350 Safeway workers locked out at Edmonton ice cream plant and warehouse

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by jammies

Note that this is a LOCKOUT, not a strike, so it is the company who is forcing the workers onto the picket lines.

To-may-to, to-mah-to in this case. According to the letter that Dion posted, the union presented Safeway with notice of strike action after the vote failed. Safeway simply told them not to bother.

And yeah, I can totally see where working an extra half hour a day is totally worth giving up 14% in the middle of a recession. Sometimes when you are getting what is otherwise a good deal, you have to accept the situation is what it is and make a very small sacrifice.

[Dion]

EDMONTON — One-hundred and three replacement workers began their first day on the job Tuesday at striking Safeway facilities in Edmonton.

They crossed the picket lines to make $18.41/hour working the jobs of 350 city Safeway employees who went on strike Monday. Safeway has hired 162 workers so far, many of whom are in training.

“Hiring is very brisk,” Safeway spokeswoman Betty Kellsey said Tuesday. “There’s a lot of interest in full-time work at 40 hours a week for $18.41 an hour.”

Kellsey said there are no talks scheduled. Safeway stands by an Aug. 26 settlement between company and union negotiators that more than 70 per cent of members rejected, despite the settlement’s support from union leaders. The settlement promised a $2.65 raise over three years, retroactive pay, improvement to pension contributions and premiums for night shifts and people who work in refrigerated conditions.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...314/story.html

[CMPunk]

Hahah "Hiring is brisk" ya for $18 and hour, I bet it is

[Kjesse]

So far, this demonstrates a major miscalculation by the union members as to their bargaining position given the prevailing economic conditions.

The better move if they didn't like the 3 year deal would have been a 1 or 2 year contract with a smaller increase with the hope the labour market improves, which would present them with more opportunity at that time.

I just don't see the unioned workers having any leverage here.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

Hahah "Hiring is brisk" ya for $18 and hour, I bet it is

If it's anything like the last Safeway strike in 1997, those replacement workers could have some steady employment for quite awhile.

Someone should tell the picketers they haven't got a hope in hell of winning this strike.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Dion

If it's anything like the last Safeway strike in 1997, those replacement workers could have some steady employment for quite awhile.

Someone should tell the picketers they haven't got a hope in hell of winning this strike.

Well one positive out of this for the strikers is that they have already lost 10 lbs each.

[Dion]

Safeway workers who walked off the job Monday are bracing for a long strike, union leader Doug O'Halloran said Wednesday.

"We've had long strikes with Safeway before and I'm anticipating another one this time," said O'Halloran, who recalled a 11-week strike in Alberta in 1997 and a five-month strike in California four years ago.

"It is very difficult, but we pay pretty good strike pay, so we are able to keep the wolf away from the door," he said. Workers earn $8 an hour for the first three weeks and $10 an hour thereafter.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...958/story.html

Pretty good strike pay???

Guess O'Halloran didn't learn his lesson from the 97 strike. Workers went back to work as strike pay wasn't paying the bills.

[metallicat]

How long can the company legally keep the workers locked out? They should do it as long as possible, permanently perhaps, and just keep the replacements going forever. There's likely some legislation against this, but I have no idea what the laws are.

[Resolute 14]

The company can lock the workers out until they agree to a contract.

As it is, with the positions mostly being filled, the union risks having Safeway tear up the current offer and propose the union workers get less. It doesn't seem like this is going to hurt the company any, so obviously they gave too much in negotiations.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

How long can the company legally keep the workers locked out? They should do it as long as possible, permanently perhaps, and just keep the replacements going forever. There's likely some legislation against this, but I have no idea what the laws are.

The company can wait it out for as ong as it takes. They have deeper pockets than both the employees or the union. There was a strike in Thunderbay Ont some years ago where Safeway closed all it stores leaving the employees to sing solidarity forever on the unemployment line

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by Dion

The company can wait it out for as ong as it takes. They have deeper pockets than both the employees or the union. There was a strike in Thunderbay Ont some years ago where Safeway closed all it stores leaving the employees to sing solidarity forever on the unemployment line

So the stores never reopened? Yikes.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

To-may-to, to-mah-to in this case. According to the letter that Dion posted, the union presented Safeway with notice of strike action after the vote failed. Safeway simply told them not to bother.

