Revisionist historians deflect from their own record

In what is poised to become an ongoing series here on CivicScene, I am going to correct the record with regards to – surprise, surprise – an assertion found on City Caucus.

As part of a post on Vancouver Councillor Geoff Meggs’s motion to pull Vancouver out of the Greater Vancouer Labour Relations Bureau (an issue that I will delve into later in the morning in an interview with the Councillor), Messrs. Fontaine and Klassen state the following:

“In the midst of the regional collective agreement discussions, Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie decided to sell out his Metro Vancouver colleagues by offering CUPE a generous 17.5% pay package. Richmond was not a member of the Bureau at the time. Suddenly Brodie’s offer became the “base” that all other…municipalities had to negotiate from.”

The implication of such an assertion is that Vancouver was forced to look at such an amount ONLY AS A RESULT of Richmond’s deal.

That isn’t what Fontaine’s former boss Sam Sullivan recollects about the strike of 2007, however.

Let’s look at the timelines.

A tentative agreement with the City of Richmond was reached on July 25, 2007.

In an interview published on November 11, 2008, just days before his party was wiped out at the polls, Sullivan told the Vancouver Sun the following:

“The strike. The strike is a considerable regret. I don’t like to implicate anybody. These are all my own weaknesses, my own shortcomings. But I chose to not have any role in it – to leave a lot of room for our staff….

Everybody knew what the deal was – 17.5 per cent. We knew it the weekend the strike started. Everybody knew it.

So I suggested, “Why don’t we just offer that?”

There was a strike vote for the City’s inside workers held on April 26, 2007 which received 93.5 per cent support from the membership.

The outside workers began their job action on July 20.  The inside workers eventually followed suit and began a formal strike on July 23.

So if Sam Sullivan “knew…the weekend the strike started” (July 20-22) that 17.5 per cent was the figure that needed to be put on the table to achieve a quick and painless settlement, how can Richmond’s settlement from July 25  be considered  “the “base” that all other poorer…municipalities had to negotiate from”?

In fact, Sullivan further destroys Fontaine and Klassen’s claims by stating that his figure of 17.5 per cent was something he wanted for all of Metro Vancouver:

“It was, “Mayor, you don’t understand negotiations. You have to offer less. Then they ask for more. Then you offer more. And eventually you get to the right number.”

This idea that it was “Sam’s strike,” and Sam was the one standing in the way? I was the one who got it and wanted to have that as a regional deal.”

So, if Sam was inclined towards that figure from the beginning, then his contrary actions (or more accurately, lack thereof) seem to have come as a result of advice that he got from his officials – advice that extended the strike for an unnecessary three months.  I don’t think I have to mention who was Sullivan’s Chief of Staff at the time.

As a side note, unlike CityCaucus’ claims that:

“[f]or years CUPE has wanted to break apart the municipal “union” in Metro Vancouver,”

this release clearly shows that CUPE filed a formal submission at the LRB arguing that the City of Vancouver has breached the Labour Code.

This confirms that rather than CUPE influencing Meggs’ motion, it has been introduced because the entity is not favourable to the City of Vancouver.

Check back later in the morning for an interview with Geoff Meggs on his motion and his rationale behind it.