a member of the Airport LaborCoalition with the San Mateo Central Labor Council.Jimmie Mathis, SPEEA Treasurer and former IFPTE Vice

President,brings strong union leadership to SPEEA Local 2001.Vice President Mathis began his career atThe Boeing Companyin 1978 and joined the Local.Throughout his years working asan engineer at Boeing,Mathis has been active in SPEEA servingthe membership.He was first elected as a SPEEA Council offi-cer 25 years ago and has been elected to most offices since.Mathis initially became involved in SPEEA to help Boeing

employees in the workplace. He believes in the power ofthe union to help improve working conditions and protectworkers in the bargaining units from unjust discipline andharassment.

At Boeing,Mathis is a Bearing Engineer supporting com-mercial programs and many non-commercial programs. Heis also chair of the Society ofAutomotive EngineersAviationControl Bearing Group (SAEACBG).He mentors employeesin Boeing and other groups.Mathis served as a war room coordinator and picket cap-

tain during SPEEA’s 40-day strike and has served in organizingcapacities for most of his career.Mathis also is involved in leg-islative activities inWashington State andWashington D.C.He graduated from the University of Washington with a

degree in metallurgical engineering and has a backgroundin mining and computing engineering.His outside interestsinclude experimental aviation design and flying, and back-country recreation.We congratulate Lou and Jimmie on being elected to

these positions!

AROUND THE FEDERATION

Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) General Counsel, Julie Clark (IFPTE’s former General Counsel (c)), IFPTE General Counsel Teresa Idris (l),and leaders from IFPTE’s federal sector at the first in a series of Town Hall meetings to introduce newly released informational resources designed tomake FLRA services more accessible and understandable. For more information on the FLRA’s Town Hall meetings, visit www.flra.gov.

Jimmie Mathis Lou Lucivero

Outlookonline@ifpte.org IFPTE OCTOBER– DECEMBER 201015

FEDERATION

IFPTE has a brand new website that focuses on highlight-ing the issues, concerns and achievements of our member-ship to the public. The new website presents informationthat describes what IFPTE does and who we represent.Thewebsite will include a“For Members”section by late January.This section will contain a wealth of content that is relevantto members,member-activists, and union leaders.The publically-accessible portion of the website is

designed to be the virtual face of IFPTE, with an emphasison current IFPTE news and organizing. As IFPTE’s profilecontinues to grow and more professionals seek a voice atwork, the website serves to give prospective members, thepublic, and current members, a clear understanding of whatour union does and the democratic principles under whichwe operate.The membership section should be online by the end of

January and will offer members a number of resources rele-

vant to internal organizing, legislative action and advocacy,and negotiations. It will contain several resources includingbut not limited to: a calendar of events, a directory of Localaffiliates, an IFPTE President’s blog, PAC information, and theability to order IFPTE promotional materials online. This sec-tion will give our Union a direct and timely way of commu-nicating with each other and will also provide new tools andinformation.The membership section will be secure and will require

an IFPTE membership number to log-in. An IFPTE mem-bership number is printed on your IFPTE membership cardor may be obtained from the Headquarters office. If youcannot locate your membership number, please contactVicki Burris at vburris@ifpte.org.If you have a Facebook account, you can also follow

IFPTE on Facebook by visiting http://www.facebook.com/IFPTE and clicking “Like.”

IFPTE LAUNCHES ITS NEW WEBSITE!

The contest has officially begun.Scholarships worth $2,500.00 eachwill be awarded to three highschool seniors representingIFPTE’s public, private, and federalsectors. For an information packetand an official entry form, visitour website at www.ifpte.org,contact the Federation at202.239.4880 or write to:

IFPTE Scholarship501 3rd Street, NW, Suite 701Washington, DC 20001

Application Deadline isMarch 15, 2011

Union Plus Scholarship ProgramSince 1992, the Union Plus ScholarshipProgram has awarded more than $2.5million to students of working familieswho want to begin or continue theirpost-secondary education. Over 1,700 familieshave benefited from our commitment to higher education.The Union Plus Scholarship Program is offered through the Union Plus Education Foundation.

Visit http://www.unionplus.org/benefits/education/scholarships/up.cfm for a scholarship applicationand for additional information. NOTE: Graduate students are now eligible for scholarships.

Union Plus Scholarship Application Deadline is January 30, 2011

The Dominick D. Critelli, Jr.Scholarship Award