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

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

It's about the hostile and intimidating enviroment that the union creates before members actually cast their ballots. It's a well used tactic aka pep rally to whip members into a frenzy to vote a certain way.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

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

Most often you get a negotiated lump sum payment to go along with the agreement. Retro pay is quite rare.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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

Which is why it should never happen. In the vast majority of the cases the employer has more resources to last out a strike than the employees and in many cases emplyees vote to go back because they can't afford to pay the bills on strike pay.

All this could be avoided if employers were allowed to talk directly with the employees to give their side of the story. Unions don't allow for this and for the life of me I can't understand what they would be afraid of.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

Does this work both ways for you? Given Canada Post is about to lock the workers out, if it results in an agreement that is better than what the union is currently offering, do you put more onus on your union since they had more power to avoid it?

Incidentally, McDonalds really went out of its way to screw up using their digital order boards in these arguments. Their new paradigm has actually resulted in an increase of employees - in Alberta at least - as they have added more people who could best be described as 'guest services' than they have subtracted order takers.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Dion

Which is why it should never happen. In the vast majority of the cases the employer has more resources to last out a strike than the employees and in many cases emplyees vote to go back because they can't afford to pay the bills on strike pay.

All this could be avoided if employers were allowed to talk directly with the employees to give their side of the story. Unions don't allow for this and for the life of me I can't understand what they would be afraid of.

In this specific case I think the union has really let the workers down. From what I have read, it sounds like the union and CPC have been "negotiating" for the last 8 months but little to nothing had actually been done until a couple weeks ago. In my opinion, the union should have been pushing much harder to get a deal worked out. The Union has allowed the rural mail carriers to work without a contract since February. If I was a union member I would be pissed at this inactivity and incompetence.

I'm sure the workers themselves could have come to solution with CPC in a much more timely matter. The Union needs a top to bottom investigation to figure out what exactly they are doing.

[Kjesse]

While I a little reluctant to post this on the off chance that someone like PsYcNeT will come in and suggest that my input is not valid because I'm not a postal worker....

I have a very good friend (from junior high, so 30 year friend) who joined Canada Post about 5 years ago in his late 30's. He had been making a decent living as a Shaw Cable installer but Shaw started taking steps to put lower cost providers in place, and he saw the writing on the wall, and figured he'd do better if he got a job that was more protected.

He looked at his options and landed a job at Canada Post, in large part because while it wouldn't pay as much, he would get a pension with defined benefits and at his age, it was his last chance for such a position.

Now he doesn't know what to think or do. I won't say if he is pro his union or against it, but I get the sense that he sees the writing on the wall again, like he had with Shaw.

Many people are getting squeezed in the changing economy, and you can't count on the things that you may have 20 years ago. Those concepts were based on a growing economy and rapidly growing workforce and those things just aren't happening any more.

I don't think anyone is safe -- whether you are a postal worker or a cable installer or even have a PhD or professional degree, challenges are coming everywhere.

However if you are a union fighting to keep defined benefit pensions, I think you're going to wind up with Canada Post becoming privatized much sooner than expected. There will be necessary guarantees about service to outlying communities, but I could easily see Canada Post making very bold moves in the years to come even under a Liberal government.

And its not just about these particular group of workers, its everywhere, and its a problem that will either solve itself or have to be solved somehow.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

In this specific case I think the union has really let the workers down. From what I have read, it sounds like the union and CPC have been "negotiating" for the last 8 months but little to nothing had actually been done until a couple weeks ago. In my opinion, the union should have been pushing much harder to get a deal worked out. The Union has allowed the rural mail carriers to work without a contract since February. If I was a union member I would be pissed at this inactivity and incompetence.

It's not uncommon for negotiations to stall or have little inactivity, especially when you reach a point where both sides have dug their heels in. In some ways it's like a game of chicken where the other side is waiting for the other to offer up a concession. It sometimes takes the threat of a strike/lockout to get things moving again.

