Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Um. Sure. After Canada Post repays the General Revenue fund for years of absolutely staggering losses.
Its great that they're making money now, but if they'd been a private business they'd have gone under, they didnt because the Federal Government dug into taxpayer pockets to cover their losses while in the meantime their employees, who are more than fairly compensated, took no concessions.
Thats the thing, these guys were getting great pay, great pensions and great benefits when Canada Post was hemorrhaging red ink and not once did any of their benefits, jobs or pay get cut back despite the poor performance of their company.
Now, you say they're making money and the employees should share in that? If you dont share in the risk you shouldnt share in the reward.
So using your example of me, yes I'm an accountant and yes I've worked for big firms and now I work for myself. But if my firm had been basically insolvent for a decade but somehow managed to struggle through and were now making money but said none of that was going to be passed on to me because they have to recover from a down-period and conservative forward estimates then I'd have to decide whether thats for me depending on what my priorities are.
If my priority was job security and I felt I had that and I was still making more money than I could anywhere else comparably its a decision to be made and if I'm willing to take the risks I could strike out on my own. |
Jobs were cut, if that's not a concession I don't know what you would consider one. Did their CEO take a pay cut? I can't find anything that says they did.
I agree job preservation should be paramount, if we were talking about a company that is bleeding money and a union looking for increases, then we would be having a completely different conversation.
What we are seeing here is a company that is doing well, yet wants to give it's employees the short end of the stick by forcing them to accept concessions during collective bargaining. How are they forcing them? By using labour laws to circumvent the process and hold a gun to their employees head by saying "take this or we'll lock you out"
They have not made any mention of what "unreasonable" demands the union has proposed.