Canada Post likely will be locked out/on strike - July 2

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by V

It's a pretty powerful option, especially when you have public sentiment, which I think they think they have. So why would they not lock out if they have that option? For whatever reason, they've drawn a line in the sand, and at that point it doesn't matter how valid it is, all that matters is th union isn't interested in standing on that side of the lin. They feel they have the leverage, and they're going to use it. Why wouldn't they? It's just another tool in the tool box.

I'm not saying they can't use it, I'm just disagreeing with why and how they are using it. The union doesn't agree with their reasoning in this matter, and it would give up all leverage for future negotiations if they simply rolled over because the company threatened a lock out, the exact same way a company would lose all future leverage if they simply caved as soon as a union served strike notice.

In this case the company is hoping the union will break by losing income and accept what the company wants, and on the other side the union is hoping that financial losses will eventually pressure Canada post into saying this isn't worth it and start negotiating different solutions.

[Locke]

And on the flipside of lockout/Strike, the workers can be starved out because they're people with responsibilities and the counter to that of the company losing business, income and revenue really doesnt work.

Canada Post doesnt care about lost revenue, they wont fear bankruptcy and they wont care about lost goodwill. They could conceivably stand a lockout/strike almost indefinitely.

[V]

Yeah, the only thing that forces CP off the lockout is political pressure. It looks to me like that pressure is more on the union than CP. Especially with the union not agreeing to arbitration, it's not likely CP will be capitulating. But we'll see as the story unfolds.

[CaptainCrunch]

I would expect that this is going to be a multi month lockout, people have already started to learn to live with Canada Post, its becoming more of a luxury then anything else with other parcel services and electronic transmission.

If they do lock out the staff for a lengthy period of time, its likely that a lot less will be coming back to work.

They'll get some attrition through lockout where people just decide to look for other jobs, and CP won't fill those positions.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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?




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.



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.

I would not be in favour of replacement workers because I feel Canada post has not shown they are concerned with their current employees' pensions or for the risk to tax payers if the problem isn't fixed. We haven't been given any evidence that the union is refusing to consider the issue at all, we only know for a fact that they don't want the solution Canada post is proposing.

How is the fact that Canada post either did not see this issue or chose to ignore it 4 years ago not relevant? I have no idea where the pension plan was at financially at that time, but I do know that Canada post knew regular mail was trending downward rapidly, as did everyone else, if the pension was in trouble then, they should have known this problem was coming and acted on it. If it was still in the black at that time and they were not able to see that a loss of over $6billion was possible within 4 years, then why would anyone think they have all of the sudden became capable of making sound investment strategies? Everyone should be questioning their competence in this regard.

The plan to switch new hires to a new plan does absolutely nothing to protect taxpayers from having to bail out the old plan members. New hires would make contributions to their new plan and the old plan members would be left with a plan that has a $6B deficit and with no new contributors ever being added, and future cuts to contributors every time an employee retires, which will simultaneously create an increase in withdrawals to pay those retirees.

So Canada post's plan is essentially, well we made this big mess and we're gonna kinda just leave it be, not try to fix it and maybe it won't be as bad as we think, good luck taxpayers hope it works out for you. But don't worry at least we'll not be making our new plan cost you a dime, and the savings we'll make on contributions for this new plan, well we could put those towards stabilizing the old broken plan since we played a role in creating the mess it is, but that just doesn't have the same appeal as higher profit quarters, and since we don't have to put it in that plan, I guess we'll just take the higher profits. Better luck next time tax payers!

Ok so we the taxpayers get screwed, at least those postal workers get what was promised to them right? Wait a minute here comes a politician seeking reelection and he is the one who will make the decision as to whether or not the government bails out the postal workers pension. He thinks to himself, I should bail out these <90k postal employees so that they vote for me, wait a minute the other 35M Canadians will be pissed that I spent billions of their tax dollars and they won't vote for me! I can't have that, what should I do to get those votes? Wait I've got it, I'll tell the 35M taxpayers that I'm gonna save them billions of their tax dollars by not bailing them out, I mean sure those postal retirees won't vote for me but at least I'll still be re-elected!

