Update: G8 Pension gap
| G8 pension cap |
| On May 6, 2025, 3011’s President attended the PIPSC Board meeting to present the Pension Advisory Committee’s (PAC) recommendation (link attachment) to the PIPSC Board. The PAC is an advisory body for our pension that includes 3011 and 907 staff, non represented staff, the employer, past PIPSC employees and retirees. The PAC recommended ending the 2nd cap in the PIPSC pension plan that reduces unionized staff’s pension and put all staff ( managers and unionized staff) under one cap just like PIPSC members in the federal public service. The Board refused the PAC’s unanimous recommendation, passing instead an alternative proposal to add a third cap to the pension – which we don’t want – in exchange for 3011 and 907 to agree not to discuss the pension plan during bargaining. This proposal is hypocritical, anti-union and flies in the face of PIPSC’s position on retirement security.Local 3011 and 907 responded to the Board’s position rejecting the Board’s offer (link attachment). There are many reasons why the Board’s alternative proposal is unacceptable to staff: 1. PIPSC staff are being treated differently than PIPSC members. Members in the Federal Public Service have a pension plan that has one cap. The Board’s alternative proposal does nothing to address the problem; as it stands unionized staff are effectively punished for being in a union, while managers benefit from a higher pension. 2. Employer veto: The Board’s alternative proposal prohibits 3011 and 907 from discussing the pension during bargaining while requiring unionized staff to agree NOT to discuss the fundamental problem during the upcoming round of bargaining. 3. The employer disregarded their own process: For years the employer has told 3011 to work with the PAC; so we did. After months of work, the PAC unanimously chose to recommend the end of the unfair, second cap. The employer ignored this recommendation in favour of their alternative proposal. The employer refused to share the details of this alternative proposal until after the Board discussed it and passed it; which did not follow its own internal process. This shows that the board is not interested in resolving a long standing problem in our pension plan; instead they seem committed to perpetuating an unfair pension plan for staff; a position they would oppose if PIPSC members were subject to the same treatment. |