I'm sure the workers themselves could have come to solution with CPC in a much more timely matter. The Union needs a top to bottom investigation to figure out what exactly they are doing.

Too much trust is being put in the members who were elected to the negotiating comittee. Members should always take a more active approach to getting all the details and facts and not rely on biased info.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

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.

I'm sorry you don't agree with my "story telling".

The difference between your version of "welfare" and what you say is mine is quite simple, who pays for it.

Take Walmart for example, they are notorious for paying their employees peanuts to give you "rock bottom prices", meanwhile we as taxpayers have to subsidize their workers with our tax dollars to pay for welfare while they continue to record billion dollar profits.

Your example of a salary being proped up by a union being equal to welfare is a very good example of how economic situations get manipulated. Using Walmart as an example, if they paid all their staff $20/hour instead of minimum wage they would still be making billion dollar profits, yes they would be reduced in the short term, however those cuts would be subsidized by the fact that those employees would have more money to spend on things like...their merchandise! Less tax dollars would be needed to cover welfare, taxpayers would have more money to spend on things like...their merchandise! Would Walmart's $3billion annual profit take a hit? Yes. Would it drive them out of business? No. And instead of having us subsidize their workers with our tax dollars, which Walmart would prefer we spend in their stores, they would be "subsidizing" them for us. Instead of having a billion extra dollars go into an account and making interest that the owners of that company would never live long enough to ever spend or see their quality of life impacted by, more people would live above the poverty line. Corporate greed could try to fight this, they could try to raise prices, but if consumers use the only real economic power they have, they can set the market.

The argument could be made that by automating, a company like macdonalds is making their shareholders money so that's passing along profits, while that is true the impact of that profit sharing isn't as impactful economically as it would be to pay their employees better, the overall impact would sow the same benefits as Walmart. Automation could create a widerspread impact if macdonalds passed those savings on to consumers, but last time I checked my kids' happy meal has actually gone UP in price since they've started using those machines, since I don't agree with their gouging I try to give them as little business as possible.

It would be nice if everyone could afford to go to school, but the only way to do that would be to create a new tax funded program to make it happen. A lot of people want to learn and advance their careers, the sad fact is most people can't afford to or it is very difficult to do. Most people who had their way paid and were able to get a good career through hard work and being fortunate enough to not ever know what a student loan is, have to work full time through school, while raising children, while living with a disability or any combination of these things.

I know nothing of your past, and am not suggesting you had it easy, but would you not agree that people born without a silver spoon who are willing to work hard to advance their skills could do so more easily if they could work lesser skilled jobs while earning a living above the poverty line?

If more people could put themselves in a position to not have to settle for minimum wage jobs, there would be less minimum wage jobs to begin with since companies would have to attract overskilled workers to work for them by offering competitive wages to fill the void. This would reduce both subsidizing for education and welfare.

In other words it would be a step in the right direction.

It would only cost those big corporations some percentage points, which again is money that would never re-enter the economy, unless to build a new location, which only has a short term benefit since once that store is built, those construction jobs are gone and the employee jobs are only adding to the problem.

So what this rant is getting at is yes, we should invest in people so that they can advance, but if given the choice I'd choose to invest in them with my consumer dollars, at a business that can hire them and either train them or pay them enough so they can afford training themselves. Rather than invest in them with my tax dollars while my consumer dollars go no further than a bank account in a foreign country after I spend them. See how that helps everyone? Even Walmart wins since I'd have more money to spend at their store...and would actually consider doing if they better compensated their workers. Everybody wins!

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I'm sorry you don't agree with my "story telling".
...

Probably one of the best posts I've read on CP. A thanks wasn't enough.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

It's about the hostile and intimidating enviroment that the union creates before members actually cast their ballots. It's a well used tactic aka pep rally to whip members into a frenzy to vote a certain way.

Man I don't know what to say to that other than, if your agents or local office are driving the bus against your members' will or demands, shame on the members for allowing that garbage to happen.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

All this could be avoided if employers were allowed to talk directly with the employees to give their side of the story. Unions don't allow for this and for the life of me I can't understand what they would be afraid of.

