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

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

Maybe they're people who have bills to pay and can't afford to be on the picket line. Strike pay doesn't come close to replacing wages lost.

That's very true, but sometimes short term pain is worth the long term gains and maintaining your current quality of life. Sometimes life situations force someone into a situation that they may need to do something like cross a picket line, if I was on strike and my coworker had some tragic personal circumstances completely out of their control that basically put them in a position where they needed to cross the line or they would be forced from their home, I would be going to every other member and asking if we can all pull together to help that worker, if that failed then I would accept the situation for what it was and hold nothing against that person. If someone crossed the line because they were simply not wanting to stand up and support us, and then expecting to get all the benefits afterwards, I would accept their choice but I would not have to agree with their actions.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Where did I say management wouldn't try to get retribution? I'm not saying they will or won't. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesnt. Management can do what they like, with or without a union, fortunately with a union you don't have to accept it when it starts to cross a line or infringes on your rights.

Sadly back to work agreements prevent retribution. All violence and other crap done on the picket lines are usually swept under the rug before an agreement is signed.

[iggy_oi]

Sorry to everyone waiting for responses to your questions, got a bit of a backlog here, I'll do my best to answer you all in turn

[4X4]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

But I like some of the Flyers, what I need is for the postie to sort out the crappy ones from the ones I like.

McDonalds and A&W coupons only, please!

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Obviously there's much worse things than a scab, but being a line crossing scab is like stabbing your fellow worker in the back. It's a greedy and selfish move.

Slashing their tires and other forms of violence and intimidation towards scabs makes picketers look pretty childish in the eyes of the general public. Unions say they don't approve of such actions but at the same time do nothing to prevent it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Jesus Christ. I don't think you know how collective bargaining works. By sticking together the group increases their leverage to get a fair deal. By crossing they're being selfish, full stop. They're not being "anti lemming". God what a stupid comment.

Obviously there's much worse things than a scab, but being a line crossing scab is like stabbing your fellow worker in the back. It's a greedy and selfish move.

Just curious, but have you been on strike? I haven't personally, but I know someone who was for a number of weeks and to support his family he was shovelling sidewalks for neighbours. Granted he didn't cross the line, but strike pay isn't good. Some people are going to cross eventually because they have no other option to pay the bills.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think CUPW is going to find out that their usual tactics of bluster and walking off of the job and then having the government step into the negotiations is going to fail.

With their pension 6 billion dollars in debt this is the battle ground that's going to make or break this union. Also with the damage mostly already being done with parcel posts going to their competition, and normal mail being easily replaced by electronic, there's no need for CP to rush people back to work with a deal that continues to bloat the pension, and increases payroll.

The government has basically said they're not going to intervene, so I think the expectation is to break the resolve of the union.

So um have a nice summer.

Trudeau has said he won't intervene, sure, because it makes a great "I'm not Harper" statement.

If this drags on more than a couple weeks though, how long do you think it will be before CUPW is all over him demanding he do something to protect them from the process?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That's very true, but sometimes short term pain is worth the long term gains and maintaining your current quality of life. Sometimes life situations force someone into a situation that they may need to do something like cross a picket line, if I was on strike and my coworker had some tragic personal circumstances completely out of their control that basically put them in a position where they needed to cross the line or they would be forced from their home, I would be going to every other member and asking if we can all pull together to help that worker, if that failed then I would accept the situation for what it was and hold nothing against that person. If someone crossed the line because they were simply not wanting to stand up and support us, and then expecting to get all the benefits afterwards, I would accept their choice but I would not have to agree with their actions.

Why doesn't the union itself show sympathy for the worker who can't strike?

Why doesn't it intervene during a strike vote when a brave member rises to say he can't afford to strike but is greeted with catcalls and screams of being a scab from fellow members?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just curious, but have you been on strike? I haven't personally, but I know someone who was for a number of weeks and to support his family he was shovelling sidewalks for neighbours. Granted he didn't cross the line, but strike pay isn't good. Some people are going to cross eventually because they have no other option to pay the bills.

You also don't hear about the long term costs of being on strike. Wages lost during a strike are never recovered. You might get a moral victory but you never recover financialy.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Economics? Do you think companies are simply hand over raises based on their profits? The sad fact of the matter is most companies lowball employees in order to increase profit margins. Why should an employee not make a fair living if their company is doing well? The company will always ask for concessions when times are tough, yet you rarely hear of a company coming out and saying "hey we had record profits last year, you're all getting a raise!"

Unfortunately the typical response to a great quarter is a meeting between the bosses at how to increase those profits, which usually comes down to cutting costs and making their employees do more work without any extra compensation.

