Bill 3 stacks the deck in favour of municipalities
Most of what I have heard from various media sources regarding Bill 3, the Liberal government’s proposed legislation for changes to the pension plans of municipal workers, are misguided opinions based on misinformation, protest fatigue or an increasing sentiment of frustration with unions.
There is very little I can do about the last two factors, but allow me for a moment to shed some light on what I see as misinformation.
Over the years, municipal workers negotiated collective agreements with their employers that involved labour, salaries, pension plans and various details. A gain in one area was usually accompanied by a concession in another. Instead of an increase in salary, workers sometimes accepted defined-benefit pension plans or an increase in employer pension contributions. This was thought to be wise.
Some might think definedbenefit plans are way too generous, and they may very well be correct. Nonetheless, municipal employees did not steal their pension plans; and they are not “lucky” to have them, as some com- mentaries suggest. These promises were made through negotiations, where concessions were made and where legally binding contracts were signed. They were then earned through labour over the years. One cannot simply wish these things away.
Municipalities have now unofficially defaulted. Many have made it clear that they are unable to fulfil their contractual obligations (even Quebec City, which has instead chosen to build an arena for a non-existent NHL franchise). In any case, every municipality has its own realities and there is nothing reasonable about a forced solution by a third party applying in exactly the same way to hundreds of municipalities.
In our own daily lives, all Quebecers have been party to a formal contract of some sort. When one party defaults on its obligations, the first step is to admit as much and to seek a new deal through negotiation. If this doesn’t work out, the next step is arbitration or a court action.
But the Quebec municipalities, led by the duo of Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre and Quebec City Mayor Régis Labeaume, have evidently decided that due process is simply too inconvenient.
They were the first to frame the debate by saying that every municipality faces the same problem, and that the conflict is between the poor and overburdened taxpayer versus the spoiled municipal employee.
Then they went running to the Quebec government, which has duly rewarded them with Bill 3.
Contrary to what most pundits are claiming, the coalition of municipal unions is not clamouring “Give us more!” or “Tax the people!” It has done nothing of the sort. The unions get it. They know municipalities are unable to fulfil their end of the deal. Shouldn’t both sides, then, now sit down and freely negotiate a new deal together?
In what appears to be a demonstration of bad faith, municipalities arranged to create Bill 3 in order to absolve themselves of due process and have a deal imposed on the municipal level by the provincial government.
Some would claim that this is not so, that the law is reason- able, as it allows for a 12-month period of negotiations before any imposition. One only needs to look through the veil. How can anyone negotiate freely, and in good faith, when one party has the deck stacked in its favour?
Is it reasonable to allow municipalities to ignore due process? Is it reasonable for the government to table legislation like Bill 3 before any negotiations have even been attempted? Is it reasonable to force a one-size-fits-all solution on hundreds of different municipalities with different fiscal realities? Is it reasonable to pit taxpayers against municipal workers? No, it is not reasonable. It is reasonable, however, to demand the right to due process and fair negotiations.