Well, there seems a vast difference to me between Safeway saying "We think our offer is fair, but if the union disagrees and wants to strike then that is their prerogative" and "You're going to strke? No, we're locking you out!" The latter is quite a bit more confrontational, which matters in deciding who is ultimately at fault in the work stoppage.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And yeah, I can totally see where working an extra half hour a day is totally worth giving up 14% in the middle of a recession. Sometimes when you are getting what is otherwise a good deal, you have to accept the situation is what it is and make a very small sacrifice.

That's your point of view, and I agree that it seems to be a good deal, but obviously the people working there don't, so there must be something to it. After all, the union leadership recommended the deal, so it's not like it was the union guys taking a hard stance, it was the workers not liking what they saw. Going on the basis of what is seen in the media isn't telling us the whole story, obviously, yet the reflex action of almost everyone is "Stupid unions! Fire them all!", which is what I object to: it's an argument based on ideology alone, which is never good.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jammies

Well, there seems a vast difference to me between Safeway saying "We think our offer is fair, but if the union disagrees and wants to strike then that is their prerogative" and "You're going to strke? No, we're locking you out!" The latter is quite a bit more confrontational, which matters in deciding who is ultimately at fault in the work stoppage.

It's not meant to be confrontational. Safeway was just protecting it's best interests in regards to rotating strikes the union would surely have done.

Telling your employer you're going on strike isn't confrontational?

That's your point of view, and I agree that it seems to be a good deal, but obviously the people working there don't, so there must be something to it. After all, the union leadership recommended the deal, so it's not like it was the union guys taking a hard stance, it was the workers not liking what they saw. Going on the basis of what is seen in the media isn't telling us the whole story, obviously, yet the reflex action of almost everyone is "Stupid unions! Fire them all!", which is what I object to: it's an argument based on ideology alone, which is never good.

I spent 18 years working for Safeway and have a good idea of what was going through the workers minds. To put it bluntly there is no trust between the workers and Safeway. The moral is low and the employees think the company is out to screw them anyway they can. Cripes those on the negotiating comittee were verbaly abused by members becuase they reccommended they settle.

Reality is going to bite hard on these strikers. They can't win this strike when the employer is allowed to use replacement workers.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Dion

It's not meant to be confrontational. Safeway was just protecting it's best interests in regards to rotating strikes the union would surely have done.

Pre-emptively locking them out is confrontational, no matter what it's "meant" to be. Reacting to the actuality of rotating strikes is even confrontational - it's not necessarily a bad thing, but when you resort to confrontation is a telling indicator of how you see the relationship between company and union. Being the first to act shows you aren't afraid to escalate, but also may indicate you wanted escalation all along.

Originally Posted by Dion

Telling your employer you're going on strike isn't confrontational?

Where did I say it wasn't? The union membership is definitely interested in a battle as well, but that doesn't mean the company is in the right. It just means *both* sides feel they are in the right, and both are willing to risk a fight. I'm just not a fan of automatically assuming that when a company and a union decide on confrontation, that the company is automatically the unjust victim of the evil, socialist union.

Originally Posted by Dion

I spent 18 years working for Safeway and have a good idea of what was going through the workers minds. To put it bluntly there is no trust between the workers and Safeway.

Do you think that this lack of trust is justified? If so, what caused it?

Originally Posted by Dion

Reality is going to bite hard on these strikers. They can't win this strike when the employer is allowed to use replacement workers.

I also think they are going to lose, mostly because - as can be seen from the comments here - the public is not going to sympathize with the union and there is going to be little to no pressure on the company to settle. Which is another reason why I'm suspicious of Safeway's motives in this matter: picking a fight you know you can win is a common tactic used to rid yourself of a balky union, so when management piously speaks of having no choice but to use a lockout, that sounds like PR and not truth to me.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by jammies

Where did I say it wasn't? The union membership is definitely interested in a battle as well, but that doesn't mean the company is in the right. It just means *both* sides feel they are in the right, and both are willing to risk a fight. I'm just not a fan of automatically assuming that when a company and a union decide on confrontation, that the company is automatically the unjust victim of the evil, socialist union.

Nothing automatic about this one.