What is stopping an employer from asking an employee his or her thoughts on a recently rejected proposal? There are laws, which work both ways, that prohibit both sides from discussing tabled items that are not agreed to, and also from making promises or cohercing employees to accept an offer, but there is nothing that can stop an employer from asking an employee their opinion or giving them theirs on a rejected offer. The union won't let them? If unions could convince companies to not do something they are legally allowed to do would we ever see a lockout?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What is stopping an employer from asking an employee his or her thoughts on a recently rejected proposal? There are laws, which work both ways, that prohibit both sides from discussing tabled items that are not agreed to, and also from making promises or cohercing employees to accept an offer, but there is nothing that can stop an employer from asking an employee their opinion or giving them theirs on a rejected offer. The union won't let them? If unions could convince companies to not do something they are legally allowed to do would we ever see a lockout?

Laws can be changed or amended like it was in 1993 where Canada Safeway threatened closure of it's Alberta operations. IIRC Canada Safeway was granted a meeting with the employees with full approval from the union.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Probably one of the best posts I've read on CP. A thanks wasn't enough.

I think you got something 'Union Mandated' on your nose there.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I'm sorry you don't agree with my "story telling".

The difference between your version of "welfare" and what you say is mine is quite simple, who pays for it.

Take Walmart for example, they are notorious for paying their employees peanuts to give you "rock bottom prices", meanwhile we as taxpayers have to subsidize their workers with our tax dollars to pay for welfare while they continue to record billion dollar profits.

Your example of a salary being proped up by a union being equal to welfare is a very good example of how economic situations get manipulated. Using Walmart as an example, if they paid all their staff $20/hour instead of minimum wage they would still be making billion dollar profits, yes they would be reduced in the short term, however those cuts would be subsidized by the fact that those employees would have more money to spend on things like...their merchandise! Less tax dollars would be needed to cover welfare, taxpayers would have more money to spend on things like...their merchandise! Would Walmart's $3billion annual profit take a hit? Yes. Would it drive them out of business? No. And instead of having us subsidize their workers with our tax dollars, which Walmart would prefer we spend in their stores, they would be "subsidizing" them for us. Instead of having a billion extra dollars go into an account and making interest that the owners of that company would never live long enough to ever spend or see their quality of life impacted by, more people would live above the poverty line. Corporate greed could try to fight this, they could try to raise prices, but if consumers use the only real economic power they have, they can set the market.

The argument could be made that by automating, a company like macdonalds is making their shareholders money so that's passing along profits, while that is true the impact of that profit sharing isn't as impactful economically as it would be to pay their employees better, the overall impact would sow the same benefits as Walmart. Automation could create a widerspread impact if macdonalds passed those savings on to consumers, but last time I checked my kids' happy meal has actually gone UP in price since they've started using those machines, since I don't agree with their gouging I try to give them as little business as possible.

It would be nice if everyone could afford to go to school, but the only way to do that would be to create a new tax funded program to make it happen. A lot of people want to learn and advance their careers, the sad fact is most people can't afford to or it is very difficult to do. Most people who had their way paid and were able to get a good career through hard work and being fortunate enough to not ever know what a student loan is, have to work full time through school, while raising children, while living with a disability or any combination of these things.

I know nothing of your past, and am not suggesting you had it easy, but would you not agree that people born without a silver spoon who are willing to work hard to advance their skills could do so more easily if they could work lesser skilled jobs while earning a living above the poverty line?

If more people could put themselves in a position to not have to settle for minimum wage jobs, there would be less minimum wage jobs to begin with since companies would have to attract overskilled workers to work for them by offering competitive wages to fill the void. This would reduce both subsidizing for education and welfare.

In other words it would be a step in the right direction.

It would only cost those big corporations some percentage points, which again is money that would never re-enter the economy, unless to build a new location, which only has a short term benefit since once that store is built, those construction jobs are gone and the employee jobs are only adding to the problem.