I'm not trying to twist anything, the fact that the negotiations have gotten to this point does not prove or validate anything EITHER side is saying about their positions, all it proves is they have BOTH failed to come to terms and are now looking to at the (likely)possibility of a labour disruption. All we really know for fact is that the pension has a deficit, the company wants solution A, and the union does not want to accept that. We also know that solution A will in no way contribute to either helping the deficit or preventing it from getting worse.

I'm not claiming Canada post is bargaining in bad faith simply because they served lockout notice, I just look at the events and facts presented and to me it appears they are trying to force the union to accept this solution any way they can because they want it. I'm not accusing them of fabricating the pension pension deficit, I'm in complete disagreement of their position to not look for any other solution even when there are clear issues with what they are proposing.

They can clearly see these problems, but they are still digging their heals in claiming it is the best and only option. You come off as a fairly knowlegable poster, do you really think there is zero possibility that Canada post is not at all trying to use the system to their advantage to get what they want instead of participating in meaningful negotiations? I may not agree with it, but at the same time I understand why they are doing it. And yes both sides can and have used the system to their advantage throughout history.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They'll get some attrition through lockout where people just decide to look for other jobs, and CP won't fill those positions.

Which will only worsen the pension deficit, so that will put a little bit of political pressure on them to resolve this. It isn't as if there is a politician who wants to have to make that bailout decision.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

They can clearly see these problems, but they are still digging their heals in claiming it is the best and only option. You come off as a fairly knowlegable poster, do you really think there is zero possibility that Canada post is not at all trying to use the system to their advantage to get what they want instead of participating in meaningful negotiations? I may not agree with it, but at the same time I understand why they are doing it. And yes both sides can and have used the system to their advantage throughout history.

Of course Canada Post is trying to advantage itself. Because, as I have noted numerous times now, Canada Post has numerous examples of defined benefit pension plans crushing companies and communities. It is to Canada Post's advantage to not go down that same path. That is why it is switching, and why it is trying to force CUPW to do the same.

And to respond to one of your paragraphs that I clipped - you are right that the switch likely will not spare the taxpayers from having to bail out a deficit on the existing plan. What the change will do, however, is protect taxpayers from having to bail out future plan members.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Of course Canada Post is trying to advantage itself. Because, as I have noted numerous times now, Canada Post has numerous examples of defined benefit pension plans crushing companies and communities. It is to Canada Post's advantage to not go down that same path. That is why it is switching, and why it is trying to force CUPW to do the same.

And to respond to one of your paragraphs that I clipped - you are right that the switch likely will not spare the taxpayers from having to bail out a deficit on the existing plan. What the change will do, however, is protect taxpayers from having to bail out future plan members.

Yes it will protect taxpayers from any potential liability on the new plan, I mentioned that in my post. The problem has to do with who the new plan will not protect from the deficit and how.

Hopefully this explains what I mean:

Introducing the new plan will, as I've mentioned, create a two tier system which has the potential to negatively impact the old pension plan members by not only allowing it to potentially bankrupt itself/be at the mercy of a bail out decision, but also by having its defined benefit be altered in future negotiations without its members approval as they lose the voting majority. So the union takes a risk, the tax payers take a risk although how much is undetermined, and Canada post assumes zero risk.

The new plan will also not put any measures in place to address or stabilize the old plan, the deficit could grow, shrink if it grows the funds could go bankrupt, so again the union takes a risk, the tax payers take a risk, and Canada post assumes zero risk.

Do you see the who is coming out ahead no matter what scenario plays itself out? Canada post will be washing their hands of the mess they played an equal part in creating and assume no responsibility for trying to fix it long term and protect both its employees and the tax payers from having to handle the fallout. That is what I feel they are after, they don't care if tax payers or there members suffer, they are just looking to make sure they don't suffer.

