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

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by burnin_vernon

The 2011 losses were due to a lockout, not operations.

There was no loss in2012. The Conference Board of Canada (which Chopra sits on) predicted a huge loss, when, in fact, CP made $98 million.


2013 was CP's only loss due to operations in the last 19 years.

The 2015 Financial Statement shows a loss before tax of $110 million (net loss of $83 million) in 2012.

[burnin_vernon]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The 2015 Financial Statement shows a loss before tax of $110 million (net loss of $83 million) in 2012.

I can't seem to access your link. Was it referring to lettermail only?

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...wgnlvoz_ZgwDNA

[Zarley]

Home mail delivery is no longer an essential service. Hopefully this strike speeds up the privatization of the corporation.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

How is any of his relevant to the discussion?

You said they get to many sick days and ask for too much pension, so I'm asking how many they get, I'm assuming you know, otherwise you wouldn't have said they want too much.

And I asked for how much you get in those areas because it would be interesting to compare the figures. I mean if you get 5 sick days a year and they get 5, I'm curious as to why you believe they should be entitled to fewer?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why do construction labourers make so much money? They are easily replaceable. The reason is because those companies need this workers to make money, they don't make it without them. A lot of companies recognize this, but most don't. And society always seems to pick on fast food employees and consider them useless, fact of the matter is the macdonalds employee makes his company more money in 8 hours than the construction worker does.

because they go to school for 4 different sessions and apprentice thousands of hours to become extremely skilled at what they do? They are certainly NOT easily replaceable. You are clearly speaking to that of which you have no idea.

Building things correctly keeps the public safe and protects the consumer from purchasing poor to unsafe homes among other things....carrying freaking letters and coupons does not.

[Dion]

The Canada Post segment reported a loss before tax of $31 million for the second quarter as Transaction Mail volumes fell sharply. The loss was also driven by higher employee benefit expenses, partially offset by continued strong growth in the Parcels business.

The loss for the second quarter, ended July 4, 2015, compares to a profit before tax of $53 million for the second quarter of 2014. For the first two quarters of 2015, the Canada Post segment reported a loss before tax of $7 million compared to a profit before tax of $26 million for the same period in 2014.

In the first half of 2015, Transaction Mail volumes (letters, bills and statements) fell by 102 million pieces or 7.2 per cent1 compared to the first half of 2014. That rate of decline is higher than in the first six months of any year since mail volumes peaked in 2006. In the second quarter, volumes fell by 63 million pieces or 6.5 per cent compared to the same period a year ago. The ongoing volume erosion reflects Canadians’ changing needs for postal service, and is the rationale for initiatives contained in the Five-point Action Plan that will achieve substantial operational savings.

Significant volatility in employee benefit expenses continues to pose challenges. The cost of employee benefits for the Canada Post segment rose by $59 million in the second quarter and by $129 million in the first two quarters, compared to the same period a year ago. This is the result of a decrease in the discount rates used to calculate benefit plan costs in 2015, partially offset by strong pension returns in 2014. Employee benefit expenses are expected to remain higher throughout 2015 when compared to 2014.

https://www.canadapost.ca/web/en/blo...t=newsreleases

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by burnin_vernon

Now they want to cut the pension, take away lunches, reduce vacation pay, transfer employees with less than 10 years service anywhere in their province, and reduce physio benefits, among other things.

Ask anyone in the layoff thread if they'd be okay keeping their job, except they wouldn't get paid for the hour they're on lunch. That's what Canada Post is proposing. Taking away the paid portion of lunch. They're not proposing they take away a lunch break, because that's illegal.

There's very few companies in Canada that offer a DB pension anymore, most are DC. And I think anyone in O&G in the last year has seen their benefits get reduced.

