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

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by nik-

I mailed a time sensitive letter to the UK on Wednesday, I assume I'm boned

Probably not. If the union issued strike notice today, the earliest a strike could be called is late Monday. Unless something goes really awry, your letter will already have been handed over to Royal Mail by that time.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Slava

Apparently the two sides are meeting with a mediator this morning, so there could be a faster resolution. I am not sure why you would issue the strike notice if you had already planned to meet with a mediator to try to negotiate a settlement, but its outside my area of expertise to say the least.

From what I understand, in this case they had a strike vote at the end of June. That strike vote authorized the union to give strike notice within 60 days, deadline was last night at midnight. If they didn't serve notice the union would have been required to go back to membership for another strike vote which could have taken a month or more. The union wouldn't have the leverage of a strike threat during upcoming negotiations.

[burnin_vernon]

The union agreed to extend negotiations with the newly appointed "special mediator" but Canada Post said no.

[CaptainCrunch]

Is there anything to negotiate? Canada Post has basically drawn their line in the sand month ago, and I doubt they're going to move.

[Resolute 14]

Yeah, we're definitely into the phase where both sides jockey for public support. Management forces the union into calling the strike, while the union keeps trying to delay the inevitable to give the appearance that it's management's fault there is no deal.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by nik-

I mailed a time sensitive letter to the UK on Wednesday, I assume I'm boned

Got my new passport in the mail today. Just in time by the looks of things.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Addick

One of the things I find funny about capitalism is how it seems like most people, the majority of which naturally are not business-owners, tend to take the side of the owners. It seems employed workers need to be thankful that they have a job as others are unemployed. However, business-owners don't have to be thankful that they have workers as other businesses-owners have, for various reasons, gone tits up.

I'm not saying people are wrong but it feels like so many are naturally inclined to side with those who have financial resources rather than those who are the human resources. It's funny because most people themselves are the latter.

In fairness it's the business owners who are taking all the risks by starting up a business with their own money. If it goes tits up they lose all the money they invested in the business. The employees on the other hand have no vested interest in the business other than the fact they get a paycheck for the work that they do.

I tend to side with business owners for the reasons i've stated above. Also if there's profits the employees are eagerly there with hands out wanting a piece of it. When there is a downturn business owners have to fight tooth and nail to get concessions from the employees.

If employees/unions think they can do a better job of running a business then maybe they should invest some of their own money and start a business themselves.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

In fairness it's the business owners who are taking all the risks by starting up a business with their own money. If it goes tits up they lose all the money they invested in the business. The employees on the other hand have no vested interest in the business other than the fact they get a paycheck for the work that they do.

I tend to side with business owners for the reasons i've stated above. Also if there's profits the employees are eagerly there with hands out wanting a piece of it. When there is a downturn business owners have to fight tooth and nail to get concessions from the employees.

If employees/unions think they can do a better job of running a business then maybe they should invest some of their own money and start a business themselves.

I'm sorry if this comes off as harsh but there seems to be huge sense of entitlement to business owners in your post. Yes they put the money forward upfront, but when you work for a company you also run a risk, you expect to be paid yes, but when business is struggling that doesn't always happen. When you go to work for a company, especially in large corporations, and business decisions are made that result in a decline in business or a closure you also suffer, think of it as being a shareholder that makes a physical contribution rather than a monetary one.

Instead of a corporation, try to look at it from a small business view. If I go to start a company, get it funded but need to hire people to get it up and running, my potential employees are taking a huge risk by joining my company, they have no idea what the future holds, if they do a good job and my company fails, they are out of a job through no fault of their own. Sure they got paid, provided I could afford to pay them, but they are now out of work and may have trouble finding another job. They would also have lost the time they could have put in at another company building their career. To say an employee has no vested interest is a very misguided comment. They have goals in life and are trying to achieve them by working for their employer, and it could all be lost at any moment. They may not be putting money upfront, but they are always taking a risk up front when they are hired for any company.

Now it could be argued that they'll leave if they find a better opportunity, that is possible but not always the case, the same as it's possible for a successful company to be or not be bought out by the highest bidder and have them cut their jobs or for an owner to decide to close up shop for reasons unrelated to how the business is being run.

Unions aren't trying to run a business, they are trying to push for social justice and workers rights to be compensated fairly. They hold companies accountable when they try to avoid giving workers their due. Look at Loblaws vs Walmart, the top rate store workers at superstore make around $10/hour more than the top rate workers at Walmart. Why is that? Is it because Walmart is struggling? Is Loblaws simply making more money? No it's because unions fought for those wages, Loblaws still makes billions in profits annually, the only difference is that their workers can afford to live an average life. Why won't Walmart do that? They have much higher profits than Loblaws, so it would only make sense right? The reality is this, they do not care about their workers, they only care about profits. It's not about how much money they have invested, they have already made more profit than they could have ever dreamed possible at start up, it is a mentality of increased profits at all costs. Other employers may not be as blatant in their ignorance for their employees well being, but please do not kid yourself, employees at any company are essentially a peasant to their employer.

