EC Bargaining Update
December 8, 2011
The parties met at the table on November 22, 23 and 24. CAPE tabled a comprehensive, evidence-based pay proposal on November 22 and devoted the entire day to presenting its rationale. The rationale included an analysis of general economic indicators, pay relativity of EC rates with comparable job classification pay rates within the Public Service, and relativity with private sector wages. CAPE used the data from compensation surveys conducted by Mercer in the spring of 2011 (Mercer is a human resources firm with clients around the world; Treasury Board has used Mercer data before the Public Service Labour Relations Board). The private sector comparison was made by applying Treasury Board’s EC classification standard to the level definitions of Mercer’s wage survey of economists. Wages for each of these levels in the private sector were then compared to wages of corresponding EC levels. CAPE contends that the data points to a loss of comparative wage relativity for EC employees, and that there is a significant and deepening discrepancy of EC wages with private sector wages for economists. Treasury Board will analyze the proposal and respond on December 13.
There was little progress made to improving the collective agreement during the following two days. CAPE’s EC bargaining team is frustrated: it has become difficult to gauge all along in the current round of bargaining whether we are closer to an agreement after each day, or still at square one. While Treasury Board seemed to be in a hurry to bargain a year ago, it seems to have lost interest this year.
December 8, 2011
The parties met at the table on November 22, 23 and 24. CAPE tabled a comprehensive, evidence-based pay proposal on November 22 and devoted the entire day to presenting its rationale. The rationale included an analysis of general economic indicators, pay relativity of EC rates with comparable job classification pay rates within the Public Service, and relativity with private sector wages. CAPE used the data from compensation surveys conducted by Mercer in the spring of 2011 (Mercer is a human resources firm with clients around the world; Treasury Board has used Mercer data before the Public Service Labour Relations Board). The private sector comparison was made by applying Treasury Board’s EC classification standard to the level definitions of Mercer’s wage survey of economists. Wages for each of these levels in the private sector were then compared to wages of corresponding EC levels. CAPE contends that the data points to a loss of comparative wage relativity for EC employees, and that there is a significant and deepening discrepancy of EC wages with private sector wages for economists. Treasury Board will analyze the proposal and respond on December 13.
There was little progress made to improving the collective agreement during the following two days. CAPE’s EC bargaining team is frustrated: it has become difficult to gauge all along in the current round of bargaining whether we are closer to an agreement after each day, or still at square one. While Treasury Board seemed to be in a hurry to bargain a year ago, it seems to have lost interest this year.