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

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don't know, but you seem a little defensive over the fact that 3 guys aren't happy with the work stoppage and wish they'd get back to work so that their own job would return to normal ASAP.

I don't really care either way, and don't want to get into it with some anti-CP, Union shill.

I'd just like my overnight shipping to be overnight, not three days. Screw postal workers.

Get your social justice glasses on - that free overnight shipping comes at a very, very dear price.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...rehouses-labor

[PepsiFree]

Don't ruin fast shipping times for me, Pete.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The couple Puro guys I've talked to are pretty PO'd at the work stoppage.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Did I say a couple? I meant two dozen. Yeah...

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don't know, but you seem a little defensive over the fact that 3 guys aren't happy with the work stoppage and wish they'd get back to work so that their own job would return to normal ASAP.

I don't really care either way, and don't want to get into it with some anti-CP, Union shill.

I'd just like my overnight shipping to be overnight, not three days. Screw postal workers.

It's a little difficult for me to give credibility to your statements if you are going to change your facts from post to post.

I'm not being defensive at all, I simply mentioned that your interactions with a couple of guys, who then became 2 dozen, and then became 3, was different from my experience with workers with the same company. I gave you some valid points explaining how this should not be affecting their jobs in response to the statements you claimed they made. Your response to this was to label me with your assumptions.

I've stated in this thread that I am not anti-CP, I am a customer of theirs and find their service to be top notch, I simply disagree with their approach in resolving this issue and question their motives behind their stance due to the fact that their implementation of a different pension plan for new hires does not offer a solution to fixing the old one.

Union shill? Maybe a common sense shill, who is willing to hear both sides of the argument and takes into account all available facts while forming an opinion.

If your overnight shipment is not being shipped overnight, then in most cases I would put the blame on the company who is giving you this guarantee, the exception to that would be in a case where the postal worker has willfully done something to delay your parcel, in which case if proven that employee should be subject to discipline(union shill statement?). The postal workers are there to follow the direction of their employer, if the reason you aren't receiving your package on time is due to the fact that the postal worker is not doing their job, I would question why the company he works for is allowing this to happen, they know the status of every parcel they ship. If they aren't holding their employees accountable then shame on that company for taking their customers for a ride.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Don't ruin fast shipping times for me, Pete.

These workers can't unionize. They are little more than grease for the treads of capital, but I want my stuff TOMORROW.

[PepsiFree]

I just wanted to talk about my Calendar...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I gave you some valid points explaining how this should not be affecting their jobs in response to the statements you claimed they made. Your response to this was to label me with your assumptions.

No offence meant (the anti-CP/Union shill thing was a joke, since you've been called that multiple times already) and was in no way looking for you to explain anything to me or give me any tips.

My point was literally: "The Purolators guys I talk to don't like it. My package is late"

You took it as far more conversational and intellectual then it was. You could know a million Purolator guys that say my guys are the minority, it's completely irrelevant to me.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yeah, sorry, but lockouts (and strikes) are part of bargaining. you are setting up an invalid either-or scenario. Perhaps the union should have worked harder at finding a solution at some point over the last seven months if it didn't want to find itself in this position.

They don't have to be a part of bargaining, they are an option to use in bargaining. The position those workers could have would be similar to mine. I'm disappointed with the possibility of a lockout because it appears to me based on what has been reported that Canada post is attempting to use a lockout in an effort to get a deal they want rather than negotiate a deal with their employees.

That's just my view on it and it is based on Canada post's position of being concerned with the pension deficit yet not putting forward a plan to address that problem, they are claiming the current plan will never work and they must draw a line in the sand now, even though they didn't have the foresight to see this problem coming 4 years ago when they signed the current contract. If it was as crucial of an issue as they claim they would have fixed it then, instead they claim that it is a huge issue now and must be addressed and the union has to accept the only solution brought forward to fix the problem now and forever by the same people who evidently could not even plan 4 years ahead. CP's current plan also provides zero protection to the current plan members in the event that it's plan does not have the funds to cover its liabilities. People say tax payers will cover it, yeah maybe if a politician is willing to agree to do that with voter's tax dollars. CP has no risk in that situation, unless there is a plan to attempt to fix the deficit those workers would be crazy to gamble on their pensions by agreeing to have less contributions going to a plan that already carries a deficit.