Well, that's from the old days. these days only public sector unions strike. There are no profits, its just taxpayer versus tax spender.

When unions kept to the basics of getting a bigger piece of the pie(this would include work conditions), it all made sense. Now its just a battle for a pie in the sky, the money is simply not there. Any increase in costs will eventually result in automation or offshoring of jobs to places where they have no unions

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Dion

You also don't hear about the long term costs of being on strike. Wages lost during a strike are never recovered. You might get a moral victory but you never recover financialy.

Don't a lot of these agreements include retro active pay?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Or we can open things up with right to work legislation so that anyone can work any job if they have the proper qualifications and a desire to do that work.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That's pretty dictatorial, the union and the workers don't own the company, yet they can dictate who can work there by forcing you to accept union membership in order to make a living.

I guess the question is, what if I work for CP and the CUPW and I'm jewish, and I don't want to work for a union that's basically been an Anti-Israel Lobby Group. Should I be forced to give up my income and a job that I've been with for the last x number of years because while I love my job, my union doesn't represent me?

That's pretty dictatorial?

I know its an extreme example. But frankly every employee should have the right to opt out if they don't feel that the union represents them or their interests and not have to quit my job or feel threatened in it by a bunch of angry union workers.

Right to work legislation is a way of taking away union power in a negotiation. If someone does not want to pay union dues why should they expect the benefits that come with paying those dues? If they think it's unfair there are lots of none union jobs out there. No one is entitled to a job anywhere, so if they don't want to work somewhere because its unionized it's the same choice as not working somewhere due to the pay or working conditions

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

Don't a lot of these agreements include retro active pay?

Those are negotiated but not guaranteed

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Slava

Just curious, but have you been on strike? I haven't personally, but I know someone who was for a number of weeks and to support his family he was shovelling sidewalks for neighbours. Granted he didn't cross the line, but strike pay isn't good. Some people are going to cross eventually because they have no other option to pay the bills.

I don't want to comment on that as I don't want to disclose where I work or for which union... hope you can accept that for face value.

As for someone working while on strike, no big deal. But crossing the picket line and working as a scab for the company your striking against, or, locked out by? Disgusting move. I'd sooner shovel #### for cash or sell blood before I'd stab my fellow co workers in the back like that.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Well, that's from the old days. these days only public sector unions strike. There are no profits, its just taxpayer versus tax spender.

When unions kept to the basics of getting a bigger piece of the pie(this would include work conditions), it all made sense. Now its just a battle for a pie in the sky, the money is simply not there. Any increase in costs will eventually result in automation or offshoring of jobs to places where they have no unions

What colour is the sky in your world? What a deliciously naive comment.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

Why doesn't the union itself show sympathy for the worker who can't strike?

Why doesn't it intervene during a strike vote when a brave member rises to say he can't afford to strike but is greeted with catcalls and screams of being a scab from fellow members?

There are always workers who say those things, everyone can have their say, I've never seen a member be abused for their point of view, I'm not saying it can't or doesn't happen, but at the end of the day if it does then that member would have the right to file a complaint against their agents for not fairly representing them.

Keep in mind there are two sides to that coin, I've known members who could care less about the agreement, they are single middle aged workers who live with their parents and have tonnes of cash to burn who only want to strike so they can have a few weeks off work, they could also try to persuade people, but at the end of the day they are one vote, and with union membership comes an understanding that you take the good with the bad as far as bargaining goes.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Sliver

So much entitlement in one post. Here goes:



Helped prolong the strike? If they're working it's safe to say they didn't want the strike. It's the strikers who are responsible for the strike; not the guy who opted not to strike. Like, how do you even confuse the very basis of what is happening.

Also, it's you (immaturely, BTW) making their life difficult by A. striking and B. treating them like scum after the strike is over.



You'd have no issue with them promoting themselves to management. WTF are you even talking about? People can't opt to give themselves a promotion into management. That's just not a thing, but I guess it's pretty chill of you to have 'no issue' with that lol.

Nobody is trying to eat cake at the expense of you. It's like union guys act like they're toddlers or something.

It's so clear the union just tries to bully its members onto the same page. The only ones with balls in these things are the scabs. They have character. The screeching hyenas yelling in their faces not so much.

Entitlement? When you are in a union the idea is to work together to make sure you're treated fairly and have a voice to stand up to your employer. It is accepted that the majority will dictate what that voice says. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so when that member crosses the line it sends a message to the company that they will win and it also puts them in a better position to maintain their operation while the strike is happening, thus potentially prolonging it.

