Now, help me out here, Frances, because I’m struggling to see how this business differs from past union contributions to political parties. The examples you provide of Bruce Carson and Bob McDonnell are monies that went to these individuals personally. But 1004 made a political donation and Geoff Meggs reiterated a long-standing, public Vision policy. I presume, though I suppose I could be wrong, that Mr. Meggs won’t be buying Rolexes with that money.

People may or may not know but unions always hold a special meeting before elections where representatives of political parties make presentations for support. As they do with a lot of groups.

I know of another such meeting of a Vancouver CUPE local where the Vision representative was vigorously grilled. A donation was not given. There were VV, COPE, and Green candidates at that meeting. The NPA declined to show up.

So I fail to see a broad CUPE strategy here. And I’m struggling why this instance is unusual.

What am I missing?

[And yes, we should get the money out of the political system. But until Victoria changes the rules of the game, the players will play by the rules]

I don’t think too many people are going to be surprised by
this revelation (other than their carelessness in not ensuring the conversation
wasn’t recorded) and it goes a long way to explain the out of control spending
at the municipal level and why Vancouver has the 3rd highest per
capita costs in Metro Vancouver.

Appropos of nothing, what happened to the waves made by Vancouver First? Are they even on the ballot officially?

Let’s stop pretending that the people who benefit from “the system as it stands today” are ever going to do anything to change that.
It’s that tiresome contradiction between the politician’s inspiring prose about all of us, working together for a better etc., and the reality.
Look behind the curtain and what do you see?
Candidate: “In exchange for large amounts of money (for the party, not myself) I’ll say whatever you want me to say, do whatever you want me to do, claim to believe whatever it is you claim to believe. Of course I have principles, but if you don’t like them I have others.”
Participating in this charade is demeaning both to the voters and the political gamesters. We know they’re all tap-dancing around the truth, but we can’t stop watching the show. It makes me feel dirty and I hope it truly is soul-destroying for the players.

Spartikus you may want to look at the aspect of influence peddling with parties one has a contractual relationship with and a fiduciary duty to perform. The COV has a fiduciary duty to us to negotiate with arms length parties – unions, suppliers, etc. – unfettered and in our best interests. This promise just fettered them and looks like a breach of that fiduciary duty. And it was done in expectation of a campaign donation. Game, set and match. Rules broken. By bye Vision.

Speaking of CUPE, et al, shouldn’t you be at work at 11:30AM Spartikus rather than tirelessly defending Vision, Meggs, et al?

Nobody is surprised to see Sparty leap to Vision’s defense in this case, are they? I’m surprised Boohoo hasn’t chirped in with some additional apologism. Meggs is a union crony from way back, nobody should be surprised Vision isn’t pushing for a better deal for taxpayers.

The COV has a fiduciary duty to us to negotiate with arms length parties

Except we’re not discussing the COV’s relationship with 1004, we’re talking about 1004’s relationship to Vision Vancouver. Whether you like it or not it is in the eyes of the law a separate relationship. And you are confused as to the nature of the arrangement b/w 1004 and the CoV. 1004 is not a private contractor, it’s a labour union representing the workers of the CoV’s internal workforce. It’s those workers who decide which union represents them, not the employer.

Let’s go back to what Meggs actually said. The quote, as reported in the Courier:

“Gregor Robertson, our mayor, has again recommitted to not expand contracting out, to make sure that wherever we can bring in new processes, that members of ‘Ten-04’ will be there delivering those services.”

Which means if – and it is an if – the City were ever to bring in a new type of service then the City’s own workforce will be the one’s providing it.

Not mentioned: Anything governed by the collective agreement: Wage increases, benefits, etc.

Is there an expectation of “currying favour”. That’s certainly what an unnamed 1004 member hopes for, as quoted in the Courier. But that’s the expectation, even if they won’t admit it, of anyone making a political donation.

For example our friend Bill McCreery, when not doing so himself on this thread, outlines in a comment on the Courier a story of being told to shut up:

I can tell you that as a NPA Council Candidate in 2011 I received 3 phone calls from Mayor Candidate Suzanne Anton telling me to stop criticizing developers, that they were trying to get money form them and the developers were not wanting to give because of my criticisms. In one instance she told me the specific developer they were trying to extract a donation from.

Now, for the third or fourth time, I totally agree that the current Wild West campaign donation rules in this province are in need of reform. But until then this is the law of the land.

So I still don’t see what makes this story different or a “revelation”. It’s simply another day in Vanpoli-land.

