PAID DUTY

In today's Globe and Mail, columnist John Barber deals with the subject of paid duty.  He raises some thought provoking questions on a matter that has attracted considerable public attention.  Here is the link to Barber's column.

WHAT DOES # 1 REALLY MEAN?

The Toronto Police Association says that it wants its members to be number one. What does this really mean?

The TPA likes to complain about many things, and never has much to say that is positive about the terms and conditions of employment for its members.

Of late, the complaint has been that the Board refuses to ensure that police officers in Toronto are the highest paid in the province.

I will explain the Board’s position in a moment, but let’s start by looking at the history of the collective agreements that the Board and the TPA have reached over the years.

From 2000 to 2007, the annual salary for a TPS officer was almost exactly the same as the average of the other twelve largest police services. The numbers below show where the TPS salary is when compared to the average of the other twelve largest police services.

2000 +.2%
2001 +.1%
2002 +.3%
2003 +.1%
2004 +.2%
2005 +.2%
2006 +.1%
2007 +.0%

This information shows us that the annual salary for TPS officers has been very close to the average of the largest services. If you look at the data in more detail, you see the annual officer salaries among the largest services are always very close together.

For example, in 2006, the average salary of a First Class Constable ranged from $71,567 (the OPP) to $71,211 (London). Toronto was $71,511. Even this brief overview leads me to my first inescapable conclusion:

Raising the rate of pay of one of the large police services means raising the rates of pay for all of them.

Why?

The TPS does not bargain in isolation. The fact is that the terms and conditions of employment for police officers are set through pattern bargaining or pattern arbitration among the largest police services. For example, arbitrators considering what to award police services in Durham, Ottawa or Sudbury look to settlements or arbitration awards in places like Toronto, the OPP or Peel. The so called “Big 12” is the group within which this pattern bargaining occurs for Toronto.

So let us be very clear about the implication of TPA’s demand that its members be the best paid by a substantial margin. If conceded, TPA’s demand will contribute to the process of driving police officer rates of pay in the province higher and higher, with no limit.

The TPA knows that it can only ever be the best paid until the next settlement or arbitration award. Being number one never lasts, only the municipality is saddled with a forever spiralling wage bill for policing. The TPA does not care about that.

There is something else going on right now that makes this even more interesting.

The collective agreement between the Peel Regional Police Service and its Police Association for the period ending December 31, 2010 has a provision that commits Peel to provide the same salary as the highest paid police service. This means that providing a higher salary in 2010 only drives the Peel rate to the same number. Given the history of police bargaining in Ontario, it really means that the salary for all of the large services would be driven ever higher.

The Board’s position is that it must balance a number of competing factors:

• balancing the interests of a number of stakeholders, for example the Service and its members, the taxpayers and Toronto’s residents
• the fairness and affordability of the collective agreement
• ensuring the effective and efficient delivery of police service
• examining the comparator collective agreements to ensure that we are providing a fair and appropriate outcome

We are convinced that, rhetoric apart, our approach is the only way to ensure a fair result for everyone – not just for the TPA.

THE COST OF POLICING – SOME INTERESTING NUMBERS

One has to give credit to Dave Wilson for being so single-minded. You ask him anything about policing in Toronto and he says: “It is the fault of the Toronto Police Services Board. If only the Board agreed to make our members the highest paid police officers in the country, all public safety issues will disappear.” I am not sure if this is an example of being single-minded or of having a one-track mind. It is like all VIA trains travel on the same track, no matter what the destination!

In Dave Wilson’s case, that track is called MORE TAX DOLLARS!

We often hear the cry of “We’re behind” or “You don’t respect us” from the Toronto Police Association when its bargaining demands are not being met. This time is no different.

From the Association’s constant refrain, you would assume that Toronto is not paying its fair share when it comes to policing. The opposite is true. In fact, Toronto devotes a very high level of resources to policing. Comparisons with other municipalities provide a very interesting insight about the cost of policing and the level of resources that Toronto provides to its police service.

What are the conclusions?

A few themes emerge from this comparison:
· Toronto is well-resourced when it comes to policing.
· Toronto’s cost of policing is significantly higher than those of our neighbours.
· Except for Windsor, Toronto has proportionately more police officers than any other major Ontario municipality. Toronto’s per capita cost of policing is among the highest in Canada. It is 30% higher than the average of the major Ontario municipalities.

