A few years ago we had some pretty big snow events that the normal chinooks did not handle for our great city. So the head of Roads came up with a solution. At first I was in principal totally against this but the workforce thought otherwise.
The new policy said that if a certain amount of snow accumulated on the
ground any worker in Roads could come in and be guaranteed work. Anyone on opposing shifts could walk in, and be given a job. Of course Roads blew through their budget. It was a bad couple of years for snow and they spent money. We just included the policy in our collective agreement and you can read the
letter of understanding number 13 of our collective agreement (page 124).
From my point of view this was a wonderful solution for
Roads as supervisors and foreman would be freed from calling employees in when
the snow fell. This saved hours of leaving messages, and it put lots of money
into the employees in Roads. Fundamentally though is caused a problem with another clause in the contract.
Let me introduce Clause 5.16 which was designed to maintain an equalized
distribution of overtime. The clause was very hard to enforce but the overall the premise is the corporation agrees to maintain lists of their employees
overtime and in in a period of one year promise to equalize overtime. They do
this by calling people who have less time than others first. The complex nature
of this goes through operating sections and distribution within these sections.
In a perfect world these sections would house permanent employees who can
monitor their time effectively. This doesn't occur in some sections and with
the letter of understanding in Roads, it is almost impossible to manage certain
situations.
All of this comes to a head when the union hall patiently
awaits for the distribution year is to be up and then waits for an actual griever which should number at least one for each of our 54 operating sections. Except all is quiet. Without the Roads Letter of Understanding, and incidents like the recent flooding all we have are known hours worked in the aggregate. It takes time and evidence to
connect the dots. I have at least a handful of examples that I know
about, but without an active griever this situation puts the hall in an
interesting situation. Should they proceed on the employees behalf?
The answer is not complex. 99.9% of the time the Local in
question will not act without the presence of a griever. Overtime distribution
is only simple when evidence can offer proof with no doubt that the policy was
ignored. There are cases where a small group of employees gain an incredible
amount of OT during the year. Some of these cases are so strong a union hall
would be remiss to ignore it. Yet every year (14 that I have been part of) I
can not count on one hand the case where those who grieved the offense made any personal
gains, or set the system straight.
I have seen two people who do the same job in a small group
of workers have difference in overtime hours amounting in the hundreds of
hours. How is this possible? I can only say that when I was in the office filling
in on a Friday I salivated at an opportunity to force hundreds of hours to be
be paid to workers that were not called at all. I can say that without
instigation it is rare this will ever be the case. These examples are gems that
require investigation to proceed. Remember the union hall is not an ambulance chaser.
Our Local has 40 – 70 grievances on the go at any given time. The officers are
not looking for more.
The problem is simple: How to ensure equal distribution? My solution involves using current technology. Without it the old method is just slow and so time consuming you would think there must be a better way. It
is more likely that under scrutiny and with the scarce evidence that does
usually exist, these potential grievances affect another employee. Which is why this
situation usually looses steam by the end of the cycle.
What I can say is overtime should be distributed equally. It’s
contractual. It is difficult to enforce when OT is not mandatory, or is spread among a base of workers
that are regularly moved or work opposite of problem work-sites. Equalizing OT
is the last thing on the minds of supervisors, and foreman. They would rather
call up the “guaranteed he will say yes” employee than work through the list. When
they are caught the likely response will be “By the year end we will strive to
equalize the overtime.” And our response will be the same, “We will hold you to
that at the end of the cycle. Prepare for a potential grievance.”
The only way to change this is with a few solid equalization grievances that would force supervisors to change their methods. It might also ripple in another direction where employees are held to task when they suggest they are free for extra time and never accept offers. Again the argument fails when non-mandatory overtime is distributed among a relief labour force.
In my experience, factual proof and a group effort is the
key to success. When it finally happens I am sure I will be the first to let
you know how much it cost the city in added overtime. Don't kid yourself eventually this could happen. The
whale is out there waiting to be caught. Why not just change our communication methods.
The most basic would be text messages. Like in the days of the pager. If we really wanted to make the change, we would go into social media and activate those employees that have smart phones. It might even be cheaper to just subsidize employees with their cell phone bills. The use of technology is only as weak by the most available technology, and at this point text messages are the middle ground. Maybe even email. I would love to see a day where employees can be activated by simply receiving a invitation. Fully automated this would allow experienced workers the ability to share the overtime distribution. This complex algorithm is handled by men, who are contorted by timelines, friendships, social hurdles, and well cut corners that at the time get the jobs done.
I have personally suggested to the Full Time Officers that instead of waiting for employees to come forward, we hold the various units accountable for their practices. When the time comes overtime is a interesting thing. Too much and we risk privatization concerns or valid Full Time Equivalent workers that could be standing next to us. Too little and the extra cash in our pockets evaporates. In a city as large as Calgary. We know situations come up that warrant overtime, but we should be sharing the money as a group keeping everyone happy, not just a select few.
So the letter of understanding number 13 and clause 5.16 are at constant odds. With the weather dumping more snow and cold weather each year the budget for removal is about to explode. With the new money comes many private companies who are drooling over the opportunity to get a piece of that pie. They will promise everything to those that make decisions, and each year they itch to take a bigger slice of the pie.
Recently the City has changed the way they outsource snow removal. Contracting private companies to do the work of City crews. What happened last year was private companies were told what to do, where to do it. Most of the time they were not very good at their job, resulting in 311 calls where city crews had to take up the slack. As we have seen in the past, these companies are not in the market to do the job properly, they do it to make boat loads of money off the City. No offense, I would rather a competent, municipal worker be the one doing the work. At least when I call 311 I know the job will be completed.
So keep in mind that overtime although wonderful for a few of us must be shared so that we not only allow each other to make a little money, but we need show that these overtime hours eventually equate into real jobs that should be filled by other City employees. The more overtime that goes out the more private companies will try to wedge themselves in.
I have personally suggested to the Full Time Officers that instead of waiting for employees to come forward, we hold the various units accountable for their practices. When the time comes overtime is a interesting thing. Too much and we risk privatization concerns or valid Full Time Equivalent workers that could be standing next to us. Too little and the extra cash in our pockets evaporates. In a city as large as Calgary. We know situations come up that warrant overtime, but we should be sharing the money as a group keeping everyone happy, not just a select few.
So the letter of understanding number 13 and clause 5.16 are at constant odds. With the weather dumping more snow and cold weather each year the budget for removal is about to explode. With the new money comes many private companies who are drooling over the opportunity to get a piece of that pie. They will promise everything to those that make decisions, and each year they itch to take a bigger slice of the pie.
Recently the City has changed the way they outsource snow removal. Contracting private companies to do the work of City crews. What happened last year was private companies were told what to do, where to do it. Most of the time they were not very good at their job, resulting in 311 calls where city crews had to take up the slack. As we have seen in the past, these companies are not in the market to do the job properly, they do it to make boat loads of money off the City. No offense, I would rather a competent, municipal worker be the one doing the work. At least when I call 311 I know the job will be completed.
So keep in mind that overtime although wonderful for a few of us must be shared so that we not only allow each other to make a little money, but we need show that these overtime hours eventually equate into real jobs that should be filled by other City employees. The more overtime that goes out the more private companies will try to wedge themselves in.
