Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Wondering what the opposition thinks of a move the government makes is partisan now?

Damn, Monahammer calling you out with pinpoint accuracy must have really shaken you up.

Be nice Pepsi. How he makes a living isn’t anyone’s business but his own.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m reasonably confident that the union isn’t in charge of giving delivery timelines to the customers but if you’re privy to some inside information that I’m not aware of and that isn’t the case please share it and I’ll be happy to stand corrected.

Did Canada Post tell the union to conduct a full national strike right before Christmas? If Canada Post had started a lockout on November 15th, I'd be pissed at them instead.

I should probably know better than to try and seriously discuss anything with you when it comes to unions / labour disputes; history has shown that your viewpoint boils down to a position that unions are justified in doing anything and everything, and any negative opinion towards them or their behaviour can basically be ignored, twisted, or projected onto the company instead. The fact that you responded with this throwaway bait -- rather than to my providing the actual financial statements of the company when you asked Locke for his 'math' (which is basically what you asked him for) -- backs that up.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The Liberal-NDP coalition government has just legislated Canada Post workers back to work.

The NDP have said they would vote against any back to work legislation. The Liberals seem to be attempting to do this without introducing a motion in parliament.

Iggy_oi thought process: What does Pierre think of all of this?

Clearly the natural thought process of a sane non-partisan poster.

It's an insane partisan thought process to ask how the presumptive next PM will respond to labour issues?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Wondering what the opposition thinks of a move the government makes is partisan now?

Damn, Monahammer calling you out with pinpoint accuracy must have really shaken you up.

PP could strangle a toddler to death on live TV and a good chunk of posters in this thread would still vote for him, including Firebot.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why would the government need to force them back to work if they are insignificant?

Well, for one you'd hate to stand out. Plus this whole deal could use a few more steps.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Whatever the terms in the final agreement notwithstanding, I say they both lost. The workers basically taking the general public hostage over the busiest season for parcel delivery won them no favour with people

In terms of leverage, what good would it have done them to strike during the non-busy season?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Yeah, likewise.


Canada Post CY2024-Q3 Financials and Canada Post's Year-End 2023 Annual Financial Report.

You don't need to be an accountant to know that having really big ass numbers in parenthesis in financial reports are bad. Now imagine you increase wages by 19% and refuse to allow Canada Post to become competitive with other parcel carriers by taking on PT weekend delivery how they're trying to, that's the hill the union has been willing to die on this whole time.





I hope it doesn't take Locke 'showing [his] math' to drive home the point that if an org is already broke, paying more for the status quo will only put you deeper in the hole and it's either raise prices or face insolvency. Canada Post doesn't get tax dollars to operate.

It’s ludicrous. The only thing back to pre-pandemic standards at CP is the annual deficit!

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I’m not happy about them being legislated back to work.

What’s with all of these allegations regarding my mental state?

So why are you worrying about what Pierre thinks? He didn't legislate them back to work. Maybe in 2 years he will when he is PM and show his true colours but we aren't there today.

Can you put the blame where the blame needs to be if you are not happy? It's not that hard.

It just seems like an odd deflection of where the actions lie for partisan reasons versus real ones. It's like you are convincing yourself that the grass is greener today, yet actions like today continue to happen despite it being run by the Liberal-NDP coalition and despite Jagmeet being so against back to work legislation on tweets.

At some point you need to step back and ask questions. Perhaps if folks didn't rabidly defend everything the NDP or Liberals did and called for change within these parties when you aren't happy instead of focusing on the opposition, the CPC wouldn't be running away in the polls and capturing blue collared union worker votes like they are currently.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Did Canada Post tell the union to conduct a full national strike right before Christmas? If Canada Post had started a lockout on November 15th, I'd be pissed at them instead.

Far be it for me to call out a poster for inconsistencies in what they say but whatever happened to your both sides/many sides position?

Canada Post knew a strike was a possibility and didn’t make that clear to their customers. If they had, you probably wouldn’t have parcels stuck in their system.

I should probably know better than to try and seriously discuss anything with you when it comes to unions / labour disputes;

Yeah if I was as uninformed as you make yourself appear to be on the subject I would probably avoid getting into it with someone who actually knows what they’re talking about too. I won’t hold that against you though.

Again, I’m sorry that you were bamboozled by the company regarding their ability to fulfill their shipments.