What evidence do you have to support the argument that the union hasn't been trying to find a solution, all we know for sure is they disagree with Canada post's proposed solution. There has been nothing in the media about the union's counter proposals on the pension plan, but that does not mean they haven't had any, simply that they may not want to publicize them. Which makes sense on their end since they would not want public perception to have any influence on their members. Canada post would not take any of the union's offers public as it could put pressure on them to accept their terms as well.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Since contributions are made by both sides, if the union had full control, on which side do you think they'd choose to increase contributions?

Oh that's easy, CUPW goes to Canada Post and says this is how much we need from the Employees in the union to keep our pension afloat. then Canada Post does a real simple calculation and does the deduction and cuts a straight check to the Union.

At that point its a union pension and Canada Post can either choose to contribute or not.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No offence meant (the anti-CP/Union shill thing was a joke, since you've been called that multiple times already) and was in no way looking for you to explain anything to me or give me any tips.

This post is not directed at you, since you are not looking for any tips. But even though this is the Internet I think people should really think before they type something, since once something is posted it is a reflection of their views and who they are. When a person makes a derogatory statement toawrds someone, and gives no indication that they are being sarcastic or "joking", that statement creates a perception that the person means what they are saying and are intentionally being offensive, if they apologize or retract their statement that creates a perception that they are oblivious to how what they say will be received. Most would probably agree that neither are the best way to project yourself in an online discussion board, unless the poster enjoys coming off as not worth the time to converse with.

While I know people don't always agree with everything or in some cases any of the things I have to say, I'm pretty sure those who initially claimed I was anti-CP or a union shill have come to realize that while I'm honest and upfront with my beliefs I am still open minded and considerate when listening to other people's points of view when they differ from my own and never push my opinion as being right or their's as being wrong. Which is probably why I seem to get fewer and fewer of those comments directed towards me. Thinking one side is universally always right or wrong in a topic such as this would be a pretty narrow minded and counter productive approach.

[PepsiFree]

And then there's something to be said for taking yourself too seriously.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

What's the deal, is CP locked out or what? I haven't noticed.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh that's easy, CUPW goes to Canada Post and says this is how much we need from the Employees in the union to keep our pension afloat. then Canada Post does a real simple calculation and does the deduction and cuts a straight check to the Union.

At that point its a union pension and Canada Post can either choose to contribute or not.

I misinterpreted your initial post, I thought you were suggesting to transfer the authority to make pension changes to the union.

But what you're suggesting is basically creating a new plan to which no further contributions would be made by Canada post but would still need to have the same payout as if Canada post were still making the contributions?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

What's the deal, is CP locked out or what? I haven't noticed.

CP changed the date to Monday.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And then there's something to be said for taking yourself too seriously.

Would you like a response to this? Or are you simply joking and not intending any offence? it's very difficult to interpret your intentions when posting and I don't want to bother responding if you're simply posting to be heard but not discuss what you post

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Would you like a response to this? Or are you simply joking and not intending any offence? it's very difficult to interpret your intentions when posting and I don't want to bother responding if you're simply posting to be heard but not discuss what you post

Responses of 80 words or less please. Millennial attention span here.

[V]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

They don't have to be a part of bargaining, they are an option to use in bargaining. The position those workers could have would be similar to mine. I'm disappointed with the possibility of a lockout because it appears to me based on what has been reported that Canada post is attempting to use a lockout in an effort to get a deal they want rather than negotiate a deal with their employees.