[Resolute 14]

Canada Post may be a Crown Corp, but when you say taxpayers take the risk and not Canada Post, that is only a half truth. We are on the hook if nothing changes and the problem only gets worse. So Canada Posts's loss is our loss, but so too is Canada Post's gain our gain. It is not a three way scenario like you would like to create.

Also, your final sentence applies just as strongly to the union. They don't care if tax payers suffer, so long as they don't.


In terms of being at the mercy of future politics, I'm not so sure. If Locke is still reading this thread, he might be able to explain some of the financial details and responsibilities. However, I do know that when Chretien raided the pension surpluses in the 90s, several unions sued about it. The SCoC ruled that the government had the right to that because its actions did not deny the plan members anything they were promised. The corollary to that is that if Canada Post/the government were to take a step to try and deny that pension, the courts would slap down the government. I think it is extremely safe to say that the existing plan members are safe.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Canada Post may be a Crown Corp, but when you say taxpayers take the risk and not Canada Post, that is only a half truth. We are on the hook if nothing changes and the problem only gets worse. So Canada Posts's loss is our loss, but so too is Canada Post's gain our gain. It is not a three way scenario like you would like to create.

Also, your final sentence applies just as strongly to the union. They don't care if tax payers suffer, so long as they don't.


In terms of being at the mercy of future politics, I'm not so sure. If Locke is still reading this thread, he might be able to explain some of the financial details and responsibilities. However, I do know that when Chretien raided the pension surpluses in the 90s, several unions sued about it. The SCoC ruled that the government had the right to that because its actions did not deny the plan members anything they were promised. The corollary to that is that if Canada Post/the government were to take a step to try and deny that pension, the courts would slap down the government. I think it is extremely safe to say that the existing plan members are safe.

There is nothing that guarantees the taxpayers will be forced to bailout the pension plan if it cannot cover its liabilities, I think you can agree with that statement. Yes there would likely be a court hearing on the matter, but to assume that a legal precedent has been set because another case from what will at that time have been potentially a half century prior and a different situation entirely that just so happened to involve pension funds is a pretty big reach in my opinion. If a legal expert tells me differently or if there are other such precedents that have been set I'll reconsider my opinion.

Yes the union clearly and rightfully so has their members interests as their top priority, but I haven't seen anything reported that they have come forward with a proposal that puts only Canada post and the taxpayers at risk while they absolve themselves from the issue all together. Do you really think they don't care if the deficit doesn't get fixed and are assuming that they will get a guaranteed bailout one way or another? Each postal worker has more at risk than any tax payer or Canada post in this issue.

[Resolute 14]

Yes, I really think they don't care about the deficit and whether or not it gets fixed. As is so often the case with unions, they don't see that as their problem. Until forced.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, I really think they don't care about the deficit and whether or not it gets fixed. As is so often the case with unions, they don't see that as their problem. Until forced.

You're of the opinion that a group of workers who's pension plan has a $6billion dollar deficit don't care whether or not it gets fixed? That they also it as not their problem?

You do realize that your post translates to: I really think they don't care about whether or not they have an income after they stop working and they don't care about looking for ways to ensure they do or at least have a better chance to have one. As is often the case with unions, their members don't see potentially losing 10's of thousands of dollars that they have invested their earnings throughout their entire career for as their problem. Until forced?

If that were the case why would they risk getting locked out over this in the first place? They're not being forced to care, by locking them out instead of working on a plan that works for both sides they are effectively being told that the company doesn't care whether they care or not about their at risk retirement savings.

[PowerPlayoffs06]

So this'll probably get lost in the union debate but what happens if a person did have a parcel on the way and the lock out/strike finally starts? Are they hooped and it just sits in a warehouse for months until whenever they resolve things?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

So this'll probably get lost in the union debate but what happens if a person did have a parcel on the way and the lock out/strike finally starts? Are they hooped and it just sits in a warehouse for months until whenever they resolve things?

