Geoff Meggs provides his thoughts on the issues regarding his motion on the Greater Vancouver Labour Relations Bureau.
This morning I conducted an interview with Councillor Geoff Meggs to seek out comments on his motion, which is slated to appear before Council next week.
First, the exact wording of the motion can be found here.
Here is CivicScene’s interview with Councillor Meggs:
1) How in your opinion is the Greater Vancouver Labour Relations Bureau (GVLRB) harmful to the City of Vancouver?
With Vancouver the last major municipality with full membership, it is time to assess the pros and cons of participation, especially given that Vancouver has experienced the most strikes of any municipality in the region. Not only is there the potential for significant cost savings, I also think that it is very clear that the City of Vancouver can achieve labour peace independent of the GVLRB.
2) Are you doing the bidding of CUPE in pulling Vancouver out of the GVLRB? And do the absences of Vancouver and other municipalities assist in CUPE’s bargaining positions?
That is ridiculous. This kind of claim seems to suggest that I have been at the helm of regional decision-making on labour relations – that somehow I am behind the withdrawal of other municipalities. Did CUPE hypnotise the civic leaders of all those municipalities over the years? I don’t think so. Burnaby, Surrey and Richmond are out or leaving. Are I missing something here?
I cannot speak for CUPE in terms of what their preference is with regards to the GVLRB’s membership, but I can offer the opinion that the City of Vancouver’s bargaining position will be significantly improved from the outside.
3) What has characterized the Richmond and Surrey models for negotiations since these municipalities escaped the GVLRB?
Simply put, labour agreements that have been reached quickly and through positive and productive interactions between municipalities and CUPE.
4) Why didn’t you wait until the city staff report on Vancouver’s participation in the GVLRB was released before putting this motion forward?
There have been some major regional shifts on policies and procedures as a result of Burnaby’s notice to withdraw from the GVLRB. I felt that it was time for Council to have a discussion on the issue sooner rather than later. Harmful? Positive? Let’s find out – but let’s not shut off any options. That’s all I’m doing – keeping Vancouver’s options open.
5) What are the regional implications should Burnaby also choose to pull out of the GVLRB?
The GVLRB will be dealt a severe blow with 3 out of 4 of Metro Vancouver’s largest municipalities out of the mix. This is why the City of Vancouver cannot afford to wait before having a serious debate about our future membership.
6) Do you feel that the City of Vancouver will be in a better position for taxpayers outside of the GVLRB?
Well like I mentioned, the potential for annual savings for $500,000 is the immediate benefit. But the ability to design labour agreements that take Vancouver’s needs into consideration above terms which are favoured by other municipalities, would be a huge victory for the City and its taxpayers.
7) Is there a way to reform the GVLRB so that it is more acceptable and cities can continue to work on labour relations regionally?
I have my doubts at this point. Interestingly I’ve talked to right-wing Councillors from other cities who want change and labour-backed ones who don’t. Regionally, we are far from a consenus on the GVLRB. This kind of uncertainty makes the organization’s legitimacy suspect to say the least.
I am saying let’s have the debate. I’m not afraid of it, and I am certainly not afraid of telling CUPE we need some kind of co-ordinated new structure if that’s what Council decides. I’m also not afraid to do tough bargaining with or without co-ordination regionally if that’s how things unfold.
