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

[Dion]

Originally Posted by 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.

To me that's fear mongering. The union obvioulsy didn't see that as an issue or they wouldn't have recommended the deal to the members.

[Rathji]

Having worked in a union for most of my adult life, voting to go on strike on more than one occasion and actually gone on strike once (and crossed). I can say that for that kind of money, there is something that isn't coming out here. A reason these people are upset with management that goes beyond 14%.

Also, that strike pay is crazy good. You can earn pretty much your entire wage every week. When my union went on strike, I think they earned 200 bucks a week.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Also, that strike pay is crazy good. You can earn pretty much your entire wage every week. When my union went on strike, I think they earned 200 bucks a week.

Those strikers were making $20 an hour. They'd need more than $200 a week to make up for lost wages

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Dion

Those strikers were making $20 an hour. They'd need more than $200 a week to make up for lost wages

20 bucks an hour at 37 hours is about 600 a week. 10 bucks an hour for 60 hours is 600 bucks an hour. Sure they need to 'work' aka sit there on there butts for 3 more hours a day, but it means they will meet there financial needs.

Compare that to what the strikers for at Cargill (in 1997), I think the top rate was about $15 for 40 hours a week, which is about $500, and instead taking home $215.

This puts the strikers in a much better position to bargain, whereas Cargill just had to sit on their butt and wait for peoples rent to come due.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Rathji

20 bucks an hour at 37 hours is about 600 a week. 10 bucks an hour for 60 hours is 600 bucks an hour. Sure they need to 'work' aka sit there on there butts for 3 more hours a day, but it means they will meet there financial needs.

Compare that to what the strikers for at Cargill (in 1997), I think the top rate was about $15 for 40 hours a week, which is about $500, and instead taking home $215.

This puts the strikers in a much better position to bargain, whereas Cargill just had to sit on their butt and wait for peoples rent to come due.

God points man!

The first 3 weeks of the strike they make only $8 an hour. They get $10 in the 4th.

Walking a picket line isn't easy. They don't get to sit on thier duffs all day, you have to be walking around with a picket sign or vest to block trucks coming in or to draw support from passing motorists. Not a fun or easy way of making money. In fact the days are very long and boring. Did it for a day in 97 and went out and found a temp job the next until the strike was over.

[burris78]

Originally Posted by Rathji

20 bucks an hour at 37 hours is about 600 a week. 10 bucks an hour for 60 hours is 600 bucks an hour. Sure they need to 'work' aka sit there on there butts for 3 more hours a day, but it means they will meet there financial needs.

First, 37 hrs @ $20/hr is more like $750 per week. Second, if you spread those 60 hours over the same 5-day period that they would have worked 37, you're looking at sitting on your butt for an extra 4.5 hours per day. That's equivalent to working more extra hours in one day of striking than the entire weekly increase in the contract.

Originally Posted by LockedOut

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.

I'm sure you're right. If the OT pay was 1.5 or 2 times the regular pay then it would be a big cost savings for the company to increase weekly hours from 37 to 40 hours. That would explain why the company is willing to shell out such a big raise during a recession. However, if that's the case, it would be greedy for the workers to go on strike over that since many people aren't working full time, let alone OT right now.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by jammies

PS - one of the big reasons I quit working at Bell was that they unilaterally raised our hours from 37.5 a week to 40. Some of us prefer more leisure to more money - I know it sounds crazy, but there it is.

People at Bell actually worked their full 37.5 hours? I know I never did.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Dion

God points man!

The first 3 weeks of the strike they make only $8 an hour. They get $10 in the 4th.

Walking a picket line isn't easy. They don't get to sit on thier duffs all day, you have to be walking around with a picket sign or vest to block trucks coming in or to draw support from passing motorists. Not a fun or easy way of making money. In fact the days are very long and boring. Did it for a day in 97 and went out and found a temp job the next until the strike was over.

I never said it would be easy, but it means a strike won't financially break them like it did in the strike I was a part of (read: ignored as I went to work as normal). I know lots of guys at Cargill who had a blast on the picket line, but they were not allowed to block trucks past the first day due to an injunction and I am pretty sure they were all drunk as skunks most of the time.

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by Dion

God points man!

The first 3 weeks of the strike they make only $8 an hour. They get $10 in the 4th.

Walking a picket line isn't easy. They don't get to sit on thier duffs all day, you have to be walking around with a picket sign or vest to block trucks coming in or to draw support from passing motorists. Not a fun or easy way of making money. In fact the days are very long and boring. Did it for a day in 97 and went out and found a temp job the next until the strike was over.

Your strike captain was a nazi, I got to sit around studying and playing cards all day for those 10 weeks.

[Ducay]

Stupid unions, this isn't the industrial revolution. Hurry up and make yourselves obsolete sooner.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Stupid unions, this isn't the industrial revolution. Hurry up and make yourselves obsolete sooner.