That's the likely outcome, although I'm not sure whether or not Canada Post has plans try and maintain operations during the lockout

[iggy_oi]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...service=mobile

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You're of the opinion that a group of workers who's pension plan has a $6billion dollar deficit don't care whether or not it gets fixed? That they also it as not their problem?

I am of the opinion that to CUPW, the 'fix' is just to have taxpayers cover any deficits, yes.

You do realize that your post translates to: I really think they don't care about whether or not they have an income after they stop working and they don't care about looking for ways to ensure they do or at least have a better chance to have one. As is often the case with unions, their members don't see potentially losing 10's of thousands of dollars that they have invested their earnings throughout their entire career for as their problem. Until forced?

No, that is not what my post translates to. Because, again I think they are just fine with having taxpayers cover it.

If that were the case why would they risk getting locked out over this in the first place? They're not being forced to care, by locking them out instead of working on a plan that works for both sides they are effectively being told that the company doesn't care whether they care or not about their at risk retirement savings.

They are going to risk being locked out because they aren't willing to make the same change CP's other unions have.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am of the opinion that to CUPW, the 'fix' is just to have taxpayers cover any deficits, yes.



No, that is not what my post translates to. Because, again I think they are just fine with having taxpayers cover it.



They are going to risk being locked out because they aren't willing to make the same change CP's other unions have.

When you say the CUPW, do you mean the leadership or the members? Or both?

In either case do you really think they are operating under the assumption that they are guaranteed their pension no matter what just because they are a crown corporation? No pension is guaranteed, even one with a defined contribution. This is a fact. Mismanagement of any pension can put that plan's members at risk. I'm not saying the government would not look at bailing them out, but let's say they decide to bail them out only partially instead of fully, this would have a massive impact on a persons retirement. These workers know this, and so does their leadership, and they are there to look out for their members best interest, which is why they will not endorse a deal that leaves their current members at risk so that Canada post can save money(their contributions will be cheaper) on a new plan for new hires who are not even members at the moment.

They are risking lockout because they do not agree with Canada post's solution and want a different one. At this stage in the game Canada post has only one interest in changing the current plan, and that is their own financial gain. Whether they keep the plan or change it to the new one, the only difference it makes for Canada post is that they will save money on their annual contributions, that is all. With or without the plan change, the current deficit is of no concern to them, their employees will either lose their pension or taxpayers will bail them out. Canada post loses nothing either way, the only potential financial loss to them would be continuing to pay the same currently higher contributions if the old plan remains.

They have no reason to be concerned about the taxpayers as they are not liable for balancing their pension plan. Being a crown corporation does equate being a publicly funded corporation, they operate independently under their own their own revenue. Canada post knows this and so does the CUPW.

[Dion]

RUSSELL WANGERSKY: Return to sender; cutting ties with Canada Post

I’ve always loved getting mail. I’m just not going to send any of it anymore.
And I’m surprised Canada Post doesn’t realize that it is pricing — and well, servicing — itself out of business.

I’ve always been slow at adapting to new things, but rather than suffer through the latest mail mess, I’ve finally gone 100 per cent electronic for Eastern Passages bill payments. Faster, cheaper, simpler.

Service has also been an issue. I’m not sure whether it’s Canada Post or a painfully slow letter opener at my Visa provider, but at least twice in the last year, my credit card payment — sent six business days or more ahead of time from St. John’s to Toronto — has failed to make it to Visa before they tacked on interest charges for late payment.

If you can’t get a letter halfway across the country with six days of lead time, you’re not earning your dollar as a postal service.

Meanwhile, my community mailbox fills up with unaddressed ad mail I neither want nor can stop, all of it coming from advertisers who somehow think they’re helping their businesses. It’s bad enough when I get one advertising letter from Bell offering service discounts. When I get another for a nonexistent apartment they seem to think I have at my address, I begin to wonder how they could ever claim to understand my needs.