The Data

The following data provide some interesting information about police resources. These are derived from Statistics Canada’s annual report called “Police Resources in Canada” which provides a variety of statistical data concerning the level of police resources across the country.

The Cost of Policing

The cost of policing in the large Ontario municipalities provides an interesting point of comparison.
In terms of per capita cost derived from dividing the police budget by population, we see that Toronto’s per capita cost of $320 is the highest. This figure compares to $211 for Peel and Durham and $192 for York. London, which has the highest crime rate per 100,000 population, has a per capita cost that is about 33% less than that of Toronto

Operating Expenditures – Ontario Large Police Services – 2006
Source: Police Resources in Canada, 2007 p. 48

Police Service: York
Per Capita Cost: $192

Police Service: Halton
Per Capita Cost: $185

Police Service: Peel
Per Capita Cost: $211

Police Service: Durham
Per Capita Cost: $211

Police Service: Waterloo
Per Capita Cost: $190

Police Service: Ottawa
Per Capita Cost: $217

Police Service: Niagara
Per Capita Cost: $255

Police Service: Greater Sudbury
Per Capita Cost: $233

Police Service: Hamilton
Per Capita Cost: $220

Police Service: Toronto
Per Capita Cost: $320

Police Service: Windsor
Per Capita Cost: $284

Police Service: London
Per Capita Cost: $200

AVERAGE: $226.50


What about the number of police officers for each resident?

If we examine the ratio of population to police officer in the large Ontario municipal police services, we see that Toronto has much fewer residents per police officer.


Population per Police Officer – Ontario Large Police Services – 2007
Source: Police Resources in Canada, 2007, p. 32

Toronto - 474

Windsor - 474

London - 636

Niagara Regional - 653

Greater Sudbury - 655

Hamilton - 669

Ottawa - 694

Peel - 706

Waterloo Regional - 717

Durham Regional - 733

York - 752

Halton - 836

Compared to the other major services, Toronto has the highest level of police officers to population and is significantly higher than the adjacent police services of York, Durham and Peel.


What about the crime rates in these municipalities?

This data examines the number of police officers per 100,000 population in the municipalities. It also lists the 2006 crime rate for these municipalities in terms of the number of Criminal Code incidents per 100,000 population.


Police Officers and Crime Rates – Large Ontario Municipal Police Services

Police Service: York
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 133
2006 Crime Rate: 3177

Police Service: Halton
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 120
2006 Crime Rate: 3575

Police Service: Peel
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 142
2006 Crime Rate: 4020

Police Service: Durham
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 136
2006 Crime Rate: 4890

Police Service: Waterloo
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 140
2006 Crime Rate: 5295

Police Service: Ottawa
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 144
2006 Crime Rate: 5913

Police Service: Niagara
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 153
2006 Crime Rate: 5951

Police Service: Greater Sudbury
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 153
2006 Crime Rate: 6219

Police Service: Hamilton
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 149
2006 Crime Rate: 6298

Police Service: Toronto
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 211
2006 Crime Rate: 6371

Police Service: Windsor
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 211
2006 Crime Rate: 8662

Police Service: London
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 157
2006 Crime Rate: 9194

This data is interesting because it shows that the Toronto crime rate is relatively the same as those in Hamilton, Sudbury, Niagara Region and Ottawa. It is substantially less than those in Windsor and London. Yet, the proportion of Toronto officers is the same as Windsor – and much higher (almost 50%) than in municipalities with a similar crime rate.


What about major Canadian cities as a basis for comparison?

With a couple of exceptions, Toronto has a lower crime rate than other Canadian cities. We are able to achieve this with a ratio of officers to population that is almost always lower than in other cities.