I could copy and paste most of my comments from the last CP strike thread. But the fact that the union in this economy refuses to go to a DC pension and wants job security worked into a contract in a company that needs to continue to evolve or none of its employees will have work in a decade, is baffling.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

because they go to school for 4 different sessions and apprentice thousands of hours to become extremely skilled at what they do? They are certainly NOT easily replaceable. You are clearly speaking to that of which you have no idea.

Building things correctly keeps the public safe and protects the consumer from purchasing poor to unsafe homes among other things....carrying freaking letters and coupons does not.

Depends on his definition of construction labourer. If he's literally talking a labourer, push a broom around, move a few pallets and unload semis, well they don't get paid much at all, unless $18-25 an hour with little to no overtime is good. Tradesman on the other hand I'll agree that they make every penny they earn, especially guys working in the city. Sweat all day during the summer, freeze during the winter and rarely any overtime to boot.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Depends on his definition of construction labourer. If he's literally talking a labourer, push a broom around, move a few pallets and unload semis, well they don't get paid mulch at all, unless $18-25 an hour with little to no overtime is good. Tradesman on the other hand I'll agree that they make every penny they earn, especially guys working in the city. Sweat all day during the summer, freeze during the winter and rarely any overtime to boot.

Not going to disagree with that but those guys make up what....5% of the guys on a construction site?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Not going to disagree with that but those guys make up what....5% of the guys on a construction site?

Truthfully it's more than that plus these guys are there 100% of the time as other trades come and go. These guys usually work for the prime contractor and I'd guess 10-15%. That's not including non red seal trade labourers either (excavators and such).

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

because they go to school for 4 different sessions and apprentice thousands of hours to become extremely skilled at what they do? They are certainly NOT easily replaceable. You are clearly speaking to that of which you have no idea.

Building things correctly keeps the public safe and protects the consumer from purchasing poor to unsafe homes among other things....carrying freaking letters and coupons does not.

I think you are referring to carpenters, labourers are a different group.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Depends on his definition of construction labourer. If he's literally talking a labourer, push a broom around, move a few pallets and unload semis, well they don't get paid much at all, unless $18-25 an hour with little to no overtime is good. Tradesman on the other hand I'll agree that they make every penny they earn, especially guys working in the city. Sweat all day during the summer, freeze during the winter and rarely any overtime to boot.

Most construction labourers start at minimum $20/hour and it goes up from there.

Edit: also I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, construction labourers can be expected to work 12 hours a day to meet deadlines, lots of ot for them

[burnin_vernon]

Originally Posted by Dion

https://www.canadapost.ca/web/en/blo...t=newsreleases

Who cares what half of the year's numbers are when they finish with $130-odd million ahead? Of course they are going to highlight those numbers. The first half of the year has been CP's worst every year of their existence. The strength of the second half more than compensates for it, especially now with the massive increase in parcels.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Not going to disagree with that but those guys make up what....5% of the guys on a construction site?

Do you really think that for every 19 carpenters/plumbers/electricians on a construction site there is only 1 labourer helping all of them?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Do you really think that for every 19 carpenters/plumbers/electricians on a construction site there is only 1 labourer helping all of them?

Yes...unless we are talking about different things.

take a set of electricians or plumbers for example...they have a few journeymen, some 3rd years, some 2nd years and then 1st year/laborer types. The 1st years are the gofers for the rest of the bunch but only for that particular trade.

If you are talking about the GC guys walking around pushing brooms...then yeah they dont get paid much (in fact i know most places are starting them at 15-16 an hour now) but anyone can do that job for the most part and thats what the job pays when no sills are needed.

[iggy_oi]

I understand the economy is in rough shape, and people are probably frustrated or upset by the impact it's had on themselves or their friends or relatives. But I'll never understand this mob mentality of chastising a group of workers who are trying to not let themselves be bullied into lowering their quality of life because their employers see a convienent opportunity to do so. And when these workers are successful it actually has a positive impact on the economy which is good for everyone.

