Resolving the Water Strike: The Case for Pragmatic Flexibility

The Hamiltonian's View

The ongoing strike between the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Ontario Water Employees Association (HOWEA), now entering its second month, presents a test of municipal labour relations. At issue is a classic tension between maintaining pattern bargaining — which ensures consistency across the City’s unionized workforce — and recognizing the unique circumstances of a small but highly skilled group of workers.

The City has followed a consistent wage settlement pattern across eight of its 11 bargaining units, with agreements in place covering over 6,000 workers. The current offer to HOWEA is consistent with that pattern, featuring wage increases in the range of 4.7% per year, faster progression through pay grades, and improved premiums and benefits.

HOWEA, representing just over 50 operators and tradespeople, argues that its members face a historic pay gap relative to similar city employees. More importantly, these workers operate one of Ontario’s only combined water and wastewater systems — requiring four separate Class III certifications. This multi-skilled requirement distinguishes them from peers elsewhere and, in their view, justifies an upward wage adjustment beyond the pattern.

From a labour relations standpoint, both perspectives are valid. Pattern bargaining preserves fiscal discipline and avoids competitive wage demands. However, when clear evidence of skill-based inequities exists — as is arguably the case here — an inflexible application of the pattern risks entrenching unfairness.

A targeted, skills-based wage adjustment for HOWEA members — framed explicitly as compensation for certifications and dual-role responsibilities — would resolve the strike without undermining the integrity of the City’s bargaining framework. This approach would acknowledge the operators’ unique qualifications while signalling to other unions that the pattern remains intact for all but exceptional cases.

Additionally, the fiscal impact is minimal: the union’s proposed adjustment reportedly amounts to less than 0.01% of the City’s annual budget — a fraction of the potential costs of prolonged disruption or future recruitment and retention challenges in this critical service area.

Ultimately, public sector bargaining requires more than adherence to formulas. It demands the pragmatism to address real-world disparities where they exist. A narrow exception here —supported by clear public communication and prudent political leadership — would serve the broader public interest: a stable, well-staffed water system operated by motivated employees.

The elements for a settlement are present. The time has come for both sides to exercise flexibility, close the gap, and move forward. The public deserves no less.