And understanding my needs — that’s exactly what Canada Post has failed to do.
If they did, I probably would have limped along sticking preglued stamps to envelopes, filling out cheques to put inside, for the next decade or so.

Congratulations, Canada Post, you did what many could not — you taught this old dog a new trick. And that’s really something. There are early adapters, and then there’s me. My kids tell me they know a new social media fad is dead in the water the second I admit I’ve joined up.

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion...-Canada-Post/1

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

RUSSELL WANGERSKY: Return to sender; cutting ties with Canada Post







http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion...-Canada-Post/1

This isn't meant to come off as judgement on anything he said, but I'm just wondering if anyone else had this image in their heads while reading that article?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yes it will protect taxpayers from any potential liability on the new plan, I mentioned that in my post. The problem has to do with who the new plan will not protect from the deficit and how.

Hopefully this explains what I mean:

Introducing the new plan will, as I've mentioned, create a two tier system which has the potential to negatively impact the old pension plan members by not only allowing it to potentially bankrupt itself/be at the mercy of a bail out decision, but also by having its defined benefit be altered in future negotiations without its members approval as they lose the voting majority. So the union takes a risk, the tax payers take a risk although how much is undetermined, and Canada post assumes zero risk.

The new plan will also not put any measures in place to address or stabilize the old plan, the deficit could grow, shrink if it grows the funds could go bankrupt, so again the union takes a risk, the tax payers take a risk, and Canada post assumes zero risk.

Do you see the who is coming out ahead no matter what scenario plays itself out? Canada post will be washing their hands of the mess they played an equal part in creating and assume no responsibility for trying to fix it long term and protect both its employees and the tax payers from having to handle the fallout. That is what I feel they are after, they don't care if tax payers or there members suffer, they are just looking to make sure they don't suffer.

1. This is incorrect. The Government has entered into a contract with a group of workers to provide a Defined Benefit. By nature a defined benefit is....a benefit...that is defined. You get what was promised and the deal cannot be changed retro-actively.

When its with a company if theres no money there then theres a process, but this is the Government, they cant welch on the deal. That money will come from somewhere, it has to.

2. Again, correct and incorrect. The lack of any kind of failsafes or guarantees in regards to the Old Pension Plan arent omitted by ignorance or lack of foresight, they're omitted due to lack of need. That plan is going to get bailed out by taxpayers. Thats a thing thats going to happen. This isnt trying to 'screw' the Union or the employees, this is triage. Stem the bleeding, this far no farther.

3. Yeah...who is coming out ahead? Current Postal Workers. They're going to be forced to accept the two-tiered pension system because the secret on Government-backed and Guaranteed Defined Benefit Pensions is out. They're untenable and unsustainable. Current Postal Workers are going to get paid, they're going to get their cushy pension and they're going to be damned near unfireable and they're going to be given incentives (read: money) to accept, and in exchange they're going to sell out their brother future Postal Workers because: "Screw those guys I dont know so long as I get mine!"

4. Yeah, read that last sentence again. No one is doing any of this out of altruism.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Canada Post may be a Crown Corp, but when you say taxpayers take the risk and not Canada Post, that is only a half truth. We are on the hook if nothing changes and the problem only gets worse. So Canada Posts's loss is our loss, but so too is Canada Post's gain our gain. It is not a three way scenario like you would like to create.

Also, your final sentence applies just as strongly to the union. They don't care if tax payers suffer, so long as they don't.

In terms of being at the mercy of future politics, I'm not so sure. If Locke is still reading this thread, he might be able to explain some of the financial details and responsibilities. However, I do know that when Chretien raided the pension surpluses in the 90s, several unions sued about it. The SCoC ruled that the government had the right to that because its actions did not deny the plan members anything they were promised. The corollary to that is that if Canada Post/the government were to take a step to try and deny that pension, the courts would slap down the government. I think it is extremely safe to say that the existing plan members are safe.