Do people in none union jobs who have it good ever wonder why they have it good? Because their employer is doing their best to compete with unionized wages. Go back to the turn of the last century, people made peanuts and worked 6 days/week with little to no overtime, what changed that? People who decided to take a stand, and fought and in some cases died for these rights that people take for granted. Whether you're a fan of unions or not, you owe them a lot for what you have. Think about that when you get to spend 2 consecutive days off with your family, or when you get hurt at work through no fault of your own and don't have to worry about making ends meet.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I understand the economy is in rough shape, and people are probably frustrated or upset by the impact it's had on themselves or their friends or relatives. But I'll never understand this mob mentality of chastising a group of workers who are trying to not let themselves be bullied into lowering their quality of life because their employers see a convienent opportunity to do so. And when these workers are successful it actually has a positive impact on the economy which is good for everyone.

As long as we're playing with rhetoric...

Burying the taxpayer under increasingly burdensome pension plans, as one example, is bad for everyone but the union employees seeking to bully their employer into retaining something that should have been axed years ago.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes...unless we are talking about different things.

take a set of electricians or plumbers for example...they have a few journeymen, some 3rd years, some 2nd years and then 1st year/laborer types. The 1st years are the gofers for the rest of the bunch but only for that particular trade.

If you are talking about the GC guys walking around pushing brooms...then yeah they dont get paid much (in fact i know most places are starting them at 15-16 an hour now) but anyone can do that job for the most part and thats what the job pays when no sills are needed.

We must be talking about different things because in a lot of cases a single tradesmen will be working with a number of "skilless" labourers.

Edit: to clarify I'm not talking about apprentices, I'm speaking straight up labourers who are just helpers and gain no work experience towards any kind of ticket

Let me ask you this, if companies should pay next to nothing for positions that require no skill, how do they fill those positions if nobody is able to work at minimum wage?

Whether you like it or not the fact of the matter is, companies that make enough money should compensate their employees with a decent living wage. That makes the employee a positive contributor to society. Should everyone follow the Walmart model and pay everyone the bare minimum just because they can? Or would you rather the company that can afford to pay that worker an amount they can live on so the rest of us don't have to pick up the slack by paying for their low income support, subsidized housing and a number of other program with our tax dollars?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I understand the economy is in rough shape, and people are probably frustrated or upset by the impact it's had on themselves or their friends or relatives. But I'll never understand this mob mentality of chastising a group of workers who are trying to not let themselves be bullied into lowering their quality of life because their employers see a convienent opportunity to do so. And when these workers are successful it actually has a positive impact on the economy which is good for everyone.

Do people in none union jobs who have it good ever wonder why they have it good? Because their employer is doing their best to compete with unionized wages. Go back to the turn of the last century, people made peanuts and worked 6 days/week with little to no overtime, what changed that? People who decided to take a stand, and fought and in some cases died for these rights that people take for granted. Whether you're a fan of unions or not, you owe them a lot for what you have. Think about that when you get to spend 2 consecutive days off with your family, or when you get hurt at work through no fault of your own and don't have to worry about making ends meet.

One of the biggest issues is that unions at public corporations causes everyone's (including yours and mine) taxes to go up.

If a private corporation had a union of workers who fought against their employers, I wouldn't have any issue with it. Right now, the corporation and the union are playing with my money. They have no skin in the game.

But at least the corporation tries to stay profitable and minimize their tax burden. The union doesn't care about that except to extract as much as possible for themselves.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As long as we're playing with rhetoric...

Burying the taxpayer under increasingly burdensome pension plans, as one example, is bad for everyone but the union employees seeking to bully their employer into retaining something that should have been axed years ago.

How much are they burdening them? I'm not saying it isn't happening, I've just never seen the numbers, in any case we shouldn't be holding the union responsible for this, the onus is on the people who gave them that deal without any consideration for any future complications. I wouldn't give up my retirement fund, which I likely gave up something to get in the first place, because of someone else's mistake.