But then, the union members are in what appears to be an unwinnable fight. The only real question here is how long will the members accept making 40% of what they could be by doing their jobs before people start crossing.

They are screwing themselves, and they deserve it.

[Bertuzzied]

I'm going to go and buy 12 litres of safeway ice cream. screw you strikers.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jammies

Pre-emptively locking them out is confrontational, no matter what it's "meant" to be. Reacting to the actuality of rotating strikes is even confrontational - it's not necessarily a bad thing, but when you resort to confrontation is a telling indicator of how you see the relationship between company and union. Being the first to act shows you aren't afraid to escalate, but also may indicate you wanted escalation all along.

The realtionship was good based on the offer that was presented and the fact the union recommended the members accept. Everything after that was forced by the employees creating this supposed anomosity we read in the media. If O'Halloran could convince saner heads to think properly this strike would be over in a heart beat.

I also highly doubt Safeway wanted an escalation of things. Any disruption to thier business is not a good thing - not to mentioin thier customers. Orders not arriving on time means empty shelves and disgruntled customers. Safeway doesn't want to risk losing customers in such a competitive enviroment. Having your shopper going elsewhere for stuff you don't have could lead to losing that customer all together.

Where did I say it wasn't? The union membership is definitely interested in a battle as well, but that doesn't mean the company is in the right. It just means *both* sides feel they are in the right, and both are willing to risk a fight. I'm just not a fan of automatically assuming that when a company and a union decide on confrontation, that the company is automatically the unjust victim of the evil, socialist union.

The union is in this battle reluctantly because the employees forced the hands of the president. O'Halloran didn't want this battle and warned the employees in that letter I posted that he fears the distributuin center could be shut down if the strike goes on long enough. I'm no fan of this guy but in this case I think he's right.

Everything you hear in the media from the union is merely PR to support the employees. That letter I posted tells a much different story.

Do you think that this lack of trust is justified? If so, what caused it?

I don't think it is. The union creates a lot of the anomosity by trying to pit the employees against the company. The strike vote in 1997 was a kin to a KKK rally. Bad mouth the company as much as you can to whip your members into a frenzy before they vote. The kicker is the union would never allow Safeway to have a meeting or to communicate by letter to explain thier side of the story. Alway thought that was odd and what did the union have to fear.

I also think they are going to lose, mostly because - as can be seen from the comments here - the public is not going to sympathize with the union and there is going to be little to no pressure on the company to settle. Which is another reason why I'm suspicious of Safeway's motives in this matter: picking a fight you know you can win is a common tactic used to rid yourself of a balky union, so when management piously speaks of having no choice but to use a lockout, that sounds like PR and not truth to me.

No pressure to settle by Safeway?

Replacement workers and management are not going to do the same job as those employees on the picket line. Not to mention stores around the province will be shorthanded while managers are working in the distribution center. Stalling the trucks for 5 minutes before they get in is going to cause some disruption too. During the 1997 strike in Calgary things weren't done as efficently and the company suffered for it. My store manager at the time told me as much.

Safeway didn't pick this fight, the employees did. The offer was a generious one that even the union pres said was a good deal. That in it self should tell you something. No body wants a strike and will avoid it at all costs.

If it's a comon tactic to get rid of a union why didn't they do it 1997 when they had the opportunity? A 11 week strike would have beena perfect oportunity.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Dion

The realtionship was good based on the offer that was presented and the fact the union recommended the members accept. Everything after that was forced by the employees creating this supposed anomosity we read in the media. If O'Halloran could convince saner heads to think properly this strike would be over in a heart beat.

That still doesn't explain why the offer got rejected. Something is missing here; a few hotheads don't win a vote by themselves. That's why I don't trust what the media is reporting or the motives of anyone involved - on the surface it seems like these workers are acting completely irrationally, and that is almost never the case.

Originally Posted by Dion

I also highly doubt Safeway wanted an escalation of things. Any disruption to thier business is not a good thing - not to mentioin thier customers. Orders not arriving on time means empty shelves and disgruntled customers. Safeway doesn't want to risk losing customers in such a competitive enviroment. Having your shopper going elsewhere for stuff you don't have could lead to losing that customer all together.

