If the City of Prince George is trying to get its unionized employees to go out on strike, it's doing one heckuva good job.
City administrators walloped their own staff with a below-the-belt shot during Wednesday's budget meeting.
Three weeks ago, the city commissioned a poll of local residents about the budget process but threw in some questions about city worker wages, too.
On Wednesday, city administrators released the results of that survey the day before voting by unionized staff on the offer before them. The mayor and senior staff then had the gall to defend the validity of the poll and its findings.
One of the questions asked respondents what their feelings were about the wage offers made by the city and the union.
The results found that 45 per cent of the 301 respondents supported the offer of a three-year deal with no increases in the first two years and a two per cent increase in the final year.
Meanwhile, 29 per cent preferred CUPE's proposal of a two per cent increase each year. Fifteen per cent didn't like either option and 12 per cent had no opinion or were
undecided.
The city wasn't done there. It also asked the respondents if they thought the starting wage of $26.84 an hour for an entry-level labourer was too high.
The respondents were split with 44 per cent saying too high and 46 per cent saying just right. Six per cent said it was too low.
These are ridiculous questions because the respondents were asked what they liked, not what was fair.
Most taxpayers would probably like to not pay taxes at all and to have public sector workers volunteer their time.
Most people would also like their gas and groceries for free, annual 10 per cent pay increases and employer-paid January retreats at a five-star Mexican resort.
Corporate services director Kathleen Soltis thinks asking those questions at this time was fair since wages and benefits make up 40 per cent of the city's annual budget.
Then why weren't the respondents also asked if they thought Ms. Soltis was overpaid, underpaid or paid fairly in 2011 when her wage was $176,000 or last year, when she earned $192,000?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Not only were the questions flawed, so was the political motivation behind them.
One way to test that would be to wonder what the response from the city would have been if CUPE had commissioned its own opinion poll asking residents if they believe mayor and council were doing a good job and
released the results this week.
Another test is to ask if the city would have been so quick to share the results of its survey if the public had sided with the union.
Imagine if 80 per cent of the respondents had preferred CUPE's proposal or if 50 per cent had said the entry-level labourers were underpaid.
The numbers are also open to interpretation.
Mayor Shari Green says the labourer wage question shows that "90 per cent of people who responded said they make enough or they're already making too much."
That's one way of looking it. Here's another way: more than half of the respondents (52 per cent) believe those wages are where they should be or could be better.
The mayor is trying to use the poll results to force city councillors to choose between city workers and city taxpayers, ominously telling her colleagues that "if we're to move on that number then obviously it's going against the wishes of the community."
Not so fast.
Even if the questions weren't so ludicrous, an opinion poll is a snapshot of how a group of respondents feel at that time.
Saying it reflects "the wishes of the community" is hugely overstating the relevance of the survey's results.
If opinion polls taken across B.C. in March and April truly reflected the community's wishes, Adrian Dix would be premier.
The city had the high moral ground by pushing its unions hard to accept a new contract more in line with the deals being accepted by other public sector unions, but gave that up with its thoughtless and mean-spirited survey.
-- Managing editor Neil Godbout