So what this rant is getting at is yes, we should invest in people so that they can advance, but if given the choice I'd choose to invest in them with my consumer dollars, at a business that can hire them and either train them or pay them enough so they can afford training themselves. Rather than invest in them with my tax dollars while my consumer dollars go no further than a bank account in a foreign country after I spend them. See how that helps everyone? Even Walmart wins since I'd have more money to spend at their store...and would actually consider doing if they better compensated their workers. Everybody wins!

lol

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

lol

The intellectual right strikes again

[Violator]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The intellectual right strikes again

They seem to be the kind of people that are enjoying the race to the bottom that's going on in Alberta and north America as a whole these days.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Man I don't know what to say to that other than, if your agents or local office are driving the bus against your members' will or demands, shame on the members for allowing that garbage to happen.

Speaking of garbage, the garbage truck just went by and it reminded me of your disapproval of technological advancement. That automatic arm picking up the bins must grind your gears. I wonder how many kids' dreams are shattered because they can no longer grow up to be a garbage bag slinger. Probably the same amount of kids that are bummed they'll never run a till at McDonalds. I suppose they'll have to learn to operate a spatula instead, and I'm sure the ~100 guys that used hang on to the back of the truck and pick up bags are enjoying other, less crappy work at the City.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

The intellectual right strikes again

The neat part was that my post was intentionally humorous. Your posts in this thread achieve the same result, albeit unintentionally. My favourite one was when you said people crossing a picket line were the worst scum on earth, even worse than child rapists.

A giant problem people have with you in this thread, is your inability to listen, see, and/or respect any view that is not aligned with your own view. You don't debate, or exchange ideas with others, you just tell them they are wrong. Maybe this is the same line of thinking that has led to the impending Canada Post work stoppage.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Speaking of garbage, the garbage truck just went by and it reminded me of your disapproval of technological advancement. That automatic arm picking up the bins must grind your gears. I wonder how many kids' dreams are shattered because they can no longer grow up to be a garbage bag slinger. Probably the same amount of kids that are bummed they'll never run a till at McDonalds. I suppose they'll have to learn to operate a spatula instead, and I'm sure the ~100 guys that used hang on to the back of the truck and pick up bags are enjoying other, less crappy work at the City.

But now they can dream about driving a Transformer with a giant robot claw.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Speaking of garbage, the garbage truck just went by and it reminded me of your disapproval of technological advancement. That automatic arm picking up the bins must grind your gears. I wonder how many kids' dreams are shattered because they can no longer grow up to be a garbage bag slinger. Probably the same amount of kids that are bummed they'll never run a till at McDonalds. I suppose they'll have to learn to operate a spatula instead, and I'm sure the ~100 guys that used hang on to the back of the truck and pick up bags are enjoying other, less crappy work at the City.

Do you think maybe those 100 guys are driving the blue and green bin trucks instead? The city is a bad example to use, they actually treat their union employees well, and don't like cutting jobs since they understand that when it hits the fan, they need their employees. If they did infact cut jobs, and the city raised our taxes in spite of that, then yes I would have an issue. I don't like when jobs are cut if it is only to increase profits for the gain of the owners who don't need more instead of passing those savings on to the consumers. If after reading my posts you can't accept that that has a negative trickle effect on the economy as a whole, I'm not sure if you'll ever be open to seeing things from a different view.

A lot of people grow up wanting to be something other than a garbage man, a fry guy, or any other labour worker. Fact of the matter is sometimes people end up in situations where they have to take those jobs, and at the end of the day the companies that employ those people need those people to make money, companies like macdonalds continually abuse government programs like the temporary foreign worker program by keeping their wages low, which imflates their already enormous profits higher then the owners of that company could ever need or hope to spend. There is only so much profit a company needs to make. If they are going way above that by keeping people below the poverty line and wasting people's tax dollars there's something that needs to be fixed in the system, because it is failing those workers and us taxpayers whether we eat there or not. All the while hurting our economy in a way that can't be fixed unless things change.