Major Canadian Cities
Source: Police Resources in Canada, 2007 p.18

City: Montreal
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 235
2006 Crime Rate: 8772

City: Vancouver
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 222
2006 Crime Rate: 11583

City: Calgary
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 159
2006 Crime Rate: 6642

City: Edmonton
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 184
2006 Crime Rate: 11045

City: Winnipeg
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 196
2006 Crime Rate: 11805

City: Quebec City
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 138
2006 Crime Rate: 5424

City: Halifax
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 222
2006 Crime Rate: 11824

City: Saskatoon
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 191
2006 Crime Rate: 13996

City: Regina
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 189
2006 Crime Rate: 13152

City: St. John’s
Police Officers per 100,000 population 2007: 153
2006 Crime Rate: 6773

This brief examination of the level of resources in relation to crime rates allows for some interesting and important conclusions.

First, the level of resources is high compared to many of the comparator jurisdictions, both in terms of number of officers and financing.

Second, the crime rate data is quite good. The overall crime rate is comparable to many other services (who have lower resource levels) and the trend is favourable.

Third, the per capita cost is a concern. It is substantially higher than many of the comparators. Given the large population base in Toronto – a 30% differential in per capita cost translates into a budget impact of about one-quarter of a billion dollars per year.

GOOD NIGHT DAVE. NO NEED TO LOSE SLEEP.

TPA Prez Dave Wilson is very worried that we may lose 800 police officers. He blames the Toronto Police Services Board for causing him sleepless nights by supposedly refusing to make his members the best paid police officers in the country. This is precisely the reason why, in his nightmare scenario, up to 800 police officers will desert us.

I confess that I am awestruck by Prez Wilson’s prowess with the crystal ball. Because, you see, I have been thinking about who might be in this list of 800. I believe it includes TPA Directors Corrigan, Molyneaux and Zayak.........?? It includes a majority of the Senior Management and the Command Team. And it includes many Inspectors, Staff Sergeants and Sergeants, besides a few hundred First Class Constables.

What is the one thing that is common among them, besides the fact that most of them wear a uniform?

It is that they have served the number of years that makes them ELIGIBLE to retire with a full pension.

In an organization which can legitimately take pride in the fact that the vast majority of its thousands of employees like to stay and to serve for long years, is it all that surprising that there may be up to 800 people who could retire if they wanted to?

Time for reality check: what has been our experience with turnover?

The number of people leaving because they are eligible to retire on full pension has been pretty consistent over the years. It is in the region of 220-250. In an organization this size, that is not abnormal.

It is to be expected that there will be a proportion of people who, when they are able to do so, will take advantage of their eligibility to either enjoy a slower paced lifestyle or to pursue some other interest.

It is also to be expected that, in addition to people who are eligible to retire, there will be some who will leave voluntarily and earlier than the normal retirees. They may leave due to illness or incapacity, a better job offer, desire to work closer to home, or such negative factors as alienation, disenchantment, disappointment, frustration, etc.

An employer would need to be concerned – in fact, VERY concerned – if there was a very high rate of voluntary separation.

A second reality check: what is our experience?

I believe there are about 30 people who are leaving us before they are eligible to retire. That is 30 out of 5510 uniform and 2200 civilian employees.

And they are leaving primarily because of illness or because they wish to work near where they live.

How many of these 30 have said that they are leaving because the Board has not made them the best paid in the country?

ZERO. Yup, you heard me right. ZERO.

So, I plead with Prez Wilson: please, do not lose sleep or worry too much.

I truly appreciate your concern for the well-being of the organization. But let me assure you, we are doing just fine.

In fact, we are doing very, very fine.

Our recruitments are high. We are getting young people who are bringing new energy, high education, a broad range of experience, and tremendous diversity. With each new group of recruits, our organization is looking more and more like this City.

And we are maintaining a fine balance between youth and experience.

WHY I AM NOT “HEART-BROKEN” ABOUT GOING TO ARBITRATION: AN OVERVIEW OF THE MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION PROCESSES

On Sunday, August 10, Justice John Murray concluded his mediation of the contract negotiations between the Board and the TPA. As I announced that evening, our next destination is arbitration.

In some quarters, anguish has been expressed that for the first time in 10 years, we are going to arbitration.

I do not believe that mediation and arbitration are signs of failure – they are very important next steps in the bargaining process.

For an essential service like policing, there must be a way for the employer and the trade union to resolve their disputes over terms and conditions of employment when bilateral negotiation does not succeed. Unlike many other collective bargaining relationships, there is no right to strike in the policing sector – nor should there ever be. Public safety is not something that can be withheld or interfered with as part of a collective bargaining dispute.