If they didn't want an escalation, why not renegotiate? Or, for that matter, cave in? Or let the union go on their rotating strike? Not "wanting" to escalate is on about the same level as my not "wanting" to have to work for a living - in both cases, there's a reason why the action doesn't seem to suit the purported attitude.

Originally Posted by Dion

Everything you hear in the media from the union is merely PR to support the employees. That letter I posted tells a much different story.

Yah of course it's PR. You have two sides telling a story and neither of them makes much sense, which to me means we're not getting the real reasons behind the strike or behind the company's offer. Is the 40 hour work week THAT important to the company that they won't budge on it? How are they running their operations now if it is that critical? Why did the union leaders agree to a deal that was so decisively rejected by the rank and file? Why is the entire corporate culture so apparently dysfunctional?

Anyway, this has little to do with my original point, which was more of an observation that when it comes to union-company conflict, you can almost guarantee there will be 50% posters saying something on the order of "fire those union bums and bring on the scabs", 20% saying "unskilled labour should be helots living in squalor and falling all over themselves to compete for places in the workhouse", and another 20% saying "My dad's friend's sister's son was in a union, and they cut off the last three inches of his willy to make him conform to the standard union penis length. True story."

(Although to be fair, this thread hadn't gotten all the way there yet. But I'm not going to let the facts get in the way of my ranting.)

[LockedOut]

Reading the linked article it looks like the workers are worried about layoffs if the work week goes from 37 hours to 40 hours. I guess if this happened if 12 or 13 people worked 3 hours more per week that's 1 less person they would need. There may also be something with overtime pay now starting after 40 hours of work instead of 37 hours. Workers may have been working 40+ hours per week anyways but with the new agreement they would have 3 hours of OT revert to 3 hours of regular pay. This is just speculation on my part.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jammies

That still doesn't explain why the offer got rejected. Something is missing here; a few hotheads don't win a vote by themselves. That's why I don't trust what the media is reporting or the motives of anyone involved - on the surface it seems like these workers are acting completely irrationally, and that is almost never the case

In an article I posted some members interviewed on the picket line felt all the issues weren't properly addressed. Which leads to the question of why elect a president who will act on your behalf and give his recommendations if you're not going to trust him.

If they didn't want an escalation, why not renegotiate? Or, for that matter, cave in? Or let the union go on their rotating strike? Not "wanting" to escalate is on about the same level as my not "wanting" to have to work for a living - in both cases, there's a reason why the action doesn't seem to suit the purported attitude.

How do you renegotiate when the union gives you notice they are going to strike?

Why didn't the union say we'll keep negotiating and rescind notice of strike action?

Remember the union was the first to start the ball rolling. I'm sure the company was quite willing to continue negotiations until the union forced thier hands with that strike notice.

A rotating strike would do more damage than what the union is doing now. The company had every right to protect it's interests in view of the unions intentions.

As for caving in I think they already did with that wage offer to the employees. It was a huge concession on the part of the company considering the economic times.

Yah of course it's PR. You have two sides telling a story and neither of them makes much sense, which to me means we're not getting the real reasons behind the strike or behind the company's offer. Is the 40 hour work week THAT important to the company that they won't budge on it? How are they running their operations now if it is that critical?

After reading the Presidents message to the employees i'm inclined to believe what the company is saying.

And how is the company not making any sense? It's pretty clear to me what they're doing and what the employees were offered. The articles I posted outlines that.

The 40 hour thing was something the employees didn't want to give up. The attitude is once you give it you'll never get it back. Then there's the irrational fear that the company is out to screw them. It's business descion by the company to want them to work 3 more hours a week but the employees refuse to see it that way.

As for the company and the 40 hour work week i'll bet it has something to do with not having to hire more employees as the volume of business increases. Then there's the added bonus of not having to replace someone when they quit or retire.

Why did the union leaders agree to a deal that was so decisively rejected by the rank and file? Why is the entire corporate culture so apparently dysfunctional?

I suspect they looked all the facts with a rational mind. Tough economic times and an excellent wage offer made it a no brainer.

Then you have the members verbally abusing those on the negotiating comittee - something I never saw when working for Safeway. Doesn't sound to me the members were thinking rationaly when they voted. Clearly there was no trust there.