The striking workers are not trying to make their lives difficult, they are trying to get a better deal, a deal which the company to that point hadn't offered, otherwise they would not have been on strike. If the union gets what they wanted after going on strike, i would hope the employee could see how the company played a role in the union going on strike since they could have offered that deal before a strike to avoid it. At the end of the day both sides played a role since they could not avoid a dispute, but in a case where the company caves after trying to call a bluff i put more onus on the company since they had more power to avoid it.

You may be thinking "oh if they would have offered that before the union would have just asked for more and still went on strike". The way bargaining works is you come up with ammendments before even going to the table, these demands do not change in the form of increases, doing so is what's called bargaining in bad faith, and it doesn't go over very well with a mediator or an arbitrator.

No my post I was not suggesting they create a promotion, but if it is an option and that's how they feel, why not take it? Oh because even though it may pay better they don't want the extra workload and reduced rights and security? Sounds like that person enjoys all the good parts of being in a union but doesn't want to accept the bad. I wonder if that guy who doesn't want to strike would grieve a termination? They made their choice to work in a union, there's no "it's not fair" it's their choice, that's what makes it cake eating. They have the right to quit, leave the union if promoted or try to decertify, but having the best of both worlds is not a right.

How is it clear to you that unions do that? What are you basing it on? I've seen contracts get accepted by less than 55%. In your opinion what happened to the union's Jedi mind tricks on those ones?

Stick to facts.

My union can't force me to change my stance if I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean I would cross a picket line because in my opinion I'm only hurting myself in the long run by taking away my unions collective power.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I don't want to comment on that as I don't want to disclose where I work or for which union... hope you can accept that for face value.

As for someone working while on strike, no big deal. But crossing the picket line and working as a scab for the company your striking against, or, locked out by? Disgusting move. I'd sooner shovel #### for cash or sell blood before I'd stab my fellow co workers in the back like that.

That makes sense and I completely understand that. My point though is that being on strike can be grueling. So while it might make sense to some people to fight to the bitter end, the harsh reality is that the average worker has obligations and needs to work to meet them.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Slava

That makes sense and I completely understand that. My point though is that being on strike can be grueling. So while it might make sense to some people to fight to the bitter end, the harsh reality is that the average worker has obligations and needs to work to meet them.

I agree with your post, which is why striking is and should always be an absolute last resort.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

People will still need parcels delivered, are they the only game in town? No, but it is always best to have competition in an industry. Think about how much a parcel shipment would cost if there was only one company doing it? There's a reason why in Canada we pay much more for domestic flights than most countries, 2 companies hold a monopoly and use it to gouge consumers. And they typically do not share those extra costs with their employees. People blame this poor economy on things like oil, which is a big factor, but they rarely see how big corporations are continuously reducing the amount of money going to the middle class, who are the true driving force to an economy.

This isn't about the union wanting a strike, unions don't want strikes, they are a last resort, this about a big company wanting to make bigger profits at the expense of their employees who at that the end of the day make their money. I wonder if they ever stop to think about the impact of reducing their employee's earnings and how it actually bites them in the ass when they can't afford to even use their service.

Here's a good example of how short sighted some views are on the impact of reducing costs in the name of making bigger profits.

If you've been in a macdonalds recently you've no doubt seen the new screens they use to take your order. Now those 4 screens in the restaurant eliminate 4 jobs in the store, sure that employee probably only made at best $30k a year, but here's where it creates it's impact, that employee can no longer go spend that $30k which has a ripple effect on every business that relies on that customers business. Most people will say, oh but it's not that much money, well if you consider that there are probably 100 macdonalds locations in the province, 4 $30k/year jobs lost at each locations, that would take around $12M out of our provincial economy. Meanwhile your Big Mac hadn't dropped in price, so those cost savings are just going in rotten ronny's pocket.

Own stock in that company and you just made money. Your story telling to teach us how business works is very biased.

Maybe we should spend more timing trying to train for jobs that actually add value, rather than defend ancient turf that really doesn't serve society anymore. If your job isn't needed and/or a union had to fight to prop up your salary that is welfare. It's just paid to you in a different way. When you have too much of the society on welfare, be it formally through the government, or fake jobs that make people feel better, to the point where the people actually creating the value can't support the system overall you have Canada in 2016. At what point do you look at the massive deficient the county likes to run now and ask yourself if maybe hiding behind unions instead of training to do something more valuable is maybe not the best way to spend a career?

If the market wants to pay someone to press the button that says Big Mac then great, but if it doesn't and that task is easily replaced, then nobody is better off by giving that guy a fake job. He should train for something more valuable and then he can make 40k and inject that into society.