Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 21st, 2016

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I am on TV here, so you get too comfortable in this role.

Seriously, I want to use my seven minutes my way. I want to ask a broader question. This is an opportunity to talk about unions, quality of life, and how it fits in. I have two things to raise.

In your words, Tom.... I say Tom because I work with him all the time, and it would be silly for us to be calling each other “Mr.”

Here we are, in 2016. A lot of people believe, first of all, that unions have no place at all in modern society. Yes, they were fine back in the Depression and after the war, but not now, in a modern circumstance, and certainly not in an office setting, let alone the kind of work that some of your members do.

Could you just take a moment of my time and talk about why the union is still relevant to your members? You are a young man. Why do you care? Why are you involved? How can a union contract, given the kind of work you...? How do you do that? Explain to people how you would take work that normally doesn't fit the usual description of unions, in the old industrial-fashion way we look at it, and comment on that.

I make no bones about it, Mr. Chair. I am hoping there are staff for all the other parties on the Hill who are listening and might say, “You know what? Talk about a quality-of-life improvement. I should be thinking about this union.” That is just part of my being full-disclosure in as sunny a way as I can.

It's over to you, Tom, if you don't mind.

[Thomas Shannon]

Thank you very much for that, David—Mr. Christopherson.

You mentioned that unions are no longer relevant, and we hear that from certain people. In the 1800s they said that. I wasn't there, but there was an article in the 1800s that asked whether unions had served their purpose; were they done? I don't think they ever end, because the idea is that management is in charge and is trying to get things done, and we need to make sure that we come together as unionized staff to make sure we are protected and that we, first of all, do the most for our members and make sure we take care of the work we're to do in the House of Commons, because we need to be healthy and we need to be well paid and taken care of.

Moving on to your question about whether we're the same as the old industrial unions, the thing is, it's the same idea. We negotiate a contract with the NDP caucus—you might be familiar with them. We sit down and we say, here is how much is in the budget. What can we do to make sure that we are paid well so that we have retention?

Generally, in the unionized environment here the New Democratic Party staff are paid more, because we are able to negotiate collectively, rather than one on one. Obviously we know that with unions there is a wide disparity.

That keeps people in their jobs, because as they maintain seniority, they get more experience, become better as staff. I know there are actually former staff in front of me right now, and they know what it is: when you first start, you're learning the ropes, you're figuring it out, and then after five years, you have it right; you're doing a great job. Pay should be in connection with the amount of time you spend working.

But it's not just pay; it's also flexible working hours. Now, in this environment—and this is just a little outside the family-friendly theme—we have an overtime policy. When we need to work late—it happens a lot that you will be asking your staff to work late—what we do is take any time that is more than the regular work week, and we're able to use it for vacation time, for time off with our families.

Saying that, though, it is tough for young mothers or young fathers to take the actual overtime off, for the reasons they already gave in response to questions from the Liberals and Conservatives. However, it at least allows flexibility such that if you need to leave early, there's a connection with how much time you spend.

The last point is that when we're talking about the Labour Code and parliamentary privilege, MPs can more or less do...I won't say what they want with their staff, but there's an opening that they can just.... Abuse is very easy to do.

Most of you would be good bosses, but if you're not, you can just fire the boss right away.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Thomas Shannon]

I'm sorry; you can fire the employee right away.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You're speaking to the wrong people here.

[Thomas Shannon]

You can't fire the boss. We can't fire the members of Parliament; however, you can just fire the employee, no questions asked.

We actually have a procedure we go through to ask, “Was it fair? What can we do to improve the relationship?”, because the ultimate goal in our sense—in the sense for all the staff here—is to move your party forward, your country forward, and to try to get things done for the people you represent. That way, there is a protection: we go through a process, whether it's harassment or there's a grievance. We make sure that nobody on the staff is ill-treated, because there is a process in place.

I guess that's the long-winded outline of the difference between our employees and the employees right now of other political parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have 30 seconds.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll leave it at that, other than to give you an opportunity.... We talked about the Fridays. There are a few things that have been floating around today.

I'll just afford you an opportunity to comment on any of the suggestions you have heard, either formally or informally, that you like or don't like. It's just an opportunity for you to speak your mind on the other pieces of what we're talking about here.

[Mélisa Ferreira]

I agree with Tara and the member. A compressed work week would result in employees with young families having to work longer hours over four days and sacrificing time spent with their family. I think it would be more difficult if Fridays were eliminated, if I may say so. In my humble opinion, that's not the right thing to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you. I'm getting my time back.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

And I'll die defending your right to have it; how's that?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

There are at least five former staffers around this table today, so I think it's very important for us to get on the record the impact of the parliamentary lifestyle on staff. I was a staffer here for—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I was too. I was a constituency assistant.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

So there are at least six of us, then, but Mark isn't normally here.

I had a daughter while I was working as a staffer here, and then I ran a nomination campaign with a newborn. It was a bit of a challenge.

I know that this is outside of your normal duties. I really appreciate you guys coming to speak to us. I know it's probably not the most fun experience.

I've been here a lot. The one time I haven't been here is during elections. What's it like—this is especially to Mr. Thompson—during an election? What kind of impacts do elections have on the staff, the morale, the work that goes on here—especially longer ones, such as the 78-day one we just had?

[Roger Thompson]

Do you mean the impacts of the election work-wise?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

No. We all leave, so how does it look around here? How does it impact your jobs, if you're union members? What goes on here?

[Roger Thompson]

Basically, where you guys are sitting today, this is what my department does every day: we set this up for you guys.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Well, thank you.

[Roger Thompson]

You're very welcome.

In our department, we're mostly full-time employees, so we are very busy during elections. But if you're looking at the SCIs in some of these other departments that we talked about, the seasonal certified employees, you're correct that the work drops. The cafeterias are closed; the FPF, the facility the food comes from or the production facility, is shut down, and only minimum staff, probably, is working there, and maybe minimum staff in the kitchens or one or two cafeterias.

So the workload for these individuals drops. In some departments, like the one I work for, transportation, the full-time employees are busy. We're busy with the moves and all the elections and that. But when it comes to these SCI individuals, it dramatically drops. As I said, five or five-and-a-half hours is what they're given.

In our collective agreement, when you become an SCI individual, there is a seniority clause. The seniority for these individuals is based on job title. If an individual has seniority, then that individual will be working. An individual with less seniority cannot work more hours than somebody who has more seniority; therefore, if the facilities are closed, you only have a minimum number of employees who are working, so it's a big drop-off. It drops dramatically for these individuals.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

If many a lot of the services are designed around us, the members, would it be helpful for staff if, for example, as you mentioned, the cafeterias were open year-round, instead of just when we're here? Would that make a big difference to you? I'm curious to hear.

[Roger Thompson]

If you would like my personal opinion—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

That's what I'm asking for.