This mindset people have of looking down on workers for not settling for scraps or saying they should be happy to have a job at all is very backwards thinking, would you be ok with slave labour being brought back as long as it wasn't racially motivated? I mean what's the big deal if the boss pays them peanuts, they're lucky to have a job, he put up all the money up front, it's not as if they're being treated this way unfairly, so what if they can't feed their families, why are they owed that? Yeah the boss is making more and more money every year, but he's just making a return on his investment, the worker is lucky to get the same amount of money he made when the business was making 95% less money.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I'm sorry if this comes off as harsh but there seems to be huge sense of entitlement to business owners in your post. Yes they put the money forward upfront, but when you work for a company you also run a risk, you expect to be paid yes, but when business is struggling that doesn't always happen. When you go to work for a company, especially in large corporations, and business decisions are made that result in a decline in business or a closure you also suffer, think of it as being a shareholder that makes a physical contribution rather than a monetary one.

Instead of a corporation, try to look at it from a small business view. If I go to start a company, get it funded but need to hire people to get it up and running, my potential employees are taking a huge risk by joining my company, they have no idea what the future holds, if they do a good job and my company fails, they are out of a job through no fault of their own. Sure they got paid, provided I could afford to pay them, but they are now out of work and may have trouble finding another job. They would also have lost the time they could have put in at another company building their career. To say an employee has no vested interest is a very misguided comment. They have goals in life and are trying to achieve them by working for their employer, and it could all be lost at any moment. They may not be putting money upfront, but they are always taking a risk up front when they are hired for any company.

Who suffers greatly from a business closure was the point I was trying to make.The risks an employee takes are miniscule compared to capital investment that it made to start up a business.

Unions aren't trying to run a business, they are trying to push for social justice and workers rights to be compensated fairly. They hold companies accountable when they try to avoid giving workers their due. Look at Loblaws vs Walmart, the top rate store workers at superstore make around $10/hour more than the top rate workers at Walmart. Why is that? Is it because Walmart is struggling? Is Loblaws simply making more money? No it's because unions fought for those wages, Loblaws still makes billions in profits annually, the only difference is that their workers can afford to live an average life. Why won't Walmart do that? They have much higher profits than Loblaws, so it would only make sense right? The reality is this, they do not care about their workers, they only care about profits. It's not about how much money they have invested, they have already made more profit than they could have ever dreamed possible at start up, it is a mentality of increased profits at all costs. Other employers may not be as blatant in their ignorance for their employees well being, but please do not kid yourself, employees at any company are essentially a peasant to their employer.

To suggest unions don't try to run a business is nonsense. You won't see it in the print media but it does happen when the negotiating comittee meets with represetitives of the company or business.

We have employment standards that protect the rights of workers.

As for Loblaws and any other unionised grocery store, the vast majority are part time workers working at reduced rates when compared to their fulltime workmates. They also don't get any benefits. All under contracts the unions agreed to.

Walmart employees are free to try and organise a union shop.

A good portion of those profits go back into the business. This can be anything from the on going upgrades to equipmnet to the remodeling of stores and businesses.

This mindset people have of looking down on workers for not settling for scraps or saying they should be happy to have a job at all is very backwards thinking, would you be ok with slave labour being brought back as long as it wasn't racially motivated? I mean what's the big deal if the boss pays them peanuts, they're lucky to have a job, he put up all the money up front, it's not as if they're being treated this way unfairly, so what if they can't feed their families, why are they owed that?

Yeah the boss is making more and more money every year, but he's just making a return on his investment, the worker is lucky to get the same amount of money he made when the business was making 95% less money.

You've totaly lost me here. I never said I would be okay with slave labour being brought back or that people should settle for scraps. You've taken my comment of they should be happy to have a job and twisted it to support your own agenda.

The unemployment rate is near 10% with countless workers pounding the pavement in search of any kind of work to pay the bills. Those who are working I would imagine are quite happy to have a job when you consider the alternative. Nor would it be a good time to be asking for a raise.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

Who suffers greatly from a business closure was the point I was trying to make.The risks an employee takes are miniscule compared to capital investment that it made to start up a business.



To suggest unions don't try to run a business is nonsense. You won't see it in the print media but it does happen when the negotiating comittee meets with represetitives of the company or business.

We have employment standards that protect the rights of workers.