]history has shown that your viewpoint boils down to a position that unions are justified in doing anything and everything, and any negative opinion towards them or their behaviour can basically be ignored, twisted, or projected onto the company instead.

Nah. Calling out people’s bull#### on a subject doesn’t define all of my views on that subject.

The fact that you responded with this throwaway bait -- rather than to my providing the actual financial statements of the company when you asked Locke for his 'math' (which is basically what you asked him for) -- backs that up.

Go ahead and compare their rates with those in other collective agreements at large private couriers. I assume you have Google, but top rates are generally in the mid $30 to low $40 per hour range. Keep in mind that those rates will likely increase over the next 4 years. CUPW’s last ask was 19% over 4 years. Their top rate is ~$29/hour(on wage scale that takes far longer to get to top rate). So their top rate in 4 years(around $35/hour) would still be below the current average. Locke claimed that their demands would make them as “unaffordable” as all of the other profitable couriers. If Canada post can’t keep their services cheaper when they pay the lowest wages then wages aren’t the issue.

So what it all boils down to TorgueDog is that Locke made a statement that I knew he couldn’t back up but I gave him an opportunity to try. I don’t know why you find that so offensive or why you’re holding me to a higher standard than him by being so concerned and demanding about me proving what I say when you clearly don’t expect the same from him. Oh well.

[Ryan Coke]

What are their pensions like?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

So why are you worrying about what Pierre thinks?

I was just hoping he would come out as supportive of working class people and against government overreach in labour disputes. What’s wrong with that?

He didn't legislate them back to work. Maybe in 2 years he will when he is PM and show his true colours but we aren't there today.

By not taking that stance publicly isn’t he already showing us his true colours?

Can you put the blame where the blame needs to be if you are not happy? It's not that hard.

I don’t know how anyone could have interpreted what I wrote as blaming Polievre for the labour minister from another party’s decision.

It just seems like an odd deflection of where the actions lie for partisan reasons versus real ones. It's like you are convincing yourself that the grass is greener today, yet actions like today continue to happen despite it being run by the Liberal-NDP coalition and despite Jagmeet being so against back to work legislation on tweets.

I don’t know why you consider encouraging the CPC leader to be more labour friendly as being partisan in nature. I encourage the liberals to do the same and the NDP too.

At some point you need to step back and ask questions.

Well that’s basically what I was doing. And I’m really not sure why you are so bent out of shape over it.

Perhaps if folks didn't rabidly defend everything the NDP or Liberals did and called for change within these parties when you aren't happy instead of focusing on the opposition,

I’ve defended the liberals on this? News to me.

It’s interesting, the NDP would probably have a lot more pressure on them from their supporters to end their deal with the liberals if Pierre were to take a more pro labour stance policy wise. Yet you(someone who clearly likes Pierre and wants the deal to end) get yourself so worked up over someone suggesting that he do that. Not sure why that is.

the CPC wouldn't be running away in the polls and capturing blue collared union worker votes like they are currently.

Is your position that they need those votes to win now but they won’t need them to continue winning down the road? Is that why you’re so opposed to people wanting them to be more moderate on some of their policies? Not gonna lie, you’re a really tough person to read firebot.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

What are their pensions like?

A little from column B and a little from column C.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by rubecube

PP could strangle a toddler to death on live TV and a good chunk of posters in this thread would still vote for him, including Firebot.

Hell, if you even asked “why did he do that” you’d have people freaking out, crying about how everyone is always defending the Liberals.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Firebot

So why are you worrying about what Pierre thinks? He didn't legislate them back to work. Maybe in 2 years he will when he is PM and show his true colours but we aren't there today.

Can you put the blame where the blame needs to be if you are not happy? It's not that hard.

It just seems like an odd deflection of where the actions lie for partisan reasons versus real ones. It's like you are convincing yourself that the grass is greener today, yet actions like today continue to happen despite it being run by the Liberal-NDP coalition and despite Jagmeet being so against back to work legislation on tweets.

At some point you need to step back and ask questions. Perhaps if folks didn't rabidly defend everything the NDP or Liberals did and called for change within these parties when you aren't happy instead of focusing on the opposition, the CPC wouldn't be running away in the polls and capturing blue collared union worker votes like they are currently.

Jfc. You realize this was referred to the labour board and as such is not being voted on in the house, right? Have you ever actually taken a civics class or even a Canadian poli 101?