In this essential services environment, mediation and arbitration are the processes which exist to help parties reach a new collective agreement.

Mediation

Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process often used to try to solve complex disputes. An independent third party, the mediator, assists the two sides to come to an agreement.
One of the most important features of mediation is that the mediator cannot force the parties to agree to an outcome. A mediator helps the parties come to an agreement through a process of identifying interests in joint sessions and separate caucuses. In the right circumstances, a skilled mediator can help close the gap between parties who were initially very far apart.

Over the last decade, the Board and the Association have reached agreements before, during and even after mediation.

Arbitration

The arbitration process is the last step in resolving the collective agreement. At the end of the arbitration process, a written award is usually issued which describes the arbitrator’s decision on the outstanding items. Sometimes, the parties end up reaching an agreement during the arbitration process. The arbitrator’s award is binding on both parties.

Who is the arbitrator?

Arbitrators are individuals who are highly respected in their field and have a lot of experience. Many are (or have been) law professors or practicing lawyers. Some are not lawyers but have a wealth of arbitration experience and understand the collective bargaining process intimately. They are seen to be neutral, and are required to act as such.

How is the arbitrator chosen?

It is usual for parties to plan for mediation and arbitration at the start of the collective bargaining process. This is when they propose and exchange names of possible mediators and arbitrators, and decide on their choice through discussion. When they are unable to make a choice voluntarily, they can approach a statutory body like the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission, and make a request for a mediator or an arbitrator to be appointed. Clearly, the arbitrator is a different person from the mediator.

How does arbitration work?

A critical feature of the arbitration process is that each side must justify its position with credible arguments and supporting facts. Unlike bargaining, or even mediation, the arbitration process involves a third party deciding the issues for you.

Each side prepares written material in advance in support of its position. This material will present the reasons why each side thinks that it is correct about how a particular issue should be resolved.

At the hearing itself, each side has a chance to make a presentation about each issue in dispute.

The collective agreement arbitration is a public process, so interested third parties can attend the hearing to observe what’s happening.

The arbitrator’s award is a public document – so anyone can see what the outcome is. Different arbitrators provide different levels of detail and reasons in support of their decision.

FAIRNESS AND RESPECT

I am not surprised in the least that, true to form, TPA President Dave Wilson has resorted to the “blame game.” I had hoped that we would move on to arbitration as the means to solve our differences as respectfully and as quickly as possible. Arbitration isn’t about blame.

I find it ironic in the extreme that Dave Wilson should be talking about respect and fairness when he shows absolutely no respect towards a very important party, the public.

The Toronto Police Services Board respects and supports our members and the important role that they play in keeping our city one of the safest in Canada. There are many concrete ways in which we have demonstrated how we value our members. I challenge Dave Wilson to show it is otherwise. We have always said that we want a negotiated collective agreement that is fair. We do not blame our members for seeking improvements in their collective agreement.

As part of our desire to deal with our members fairly, we offered a 3% raise over each of the next 3 years. We offered this in February 2008.

Dave Wilson and his team ignored it and never mentioned it again.

I understand that the TPA is limited to serving its members and, as Chair, I respect that role. However, the Board has a number of interests to serve and to balance besides those of the members. These include: the City, the residents and the taxpayers. And finally the Board has a duty to support Chief’s role in the delivery of effective and efficient police services.

DESTINATION: ARBITRATION

After six days in mediation with the assistance of the Honourable Mr. Justice John Murray, we regret to announce that we have been unable to make progress toward the resolution of the collective agreement.

At the outset, I would like to thank Justice Murray for his selfless efforts over the course of these six days in trying to assist the parties in attaining a more positive result.

Although we strongly prefer a negotiated agreement, there are far too many issues between the parties that stand in the way of concluding an agreement.

Throughout this process, the Board remains committed to achieving a fair collective agreement that appropriately compensates our members and is fair to the people of Toronto. Of course, we must also ensure that a settlement allows for the efficient and effective delivery of policing services that the people of Toronto deserve.

We are proud of our officers and civilian members and the significant contributions that they make in keeping Toronto one of Canada's safest cities.

Dates for arbitration have been scheduled for the early Fall of this year.