As for Loblaws and any other unionised grocery store, the vast majority are part time workers working at reduced rates when compared to their fulltime workmates. They also don't get any benefits. All under contracts the unions agreed to.

Walmart employees are free to try and organise a union shop.

A good portion of those profits go back into the business. This can be anything from the on going upgrades to equipmnet to the remodeling of stores and businesses.

[B]

You've totaly lost me here. I never said I would be okay with slave labour being brought back or that people should settle for scraps. You've taken my comment of they should be happy to have a job and twisted it to support your own agenda.

The unemployment rate is near 10% with countless workers pounding the pavement in search of any kind of work to pay the bills. Those who are working I would imagine are quite happy to have a job when you consider the alternative. Nor would it be a good time to be asking for a raise.

When a business closes, the effect it has on both employer and employee has a can vary greatly depending on circumstances. If a business closes due to low profits or losing money, the true effect is on ownership depends on a number of factors, such as if the owner owns other more profitable businesses, did this buissness make more during its profitable year than it has lost in its poor years and how much, or did this business simply fail from the get go and now the owner is bankrupt? All those circumstances drastically change the amount of hardship the owner faces in the event of closure. The employees' impact is based on similar variables, if they are close to retirement and already have enough saved up, if is it a good job market and they can easily find work, if it is a bad job market and they have been struggling to make ends meet because their spouse fell ill and is unable to work and they are staring at bankruptcy if they lose their job. We are all people with similar goals and needs in life, and life's challenges don't discriminate by income. No matter what position or how much money you make, a business closure will effect everyone uniquely based on personal financial factors. No two owners or employees will be impacted equally, so the argument of owners risk more is inaccurate.

Have you ever been on a negotiating committee? Serious question.

I have been at the table in numerous rounds of bargaining and to suggest that unions are trying to run companies lacks logic. In every collective bargaining agreement management rights are clearly set, they dictate how the business is run, the union members are their employees, the contract dictates their working conditions and rights.

Employment standards set minimum standards employers need to follow, guess who got you those minimum standards? Unions. Do you think companies just up and decided that they should allow a new parent a guaranteed year off without losing their job or rate of pay? Or that they thought it would be a good idea for profits to pay people tims and a half for overtime? Heck before unions the term overtime didn't exist, they fought tooth and nail to get the 40 hour work week we all enjoy today as a right.

The problem with employment standards is the labour board does not have enough power to enforce them in a way that truly protects a worker, they cannot force a company to rehire you if they fired you for unjustly, they can make sure the company gets a letter telling them their wrong and make sure you get your 2-6 weeks severance but that's about it in the case of a termination. In the case of being paid overtime, yeah they can enforce this as well, all you have to do is bring them your pay stub and wait a couple months for them to resolve it, then your boss can wait until you show up to work late on day and fire you for making your complaint. Human rights has a little bit more teeth for fighting for your rights at work, but those cases are sometimes very difficult to prove and also take months to years to resolve. Also should point out, unions got you human rights.

The reason most Loblaws employees are part time is because they do not post full time positions unless forced to, it's a way of keeping labour costs down to increase profits, notice I said increase profits not create profits. They can afford more, they would just rather not reward their employees with a reasonable wage if they don't have to. Unions know this tactic and many now negotiate ratios of minimum number of full time to part time. It's not unreasonable for a full time worker in the city of Calgary to want to make $40-50k, just because they don't work a highly skilled job shouldn't mean they have to live in poverty while working full time for a company that is profiting billions annually.

Walmart has closed every single store that has unionized in the US, and they structure their business in a way which makes it very challenging for its workers to unionize, my post has already gotten long enough so if you'd like a more in depth explanation on this please send me a pm.

My point about slavery comes from a combination of many of the points I've made above, the labour movement started at a time when workers had no rights, they basically got whatever their boss offered and if they didn't do it that was it, so people fought to change this. The mentality amongst employers has never changed in the sense that they need to make money but want to spend as little as possible to make as much as possible. People have fallen under the belief that the "standards" we have today are guaranteed, this is not the case at all.

Laws and standards can be changed if not protected, this is why it is very short sighted when people attack the labour movement for continuing to fight maintaining the gains made as well as for more rights and more fair redistribution of wealth. Companies are fighting for the opposit, they want to be able to run their business with as little resistance or cost as possible, everything unions have fought for that both Union and non-union workers enjoy as rights is always at risk, you are kidding yourself if you think that if unions stop fighting for maintaing and improving what we have that companies will simply maintain the gains we have and not look for ways to reduce our rights and benefits I can only ask you this, why would they be doing it now? It doesn't take long for things to go south when you put yourself at the mercy of the greedy.

People knew slavery was unfair when it was around, but they didn't give it up willingly, what sense is there in putting ourselves in a spot to move back closer to how things were instead of continuing to distance ourselves from it?