If it comes back to the House and Jagmeet props them up, then he's an #######.

[Azure]

I mean the government gave them more than enough time to figure it out.

From what I understand the contract was expired for a year.
They had 5 weeks to figure it out once the strike started.

At some point I think the government looks at it and says there is no good faith attempt to actually fix the problem. Pretty obvious this is what is going on here.

Don't agree with the force back to work, but funny how all the outraged people here provide no alternative to what the government should actually do when it is clear that there are a few dozen morons who will hold 55,000 people and millions of Canadian hostage because they can't agree on a deal that works for both sides.

Imagine if this happened in every single hockey contract negotiation.

Team offers $5 million.
Player wants $10 million.

And they literally just don't change their offering or negotiate on something that works for both.

With CP and the union, the process was clearly hijacked in such a way where there is no attempt to fix anything.

Especially on the CP side.
Billions in revenue lost, millions of customers lost (perhaps forever), pissed off employees, list goes on. Has there ever been a strike that is going to equal a worse result? If I were a CP employee right now, I wouldn't stick around very long.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

What are their pensions like?

Defined benefit. Which is a pet of their issue, as they don’t want to move to defined contribution.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

What are their pensions like?

As Slava said, Defined Benefit.

And this is one of the major sticking points, because as Defined Benefit the pension allocations are calculated as a percentage of earned income over time, so even a very small increase in current wages generates a HUGE difference in the back end pension liability.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Azure

I mean the government gave them more than enough time to figure it out.

From what I understand the contract was expired for a year.
They had 5 weeks to figure it out once the strike started.

At some point I think the government looks at it and says there is no good faith attempt to actually fix the problem. Pretty obvious this is what is going on here.

The government created this problem by establishing a precedent that they will intervene. CP didn’t need to negotiate in good faith, they just had to wait it out. Funny how the crowd who usually complain about government sticking their nose where it don’t belong change their tunes quickly when it comes to labour disputes, one might call it hypocritical.

Don't agree with the force back to work, but funny how all the outraged people here provide no alternative to what the government should actually do when it is clear that there are a few dozen morons who will hold 55,000 people and millions of Canadian hostage because they can't agree on a deal that works for both sides.

Your post strongly suggests that you actually do agree with them being forced back to work. Otherwise you probably wouldn’t be justifying it.

No alternatives suggested? I’m assuming you mean other than having the government establish a new precedent by not intervening so that CP and other employers planing on relying on the government to bail them out of a jam actually have to bargain in good faith.

I’m not sure who you’re suggesting are the few dozen people holding the employees and Canadians hostage. 95% of the employees voted to exercise their supposed legal right to strike and Canadians in the overwhelming majority of cases had other options to use aside from Canada post. The interesting part here is that the postal service isn’t a charter protected right but collective bargaining is, or at least it’s supposed to be.

Imagine if this happened in every single hockey contract negotiation.

Team offers $5 million.
Player wants $10 million.

And they literally just don't change their offering or negotiate on something that works for both.

One party (CUPW) in this actually did change their offer, yet the government gave the party that didn’t what they wanted.

With CP and the union, the process was clearly hijacked in such a way where there is no attempt to fix anything.

Especially on the CP side.
Billions in revenue lost, millions of customers lost (perhaps forever), pissed off employees, list goes on. Has there ever been a strike that is going to equal a worse result? If I were a CP employee right now, I wouldn't stick around very long.

It sounds like you’re saying the precedent set by the government and the employer’s reliance on that precedent isn’t conducive to good labour relations or good faith bargaining. We can agree on that much.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

Defined benefit. Which is a pet of their issue, as they don’t want to move to defined contribution.

Originally Posted by Locke

As Slava said, Defined Benefit.

And this is one of the major sticking points, because as Defined Benefit the pension allocations are calculated as a percentage of earned income over time, so even a very small increase in current wages generates a HUGE difference in the back end pension liability.

Pretty sure Ryan Coke was asking about the pensions of their competitors, which vary from DB and DC, but don’t let that stop you both from getting on your soapboxes.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Pretty sure Ryan Coke was asking about the pensions of their competitors, which vary from DB and DC, but don’t let that stop you both from getting on your soapboxes.

Its not a soapbox.

Theres a reason essentially only Governments can offer defined benefit pensions and the methods used to calculate the payout of those pensions and the liabilities that have to be booked and held...thats just math.