[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

They don't have to be a part of bargaining, they are an option to use in bargaining. The position those workers could have would be similar to mine. I'm disappointed with the possibility of a lockout because it appears to me based on what has been reported that Canada post is attempting to use a lockout in an effort to get a deal they want rather than negotiate a deal with their employees.

Let me put forth a hypothetical. And I'll go back to my NHL/NHLPA analogy. Just for the sake of argument, lets assume the pension problem for Canada Post is as badly broken as the salary structure was for the NHL in 2004. Canada Post knows the system has to change significantly and simply cannot accept a half-measure. (The NHL already knew from 1992 and 1994 that half-measures won't fix the underlying issue.)

If the union refuses to consider the issue at all, would you still blame management for using a lockout as a "replacement" for negotiating?

That's just my view on it and it is based on Canada post's position of being concerned with the pension deficit yet not putting forward a plan to address that problem, they are claiming the current plan will never work and they must draw a line in the sand now, even though they didn't have the foresight to see this problem coming 4 years ago when they signed the current contract. If it was as crucial of an issue as they claim they would have fixed it then, instead they claim that it is a huge issue now and must be addressed and the union has to accept the only solution brought forward to fix the problem now and forever by the same people who evidently could not even plan 4 years ahead. CP's current plan also provides zero protection to the current plan members in the event that it's plan does not have the funds to cover its liabilities. People say tax payers will cover it, yeah maybe if a politician is willing to agree to do that with voter's tax dollars. CP has no risk in that situation, unless there is a plan to attempt to fix the deficit those workers would be crazy to gamble on their pensions by agreeing to have less contributions going to a plan that already carries a deficit.

C'mon man. You have demonstrated throughout this thread that you are far too intelligent to believe "if it wasn't a big problem four years ago, it can't be a big problem today" is a serious argument.

Also, they have put forward a plan - switching new hires to a defined contribution plan. That you don't like the plan does not mean it is not a plan.

Also, current plan members are backed by the government. This isn't about hosting current plan members, but about protecting Canada Post, and therefore the citizens of Canada, from the creation of an ever deepening black hole.

What evidence do you have to support the argument that the union hasn't been trying to find a solution, all we know for sure is they disagree with Canada post's proposed solution. There has been nothing in the media about the union's counter proposals on the pension plan, but that does not mean they haven't had any, simply that they may not want to publicize them. Which makes sense on their end since they would not want public perception to have any influence on their members. Canada post would not take any of the union's offers public as it could put pressure on them to accept their terms as well.

You're twisting my argument a little, though not unexpectedly. The fact a situation has deteriorated to the point of labour action does not stand as evidence of a lack of willingness to negotiate. My point was that you can't simply claim that a lockout means management has failed to negotiate in good faith. Especially since I have a very strong belief that you would not criticize the union the same way if this were a strike action instead.