There is absolutely no question about it. As I explained before:

A Defined Benefit is....a Benefit...that is Defined.

It is a Government promise, any argument that Postal Workers who retire and see an underfunded pension fund are going to be thrown out onto the street is ridiculous and disingenuous. Any and all shortfalls will be covered.

This is the Crux of the whole problem.

A retirement plan is typically: personal contributions + employer matching (if there is any) + growth over time = retirement savings.

The issue with DB plans is that you are guaranteed a sum based on established criteria (typically average salary of 'x' number of final years in perpetuity) whether that prior equation justifies it or can afford it or not. In a DB plan a third party has agreed to cough up any difference.

A Defined Benefit Pension Plan assumes a great number of things, but at the end of the day it is a Guarantee of retirement income based on established criteria.

For instance, lets take one we can all love: Old Age Security.

The criteria: Canadian Citizen with 'X' number of years of residency that reaches the age of 65 who does not exceed an annual income of $71,592-$116K.

The Benefit: ~$6500/year (<- it changes from year to year)

The contribution? .....

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There is nothing that guarantees the taxpayers will be forced to bailout the pension plan if it cannot cover its liabilities, I think you can agree with that statement. Yes there would likely be a court hearing on the matter, but to assume that a legal precedent has been set because another case from what will at that time have been potentially a half century prior and a different situation entirely that just so happened to involve pension funds is a pretty big reach in my opinion. If a legal expert tells me differently or if there are other such precedents that have been set I'll reconsider my opinion.

Yes the union clearly and rightfully so has their members interests as their top priority, but I haven't seen anything reported that they have come forward with a proposal that puts only Canada post and the taxpayers at risk while they absolve themselves from the issue all together. Do you really think they don't care if the deficit doesn't get fixed and are assuming that they will get a guaranteed bailout one way or another? Each postal worker has more at risk than any tax payer or Canada post in this issue.

1. That assertion is patently false so no, I do not agree.

2. The Union absolutely has its current member's interest as their top priority and at the moment the Union is well poised to come out of this fiasco looking like Unicorns pooping rainbows and bleeding printer toner.

As I indicated earlier, current postal workers are going to make out like bandits, just so long as they dont have too much of a conscience over their 30 pieces of silver.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You're of the opinion that a group of workers who's pension plan has a $6billion dollar deficit don't care whether or not it gets fixed? That they also it as not their problem?

You do realize that your post translates to: I really think they don't care about whether or not they have an income after they stop working and they don't care about looking for ways to ensure they do or at least have a better chance to have one. As is often the case with unions, their members don't see potentially losing 10's of thousands of dollars that they have invested their earnings throughout their entire career for as their problem. Until forced?

If that were the case why would they risk getting locked out over this in the first place? They're not being forced to care, by locking them out instead of working on a plan that works for both sides they are effectively being told that the company doesn't care whether they care or not about their at risk retirement savings.

I cant even specifically point out certain parts of this one.

Of course they feel it isnt their problem, the Government literally cannot not pay the agreed pensions.

Finally, if the Unions had any sense they'd take the deal that their current members are more or less perfectly happy with.

So....why dont they? Especially if they have their current members' interest at the forefront of their priorities?

Because right now Postal Workers are the weakest link and everyone knows it.

This is just the first Domino to fall. The CUPW will be taking heat from every other Union that represents Government workers with Defined Benefit plans to fight this tooth and nail and not set a precedent. If the CUPW caves to that pressure they will be doing so at pretty much exactly what Resolute has been saying, conflicts of union representation.

"We the CP brothers cant in good conscience screw our brothers in various other branches of Government work."

And those brothers will be collecting full salary and benefits while their CP brothers walk the picket line for peanuts. For the cause! Once more unto the breach brothers!

Like I alluded to earlier, the secret is out, these Defined Benefit Pension plans are killer and have to be eliminated and as I have been saying for years the best way to do it is to phase them out over time so nobody gets totally screwed.