Total non-issue, for reasons others have explained very well. The part of the recording that made me laugh was the suggestion that OneCity, which couldn’t even arrange for someone to attend the meeting, is going to become bigger than COPE. Are they talking about the same OneCity that, as near as I can tell, has a grand total of one candidate that is also the only person I have ever seen quoted by name speaking for them? And what’s more, that candidate is the guy who was brought in by the Cadman faction within COPE in 2011 in an effort to keep Tim Louis from having even the slightest influence in anything anywhere (the Cadman faction’s #1 priority, ahead of any other policy) but who because of really bad – if any – planning by the faction’s vote counters ended up instead edging out Cadman himself? The candidate who then went on to tank royally in the actual election, coming in last of the three COPE candidates and far down the overall list? In order for a party to succeed, it has to have a purpose that motivates people to not just join but work hard to push it forward. Vision (domination), COPE (leftism), the NPA (corporatism), Cedar/VancouverFirst (rightism), and even the Greens (they got a cool name that gives them an electoral advantage even if it isn’t clear that they stand for anything particular) have this. But what is the niche/purpose of OneCity? Being an eternal, powerless, slightly-leftier junior partner of Vision? I just can’t see large numbers of people coming out of the bushes to actively support such a party, rather than just joining either Vision itself, COPE, or the Greens. So…my suspicion is that the union is throwing away money on a pipe dream here out of anti-COPE spite. Now PEP might be an actual possibility, IMHO, though of course it remains to be seen.

Megg’s was speaking on behalf of the party as sitting politicians. You want to split hairs re who he was speaking about?! His promise was one that only made sense in the context of a party in power. He wasn’t offering them lawn signs or a ticket to the post-election Vision brunch, he was offering something as a pol acting on behalf of the COV. You may say it’s business as usual, the law says otherwise. Still game, set, match.

Listen, what are we paying protection for? 2%? After we pumped over a million into the last campaign? Maybe next time we keep our powder dry and of course there’s always job action. I’d hate to see anything like that. Morale is already at an all-time low in the Hall. No contracting out is great, but I hit early in two years. I wouldn’t mind being able to cash in my banked unused sick days. Whaddaya say, Brother Meggs?

I don’t get what the big deal is, really. Frances Bula said it herself: this is Vision’s longstanding policy on this issue, and it’s not like anyone’s exactly handing money under a table in brown paper bags: The union is doing exactly what it does every election, having a normal meeting with reps of political parties who talk about their positions and then deciding who to give money to. Companies most certainly do the same things in even more behind-doors ways, and it’s all legal until Victoria puts a stop to those kinds of donations overall. But this condemnation and calls of corruption from the NPA sound absolutely hypocritical and purposefully misleading to me.

You’re absolutely right. “Politicians that take money from the organizations which they regulate are hopelessly compromised.” But that describes every donation to every political party, whether from an individual, corporation, or union.

VOR, Vancouver city voluntarily offers locally-funded public services (police, fire, social services, parks operations, etc.) to cover regional events like hockey and football games, fireworks displays with hundreds of thousands in attendance, regional amenities like Stanley Park, an “entertainment” street filled with vomiting suburban youth in a fighting mood on weekend nights, and is also host to a neighbourhood with homeless and poor from all over the country. It also paid very dearly for the damage done by Stanley Cup rioters, the majority of whom charged were from outside of the city limits.

Picture the cost of these elements applied to any other city that took them on. Vancouver is clearly the gravitational centre that all other Metro cities advantageously orbit . Yet it’s economy is diverse enough to not be the top per capita spender in the region.

If Vancouver’s collective agreement lead to excessive spending then it follows that it did in other cities with a similar agreement, like Richmond and Burnaby. So where is the evidence?

Meanwhile, here’s something to ponder:

Municipalities were collecting just eight cents of every tax dollar paid in Canada. Meanwhile they were building more than one-half of the country’s core infrastructure; paying the salaries of two out of every three police officers; and funding responsibilities offloaded by other governments for affordable housing, immigrant settlement and public safety.

‘State of Canada’s Cities’, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2012.

And here’s Pete McMartin’s take on the Fraser Institute report that so inspired you:

Vancouver is a big city and acts like one. It has all the problems and pleasures of a big city, including higher incidences of crime, higher housing costs, more traffic congestion, a more vibrant art and cultural scene (which come with their own needs), more pressures on transit and, despite the best efforts of a series of administrations, the growing and seemingly incurable problem of homelessness.

These all cost money, especially when it comes to homelessness. The City of Vancouver, to its credit, ponies up and tries to do what it can on that count.

Apologies that this link leads to a paywall:

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Pete+McMartin+Fiscal+sobriety+does+equate+municipal+superiority/10323022/story.html

The union does NOT supply services to the city. City employees do. Most non-management employees are union members who rely on the union to negotiate remuneration, benefits and employment standards on their behalf. The city and union come to a legal understanding together.
Private service industry companies are constantly hired by the unionized city workforce to affect repairs, provide new equipment or offer specialized services. City workers do not build computers, design or construct city buildings, work on the truck assembly line or manufacture water pipes, yet millions are spent every year supporting such private companies. That is simply part of the economy.

