2024 PIPSC AGM Highlights. Part 1: Union Dues Increase. How It Happened, My intervention (AUDIO), Why It Was Worth the Effort
In meanwhile: Union expenses breakdown reveal that the largest portion of Union expenses ($40M of $68M collected in members' dues) is allocated to covering salaries and benefits for Union employees.
UPDATED: An addendum has been added showing the breakdown of Union expenses. It highlights a critical insight: by far the largest portion of Union expenses —over $40M out of $68M collected in members' dues—is allocated to covering salaries and benefits for Union employees. This includes paying for Legal Services and Employment Relationship Officers (ERO), whose actions many members have found detrimental to their interests. While seeking more money from members to address the operational deficit, it appears that no cuts to these Union-employee-related expenses were considered by Union executives. I wonder why?
You urged me to oppose any increase in members' union dues unless we could see clear improvements in services and transparency (see Addendum A). I went there - to my first PIPSC AGM - with that intent, and the outcome reflects my efforts.
As summarized in the image below: one resolution (F-04) passed with 65% support, while another (F-05) was defeated with 70% against it. (See https://pipsc.ca/about/governance/agm/2024/2024-agm-resolutions-financial for the full wording on each these resolutions).
I invite you to you click on the image below to listen my 2-minute counterargument against the dues increase (Please enable to subtitles for better comprehension)
To me and my supporters, the issue wasn’t the amount of the increase—phrased by proponents as "less than a cup of coffee a month" or "nothing compared to inflation." The key reason of our opposition was the principle: by approving this increase, we would effectively endorse recent actions by the union that many found inadequate, even "unacceptable." Specifically, during my 2 minutes at the microphone, I focused just on two key points:
Union Should Trim Its Own Expenses First (See Addendum B)
Many members, including me, believe the Union should cut its high-end expenses before raising dues. One example raised by another delegate was the choice of premium venues for AGMs, like the Sheraton in downtown Toronto. This choice adds significant costs, yet members are asked to contribute more.Union Should Address Internal Issues First (See Part 2)
Before asking members for more, the Union must confront its own governance and transparency challenges. A primary concern, voiced by many delegates, is the Union’s disregard for member resolutions. These resolutions represent real concerns from members, yet, year after year, many are sidelined without discussion. Last year, more than half of member-proposed issues never made it to the AGM floor. This year’s resolutions faced a similar risk of being shelved without debate.
Had I been given more time, I would have raised other transparency and support issues as well, such as:
Use of legal and operational resources for internal disputes.
Testimonials from members impacted by mandates, who reported feeling “betrayed”, unable to file grievances due to active discouragement from union officers.
Specific examples that motivated me to author a dozen of resolutions for this AGM.
Outcome and Bright Spots
While Resolution F-04 (the dues increase) passed, Resolution F-05, which sought an additional automatic annual increase to match inflation, was defeated. This was a win for members, reminding the Union that inflation affects everyone - members too, not just the Union’s finances.
A Historic Win on Member Resolutions
The highlight of the AGM, however, was a new emergency motion passed, which will “Refer all resolutions not discussed at AGM to the Board of Directors.” Given that more than two-thirds of this year’s resolutions might have "died" without review, this is a historic win, offering hope that member-raised issues will be addressed moving forward. Now, the Board must review and follow up on these resolutions, giving voice to more member concerns throughout the year.
More about this is covered in Part 2 of my 2024 PIPSC AGM highlights.
Addendum A: A communication with one my of supporters demanding dues freeze.
Addendum B: Critical Insight from Union-Provided Data Supporting the Dues Increase — The Largest Area of Union Expenses is Related to Union Employees
Source: 105th Annual General Meeting (2024) Virtual Binder (Dues Increase Flier, Finance Portal, Financial Forum Q&A, Financial Forum Slides)
Observations:
The Union’s financial data provides a high-level overview of PIPSC’s revenue, expenditures, and operating deficit, highlighting some key fiscal challenges. PIPSC reported total revenue of $71.3 million, expenditures of $83.0 million, and an operating deficit of $11.7 million:
However, the most revealing insight comes from analyzing the breakdown of these expenses. As shown in the images below, by far the largest portion of member dues (more than half) are Union employees related. More exactly, $42.5M out of the total $68.7M in dues revenue:
Of these employee-related $42.5M expenses, $31M go to pay Union employee salaries and $9M to pay for their “Fringe Benefits”:
Given such insights on the Union expenses breakdown, the most straightforward solution to address the operational deficit of $11.7M could have been to reduce employee-related costs of Union.
This approach would have been particularly relevant in current situation, in my opinion, taking into account two critical considerations :
1) very high salaries of many of Union executive positions (and lack of transparency on how they are hired - which I addressed in two proposed resolutions (L-04 and non-published) , and also
2) the fact that the many members - in particular those who have been traumatized by the vaccine mandates - estimated as 10% of all PIPSC membership based on the number of people who supported me in the latest 2024 National Elections and Stories of which I publish in my Election Portal - believe that the Union has been using their legal workforce to support employer’s messaging rather than help badly affected members to file their grievance against the employers’ action.
This approach of cutting the internal workforce is what the government often does when facing fiscal challenges - through such well known to many of us actions as Work Force Adjustments (WFAs) and the Deficit Reduction Action Plan (DRAP).
However, in case of our Union, rather than exploring this option, it has just opted to pass the additional financial burden onto its members. I believe, this is very unfortunate and against the interests of the members and the core principles of the Union.