There are some industries where unions are most certainly needed, but I highly doubt the hard hitting ice cream manufacturing industry is one of them.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Byrns

Your strike captain was a nazi, I got to sit around studying and playing cards all day for those 10 weeks.

He may have been but I got another job during that strike and took a long vacation too boot

[Dion]

Striking workers from Safeway's Edmonton distribution centre, ice cream plant and frozen food warehouse voted Saturday afternoon to end their job action and accept a contract they rejected days earlier.

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 401 president Doug O'Halloran said union members voted 71 per cent in favour of returning to work at the warehouse and 63 per cent in favour of returning to work at the Lucerne ice cream facility.

That additional three hours of work per week--which company officials said is now the standard in their industry -- had been a contentious issue for many union members.

"When you lift 25,000 to 35,000 pounds a day, that's a lot of work," O'Halloran said. "You have to pick somewhere in the neighbourhood of 240 pieces to 400 pieces an hour."

O'Halloran said he believed workers initially rejected union leader-ship's advice to accept the deal out of frustration.

"I think they wanted to prove a point," O'Halloran said. "The issue was never money. The issue was over working the extra three hours."

O'Halloran said he was worried that, if the strike went on for a long time, the company might just shut down the Edmonton facilities and relocate.

"If you have a big impact and there's no where to go back to work, what have you proven?" he said.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/...893/story.html

"The workers today at 5:15 p.m. voted to go back to work," says O'Halloran. "I think it was a good decision, they were out for a week and I think they sent a strong message to the company. And I'm happy that we've been able to resolve this thing without too many problems and they'll be going back into work Sunday evening."

O'Halloran says the strike was not about money, rather the way the workers were being treated.

http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg...spx?ID=1139357

[HOOT]

Well congrats you wasted a weeks worth of pay just to prove a point...oh wait you didn't prove anything.

[BlackArcher101]

F'ing unions

[HeartsOfFire]

The 'strong message' bit is just rhetoric. You shouldn't expect them to say what REALLY went through their heads, something about a wake-up call.

I am a unionized Telecommunications Technician, and I walked a picket line for 5 months. I learned a great many things about my time there, and the greatest lesson of all was the value of my skills based on scarcity.

I listen to arguments both in favour and opposing the presence of unions, and I can say that extreme, unwavering support for or against unions is foolish. In the case of these Safeway/Lucerne workers, the lesson they should take away from this is that someone else is willing to do work that they collectively refused to do, therefore they should count themselves lucky that they're still employed. And if nearly half the employment base was replaced by temp workers on day 1, that just goes to show that their job is something that the average joe is willing to do.

That being said, like 'em or hate 'em, many of the benefits of gainful employment we take for granted exist because of unions. Mandatory minimum wages, 40 hour work weeks, mandatory paid vacations, and paid holidays are just a few things that the general population is entitled to thanks to the struggles of unions.

When my union was locked out by our employer, our greatest beef was with outsourcing work otherwise done by Canadians. We lost that fight and eventually settled to a substandard contract. Since then hundreds -- if not thousands -- of Canadian employees were packaged out, and now when you call to get phone/internet/TV installed, or have a tech support question, you're speaking to someone overseas. We tried to prevent that from happening, but thanks largely to the demonized attitudes towards unions specifically in Alberta, you now speak to a foreigner when you call for our company's services.

That being said, it also serves as a wake-up call to people here who work cushy jobs -- like call centres -- that somewhere out there, someone is willing to do the same job for a fraction of the pay and benefits that you currently do it for. A company would be foolish to continue to keep a $20 an hour agent employed when a $5 an hour is willing to do it. You may not get the same quality of productivity, but the benefits from cost savings far outweigh the poorer quality of work. So unless you can justify why you should be paid X to do a job when a company is only willing to pay Y, get comfy in the unemployment line.

Perhaps unions have gone too far in giving the average person an undeserved sense of entitlement. Perhaps there are some people who really ought to have a wake-up call and shown the reality that their employment is jeapordized the moment someone is willing to do the same job for less. I personally acknowledge that reality, but I do my best not to perpetuate it: I refuse to shop at Walmart. I wait in line for cashiers rather than use a self serve checkout. I get my gas pumped in the full serve lane. I buy my video games either at EB Games or at Blockbuster instead of using Amazon (especially now that there's no longer a price discount on Amazon for new games).

After everything is said and done, we're all just trying to get by. Unionized or not.

[Hemi-Cuda]

wow they sound like pansies. i used to work at FedEx loading/unloading vans and trailers 5 days a week, and the busier we were the happier everyone was because it meant more hours and more pay. they went on strike because of 3 measly hours? that's the kind of garbage that gives unions a bad name and no sympathy from the public