So you think hosting regional events explains Vancouver’s excess cost per capita? The difference between Surrey and Vancouver is $738/capita which equates to roughly $443 million. Now I know we use overpriced labour to pick up the garbage after the fireworks but I doubt that explains a difference of this magnitude. In fact the Fraser Institute study shows Vancouver spends $189/capita more on General Government alone than Surrey which translates to roughly $113 million more annually. Clearly there are cost management issues in Vancouver.
As for “downloading” of costs this is a misnomer since Mayor Robertson took on ending homelessness as the City’s responsibility even though it is a Provincial responsibility. I rarely agree with Mayor Corrigan of Burnaby but he is absolutely right in saying it is up to the Province to deal with this issue and not the cities. The Province is undoubtedly grateful to our Mayor for providing them so much cover on this issue.
I don’t know how much the close relationship of Vision with the unions costs the taxpayers of Vancouver but the fact that Vision will not even consider contracting out tells me the interests of the taxpayers is not top of mind when Vision is dealing with the unions.

VOR, between the port, downtown, central Broadway and UBC, Vancouver has orders of magnitude more economic activity than Surrey, notably as employment loci. Somewhere between 100,000-200,000 non-Vancouverites enjoy complete coverage of all the public services Vancouver has to offer every single day. That works out to over 40 million non-resident person days a year. There is a cost attached to that.
And regional events and amenities certainly do impose a cost on Vancouver’s budgets. I’d love Surrey to take the stadiums away, and the “entertainment district” too. And Burnaby to admit it has hundreds of homeless within its own boundaries. The fact there is a serious homeless and poverty situation everywhere is a sign that senior governments are shirking their responsibilities. At least Vancouver is doing something about it.
Pinning the higher per capita city budget on the unions requires substantiation. And just where exactly does Surrey contract out to achieve such a low per capita budget? My point is that targeting unions is not exactly an apolitical or sound analysis considering all the other factors at play. I agree with McMartin, the Fraser Institute, which itself receives subsidies in the form of tax breaks, has written yet another report remarkably free of context.
Moreover, if you feel something illegal took place between Vision and the uniion, they by all means call the taxpayer-funded cops.

Nice fiction to pretend the union is a democratic collective negotiating the terms of each employee’s contract. This fails right from the start since employees have no choice but to join the union if they want to work for the city. Perhaps you see nothing wrong with this since it is not unlike the situation where individuals were free to “choose” to belong to the Party if they wanted to get ahead in the Soviet Union.

That’s a poor analogy. Trade associations (guild, unions, et al) have been around for hundreds of years and have served both individuals and the economy quite well. But anyway, putting an individual with little or no negotiating skill or experience up against their boss or an individual with training and ongoing practice at negotiating wages and benefits in all likelihood would result in all kinds of stress and workplace issues, esp if wages and benefits were all over the map, depending on how good an individual was at negotiating their personal deal, or how well liked they were by management.

Invoking the Soviet Union when the topic of unions arise is what idealogues do, not those who understand the real world doesn’t fit into a neat little free enterprise heaven, despite the many benefits of having free markets for goods and services. Nonetheless, with more than 10,000 employees, it’s obvious that the City would never be able to get out of negotiation mode if it had to do a deal with each employee individually. Presuming 10,000 deals to be done, and crunching them out at one per hour (good luck with that), working 365 days a year (yeah right), it would take nearly 3.5 years to get through the workforce. It’s not realistic, efficient, or cost-effective. Doing an over-arching deal for the workforce, with skilled representation on both sides, every few years is, and also reduces conflict between management and workers, not to mention betw workers doing the same job for different pay packets.

LOL, when the doctors negotiate their deal with the province en masse is that a reflection of mediocrity? The bank analogy is an even worse comparison. How many different jobs are there in a bank compared to a city?

Maybe if you think about it a bit more, the difference between a national company that hires its staff branch by branch and without contracts like that of a unionized workforce, and a city with a fifth as many employees, spanning far more job classifications, working under contract (in this hypothetical situation) will become obvious. Of course the fact that your average bank teller makes crap wages might be a wake-up call too, when it comes to the power of collective bargaining, but I sense that this is an ideological issue for you, rather than one of real-world impacts on working people.

”
Bank Teller Salary (Canada)
inShare

A Bank Teller earns an average wage of C$13.52 per hour. People in this job generally don’t have more than 10 years’ experience. Pay for this job does not change much by experience, with the most experienced earning only a bit more than the least.”

http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Bank_Teller/Hourly_Rate

I did not say it would not be possible to negotiate an individual contract with every employee. I said it wouldn’t be realistic, efficient, or cost effective. But if off-topic is your bete noire, why are you comparing union membership with party membership in the USSR? A poor analogy as noted, and a long way from your claimed focus on Megg’s actions. Of course when someone writes “The role of the City is to minimize costs to the taxpayer ” then it’s already obvious that there’s a skewed perspective at play. The role of the City isn’t merely to keep taxes low, but rather to provide value for their tax dollars.

You underestimate just how much the private sector is already involved in keeping our city running.
Again, let’s see your evidence that contracting out will drive the city budget down by hundreds of millions.