The president of the Conseil du trésor, Sonia LeBel, tabled her offers to staff in the public and parapublic sectors on Thursday, offers that were immediately rejected by the unions.
She was accompanied for the occasion by the Ministers of Health and Education, Christian Dubé and Bernard Drainville.
The collective agreements in the public and parapublic sectors, which concern more than half a million government employees, expire on March 31.
Remember that the inter-union common front is demanding wage increases higher than inflation, ie 2%, 3% and 4% over three years, in addition to the equivalent of the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Quebec instead offers 3% the first year, and 1.5% for the next four, for a total of 9% over five years.
Added to this is 2.5% over five years, “to meet government priorities,” according to Ms. LeBel. In recurrence, the government is therefore offering 11.5% over five years, she said.
“This offer is up to the expected inflation,” she pleaded.
In addition, the government offers a lump sum of $1,000, the first year, “to recognize the contribution of employees to their network”.
“Thus, the government offer for the next five years amounts to 13% over five years,” concludes Sonia LeBel.
Real improvements on the ground?
But it is not just a question of salary, she added during her press conference, insisting on the fact that the organization of work must be reviewed to improve services.
“It is clear that the major government investments we have made, particularly […] in health and education, have not had the expected effects on the ground,” she lamented.
She suggests setting up three forums to discuss the support to be provided to the school teams, as well as to the care teams.
“The population, the students, the patients are still waiting for concrete results, and I think it is time to seriously question what is not working and why it is not working. »
The last negotiation, which took place at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, made it possible to achieve notable gains, including recognition of beneficiary attendants and a salary catch-up for teachers. Wage increases had also been greater for the lowest earners.
“The fundamental question, […] is that why it is still so difficult to implement measures that have been agreed with the unions, that have been signed? Ms. LeBel wondered.
Unions react
“It takes two people to tango,” retorted the vice-president of the Confederation of National Trade Unions (CSN), François Enault, at a press conference shortly after.
The unions united in a common front, the Federation of Quebec Workers (FTQ), the Central Trade Unions of Quebec (CSQ), the Alliance of Professional and Technical Personnel in Health and Social Services (APTS) and the CSN, n therefore did not take long to react by opposing the government’s proposals.
“Our vis-à-vis in front of us [les gestionnaires] should spend less time inflicting disciplinary actions for “pinotte butter” toast and work out schedules with us. It’s fine to say that it didn’t happen if managers don’t take the time to do so,” added Mr. Enault.
The problems of heaviness of the device do not concern them, but the executives, added the president of the APTS, Robert Comeau. The pandemic has demonstrated that the directives are not reaching the ground, added the union leaders.
Remuneration remains the main stumbling block in these negotiations, which already promise to be difficult. “If we accept [l’offre du gouvernement]it is certain that there will be an impoverishment of our members,” lamented the president of the FTQ, Daniel Boyer.
“Our first objective is to come back with clauses to protect purchasing power,” he continued, referring to inflation, which is much higher than the proposed wage increases.
Finally, the common front is also vigorously opposed to the establishment of three forums to discuss the organization of work.
“Waste of time”, according to the union leaders. According to them, there are already sectoral tables, set up for the negotiations, which serve precisely to address these issues.
If it is a question of asking for more flexibility in the organization of work simply to demand more of the staff, it is no, they insisted.