We in the chattering classes are eagerly awaiting the grudge match between Christy Clark and the B.C. Teachers' Federation.
But not quite as much ink has yet been spilled over the looming expiry of several municipal agreements - including the two deals CUPE Local 389 struck with the City and the District of North Vancouver, respectively.
Signed during the halcyon days of 2007, workers got a 17.5 per cent raise over five years, which didn't seem like a terrible deal for the taxpayer until the sky fell on the world economy the following year. The District of North Vancouver, it should be noted, tried to hang on for a better deal and got a two-week strike for its trouble.
What's different in 2011 is that while the unions remain as organized as ever, civic governments are doing as much negotiation with each other as they are with their employees. Metro Vancouver's Labour Relations Bureau, in theory a united front for the regions' municipalities, may cease to exist altogether this fall.
There's a real hazard for taxpayers here, one evocatively known as whipsawing. When a union signs a deal with one municipality, it's brandished around as the absolute minimum that the other locals will accept. Bargain a little bit more out of the next city hall, and that's the new floor - and so on and so on. With nearly two dozen municipalities involved, each with very different tax bases, previous agreements, staffing levels and political pressures, it's just too easy to play one against another.
The bureau was intended to prevent, or at least minimize, this effect. But its success has been patchy. Members have always been free to make their own deals, and nothing stops unions from whipsawing the whole gang against communities outside the Lower Mainland. Firefighters have been particularly adept at this, once playing Metro's city halls off against a deal reached in Vernon, of all places. The process can even work nationally, as firefighters seek parity between Vancouver and Toronto crews, arguing - not without some merit - that a house fire in Vancouver is a lot like a house fire in Toronto, or Vernon.
Surrey never saw any benefit in joining the bureau, Port Coquitlam abandoned it almost 30 years ago, and Richmond decided to go it alone in 2002. In the last three years, Vancouver, Burnaby, Delta (home of Metro chairwoman Lois Jackson) and West Vancouver have all filed their notice to ditch the bureau. If they all follow through, it will be left representing a hair more than one-quarter of the region's population. The District of North Vancouver is also mulling an exit.
Why did they go? For starters, there's the cost of running it, which is shared proportionally based on tax assessments - goodbye, West Vancouver. Vancouver taxpayers forked over more than $1 million last year for the privilege of sitting at the table, compared to Lions Bay's princely contribution of $3,101. With a big human resources staff already ensconced back at 12th and Cambie, it's no wonder Vancouver's representatives wondered what the hell they were doing there.
James Dorsey, a respected labour lawyer brought in to see what could be done with the dying agency, found even more disheartening news.
"Many monthly bureau meetings," he wrote in his recent report, "are held simply to receive information or to ratify a collective agreement. It is common to go to and from a meeting in the same rush hour. With some past chairs, being minutes late meant missing the meeting. Directors and representative spokespersons for non-participating members find many of the meetings do not have purposeful, focused discussion. For many bureau meetings, director remuneration and expenses ($5,000 to $6,000 per meeting) are not cost effective."
"Not cost effective" is a charitable way to put it, although, in fairness, bureau members recently agreed to waive their compensation.
What's more, several people complained to Dorsey that the non-participating members, who sit in on meetings but don't vote, were both using the bureau as a political debating society and, worse, blabbing about what they heard at confidential meetings.
There's been some talk of a North Shore Bureau, but I don't see much of a benefit to that. West Vancouver, for one thing, has its own municipal union whose wait-and-see agreements expire exactly one year after everyone else's. I've also heard the possibility of negotiating powers being given to the Metro Vancouver board, which is the absolute worst arrangement I can think of.
Consensus among cooler heads is that the bureau will morph into a leaner office that sells research, job evaluation and other services to those who want them - likely the small-to medium-sized communities. This will save some up-front money, but it won't help with the whipsawing of staff contracts, which make up the bulk of civic budgets. But perhaps after this cycle, sporting some fresh saw scars, municipal governments will be motivated to revisit a functional bureau. After all, nothing gets people's attention like a bit of blood on the floor.