[Hockey]

No more strike.

BREAKING: Canada Post reaches tentative agreement with postal union https://t.co/ybU65VRwPq https://t.co/Faz6LRyKim

[burnin_vernon]

Sounds like a 1-1.5 year deal.

See you again next year.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When a business closes, the effect it has on both employer and employee has a can vary greatly depending on circumstances. If a business closes due to low profits or losing money, the true effect is on ownership depends on a number of factors, such as if the owner owns other more profitable businesses, did this buissness make more during its profitable year than it has lost in its poor years and how much, or did this business simply fail from the get go and now the owner is bankrupt? All those circumstances drastically change the amount of hardship the owner faces in the event of closure. The employees' impact is based on similar variables, if they are close to retirement and already have enough saved up, if is it a good job market and they can easily find work, if it is a bad job market and they have been struggling to make ends meet because their spouse fell ill and is unable to work and they are staring at bankruptcy if they lose their job. We are all people with similar goals and needs in life, and life's challenges don't discriminate by income. No matter what position or how much money you make, a business closure will effect everyone uniquely based on personal financial factors. No two owners or employees will be impacted equally, so the argument of owners risk more is inaccurate.

Have you ever been on a negotiating committee? Serious question.

I have been at the table in numerous rounds of bargaining and to suggest that unions are trying to run companies lacks logic. In every collective bargaining agreement management rights are clearly set, they dictate how the business is run, the union members are their employees, the contract dictates their working conditions and rights.

Employment standards set minimum standards employers need to follow, guess who got you those minimum standards? Unions. Do you think companies just up and decided that they should allow a new parent a guaranteed year off without losing their job or rate of pay? Or that they thought it would be a good idea for profits to pay people tims and a half for overtime? Heck before unions the term overtime didn't exist, they fought tooth and nail to get the 40 hour work week we all enjoy today as a right.

The problem with employment standards is the labour board does not have enough power to enforce them in a way that truly protects a worker, they cannot force a company to rehire you if they fired you for unjustly, they can make sure the company gets a letter telling them their wrong and make sure you get your 2-6 weeks severance but that's about it in the case of a termination. In the case of being paid overtime, yeah they can enforce this as well, all you have to do is bring them your pay stub and wait a couple months for them to resolve it, then your boss can wait until you show up to work late on day and fire you for making your complaint. Human rights has a little bit more teeth for fighting for your rights at work, but those cases are sometimes very difficult to prove and also take months to years to resolve. Also should point out, unions got you human rights.

The reason most Loblaws employees are part time is because they do not post full time positions unless forced to, it's a way of keeping labour costs down to increase profits, notice I said increase profits not create profits. They can afford more, they would just rather not reward their employees with a reasonable wage if they don't have to. Unions know this tactic and many now negotiate ratios of minimum number of full time to part time. It's not unreasonable for a full time worker in the city of Calgary to want to make $40-50k, just because they don't work a highly skilled job shouldn't mean they have to live in poverty while working full time for a company that is profiting billions annually.

Walmart has closed every single store that has unionized in the US, and they structure their business in a way which makes it very challenging for its workers to unionize, my post has already gotten long enough so if you'd like a more in depth explanation on this please send me a pm.

My point about slavery comes from a combination of many of the points I've made above, the labour movement started at a time when workers had no rights, they basically got whatever their boss offered and if they didn't do it that was it, so people fought to change this. The mentality amongst employers has never changed in the sense that they need to make money but want to spend as little as possible to make as much as possible. People have fallen under the belief that the "standards" we have today are guaranteed, this is not the case at all.

Laws and standards can be changed if not protected, this is why it is very short sighted when people attack the labour movement for continuing to fight maintaining the gains made as well as for more rights and more fair redistribution of wealth. Companies are fighting for the opposit, they want to be able to run their business with as little resistance or cost as possible, everything unions have fought for that both Union and non-union workers enjoy as rights is always at risk, you are kidding yourself if you think that if unions stop fighting for maintaing and improving what we have that companies will simply maintain the gains we have and not look for ways to reduce our rights and benefits I can only ask you this, why would they be doing it now? It doesn't take long for things to go south when you put yourself at the mercy of the greedy.

People knew slavery was unfair when it was around, but they didn't give it up willingly, what sense is there in putting ourselves in a spot to move back closer to how things were instead of continuing to distance ourselves from it?

For now my only comment is "wow", but when I get time I'll post some counter points.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Delgar

For now my only comment is "wow", but when I get time I'll post some counter points.

I'm just bumping this thread because I was actually really curious to hear your counter points as it seems, given your "wow" comment you strongly disagree with what I had posted.