It's a pretty powerful option, especially when you have public sentiment, which I think they think they have. So why would they not lock out if they have that option? For whatever reason, they've drawn a line in the sand, and at that point it doesn't matter how valid it is, all that matters is th union isn't interested in standing on that side of the lin. They feel they have the leverage, and they're going to use it. Why wouldn't they? It's just another tool in the tool box.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Would you like a response to this? Or are you simply joking and not intending any offence? it's very difficult to interpret your intentions when posting and I don't want to bother responding if you're simply posting to be heard but not discuss what you post

It's kind of Pepsi Free's MO, to be honest.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

They don't have to be a part of bargaining, they are an option to use in bargaining. The position those workers could have would be similar to mine. I'm disappointed with the possibility of a lockout because it appears to me based on what has been reported that Canada post is attempting to use a lockout in an effort to get a deal they want rather than negotiate a deal with their employees.

Let me put forth a hypothetical. And I'll go back to my NHL/NHLPA analogy. Just for the sake of argument, lets assume the pension problem for Canada Post is as badly broken as the salary structure was for the NHL in 2004. Canada Post knows the system has to change significantly and simply cannot accept a half-measure. (The NHL already knew from 1992 and 1994 that half-measures won't fix the underlying issue.)

If the union refuses to consider the issue at all, would you still blame management for using a lockout as a "replacement" for negotiating?

That's just my view on it and it is based on Canada post's position of being concerned with the pension deficit yet not putting forward a plan to address that problem, they are claiming the current plan will never work and they must draw a line in the sand now, even though they didn't have the foresight to see this problem coming 4 years ago when they signed the current contract. If it was as crucial of an issue as they claim they would have fixed it then, instead they claim that it is a huge issue now and must be addressed and the union has to accept the only solution brought forward to fix the problem now and forever by the same people who evidently could not even plan 4 years ahead. CP's current plan also provides zero protection to the current plan members in the event that it's plan does not have the funds to cover its liabilities. People say tax payers will cover it, yeah maybe if a politician is willing to agree to do that with voter's tax dollars. CP has no risk in that situation, unless there is a plan to attempt to fix the deficit those workers would be crazy to gamble on their pensions by agreeing to have less contributions going to a plan that already carries a deficit.

C'mon man. You have demonstrated throughout this thread that you are far too intelligent to believe "if it wasn't a big problem four years ago, it can't be a big problem today" is a serious argument.

Also, they have put forward a plan - switching new hires to a defined contribution plan. That you don't like the plan does not mean it is not a plan.

Also, current plan members are backed by the government. This isn't about hosting current plan members, but about protecting Canada Post, and therefore the citizens of Canada, from the creation of an ever deepening black hole.

What evidence do you have to support the argument that the union hasn't been trying to find a solution, all we know for sure is they disagree with Canada post's proposed solution. There has been nothing in the media about the union's counter proposals on the pension plan, but that does not mean they haven't had any, simply that they may not want to publicize them. Which makes sense on their end since they would not want public perception to have any influence on their members. Canada post would not take any of the union's offers public as it could put pressure on them to accept their terms as well.

You're twisting my argument a little, though not unexpectedly. The fact a situation has deteriorated to the point of labour action does not stand as evidence of a lack of willingness to negotiate. My point was that you can't simply claim that a lockout means management has failed to negotiate in good faith. Especially since I have a very strong belief that you would not criticize the union the same way if this were a strike action instead.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's kind of Pepsi Free's MO, to be honest.

Well, when peter12 calls you out for having a relentless, annoying, and one note posting style, I guess it's time to change.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Responses of 80 words or less please. Millennial attention span here.

Absolutely! I don't feel as though I said anything that suggested I take myself too seriously. If you'd like to discuss gave you that impression I'd be more than happy to discuss it, if your comment was just a general statement I'd suggest starting a new thread if it does not hold any relevance to the the topics being discussed in this one, however you are free to post how you see fit.