The Hamiltonian’s Position and Questions to Move the Water Dispute Forward

Once again, we want to clearly state: The Hamiltonian is not taking sides in the ongoing labour dispute between the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Ontario Water Employees Association (HOWEA). Our position is—and always has been—on the side of Hamiltonians.

Hamiltonians deserve a swift and fair resolution to this matter, and the continued assurance that their water systems are operated by a full complement of qualified, licensed, and dedicated professionals.

To that end, we have submitted the following questions to both City Manager Ms. Marnie Cluckie and union representative Mr. Greg Hoath via email, and are publishing them here publicly in the spirit of open dialogue and public accountability.

Ms. Cluckie is under no obligation to respond. We respect her right to reply or decline in whatever manner she deems appropriate. That said, it is clear that the dispute remains at a standstill. While official statements and press releases are a necessary part of the process, at this stage they appear to be further entrenching positions rather than bringing resolution.

To date, Mr. Hoath has engaged more directly with The Hamiltonian.

The following questions are posed with a view to moving this matter forward—if the parties are willing to consider them.

Questions for City Manager Marnie Cluckie

1. Given HOWEA’s stated concerns about internal pay equity and the higher level of licensing required for their roles compared to other City classifications (such as electricians and millwrights), would the City consider a third-party job evaluation or pay equity audit to independently determine whether the wage disparities are justified?

If yes, would the City consider temporarily returning workers to their jobs under a bridge agreement—pending the outcome of such a review—while preserving HOWEA’s right to resume strike action should the process break down?

This question reflects the reality that in disputes between a large public institution and a relatively small bargaining unit, the City has the capacity to outlast workers who rely on their wages to support their families. This is not unique to Hamilton—but it is inequitable.

2. HOWEA claims the cost to settle is significantly less than the ongoing cost of the strike. Can the City confirm the current and projected costs of strike-related contingencies and explain why this path is preferable to a settlement—particularly if the estimated cost difference is less than $500,000?

The Hamiltonian previously proposed a compromise model that could allow the City to preserve its principle of pattern bargaining while acknowledging the unique qualifications of this specialized workforce. Is such an approach  being considered? We have asked this question in the past and received no response. 

Question for Greg Hoath, HOWEA

1. The City maintains that HOWEA-represented positions are not comparable to those represented by CUPE 5167. You’ve claimed otherwise, citing significantly higher licensing and responsibilities. Would the union support an independent classification and compensation review to evaluate and validate your position—as suggested in our question to Ms. Cluckie?

Such a review could add credibility to the union’s case and provide the public with a clearer understanding of the dispute’s core issues.

Note: The Hamiltonian is not an arbitrator, nor are we attempting to insert ourselves in that role. Our intent is to offer clear, good-faith questions in the public interest. Hamiltonians deserve clarity, accountability, and progress.

We will publish any responses we receive.