Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Their existing vehicle fleet size would likely be the argument from Canada post as to why they can’t do that.

Why would fleet size have anything to do with this? Do the vehicles need a weekend break as well?

[Dan02]

Mail delivery should be reduced to two days a week. Would you notice if a bill arrived Tuesday instead of Monday? We'd reduce the size of the workforce by half and still get home delivery if you're lucky enough like me to still get it for now.

[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Well their weekend would just become Monday and Tuesday or Thursday and Friday... just set new lines and let workers pick lines on the basis of seniority. I don't see why it has to be part-time on the weekend.

Why would anyone used to working Monday to Friday agree to give up their Saturday or Sunday for no extra money?

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Why are we talking about Canada Post as a business instead of a federal service? Why is it expected to be profitable?

Because there is only so much money to go around, and the money being spent on a money losing department that is very debatably required reduces the amount of money that can be spent on other things, like health care.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Because there is only so much money to go around, and the money being spent on a money losing department that is very debatably required reduces the amount of money that can be spent on other things, like health care.

Lies!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's pretty flimsy reasoning from a corporation specializing in going broke.

So you think it’s likely that they’d use the argument?

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Why would fleet size have anything to do with this?

Because of the overlap created by not hiring part time strictly to cover for the weekend.

Let’s assume Canada post has 100 trucks currently running at capacity on Monday-Friday. If they move half of the staff to a schedule of Sunday-Thursday and the other half to Tuesday-Saturday, assuming they would want to be running at capacity on Saturday and Sunday while continuing to do so on Monday and Friday as well they would need additional vehicles to ensure that from Tuesday-Thursday all of the employees working on those days (when everyone is scheduled) are still able to make deliveries.

Do the vehicles need a weekend break as well?

While I can appreciate that you probably put a lot of thought into what you hoped would be a very witty sarcastic remark, the increased workload would actually lead to the vehicles requiring maintenance more often. So yes, the vehicles do need breaks as well.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So you’re just gonna give management a pass on not, you know, managing?

Not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

I do appreciate that you’re operating on the assumption that nothing happens to the carrier anytime a customer makes a complaint. Unless of course they call you back to tell you that they didn’t do a thing about it, but I suppose you’d just blame the employee for that too right?

You wanted to know how someone can be serving an essential role and do a crappy job, I explained how.


If I keep making the complaint and the same thing keeps happening, then I can only assume that:
- the CSRs don't pass along the feedback;
- management doesn't do anything about the feedback; or,
- whatever punishment exists that the management is empowered to leverage -- relative to the protections the CBA affords the unionized staff whom would face such consequences and what limitations the CBA imposes upon the aforementioned punishments -- are insufficient to stop employees from doing a crappy job.

I'm certainly not the first person to report this annoying behaviour by delivery carriers, either. But here's the thing -- think about "Last Clear Chance" doctrine; in a professional context, am I going to hold management to higher account than the carrier who won't do their job properly and had the 'last clear chance' to ensure it was?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So you think it’s likely that they’d use the argument?



Because of the overlap created by not hiring part time strictly to cover for the weekend.

Let’s assume Canada post has 100 trucks currently running at capacity on Monday-Friday. If they move half of the staff to a schedule of Sunday-Thursday and the other half to Tuesday-Saturday, assuming they would want to be running at capacity on Saturday and Sunday while continuing to do so on Monday and Friday as well they would need additional vehicles to ensure that from Tuesday-Thursday all of the employees working on those days (when everyone is scheduled) are still able to make deliveries.



While I can appreciate that you probably put a lot of thought into what you hoped would be a very witty sarcastic remark, the increased workload would actually lead to the vehicles requiring maintenance more often. So yes, the vehicles do need breaks as well.

The same 100 trucks are already running Tues-Thurs.

You could actually reduce the trucks needed. For simplicity, say 14 work M-F, 14 Tue-Sat, 14 W-Sun, and so on. On any given day you only need 72 trucks now.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by troutman

How to stop receiving unaddressed advertising mail

https://www.canadapost-.ca/cpc/en/pe...rs-choice.page

Consumers’ Choice program

When you choose to be part of the Consumers’ Choice program, here are some examples of items that we will not deliver:

Flyers and restaurant menus
Free product samples and coupons
Unaddressed magazines and store catalogues
Notices from non-profit organizations
Offers from banking institutions and telecommunications services

link is broken

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So you think it’s likely that they’d use the argument?



Because of the overlap created by not hiring part time strictly to cover for the weekend.

Let’s assume Canada post has 100 trucks currently running at capacity on Monday-Friday. If they move half of the staff to a schedule of Sunday-Thursday and the other half to Tuesday-Saturday, assuming they would want to be running at capacity on Saturday and Sunday while continuing to do so on Monday and Friday as well they would need additional vehicles to ensure that from Tuesday-Thursday all of the employees working on those days (when everyone is scheduled) are still able to make deliveries.



While I can appreciate that you probably put a lot of thought into what you hoped would be a very witty sarcastic remark, the increased workload would actually lead to the vehicles requiring maintenance more often. So yes, the vehicles do need breaks as well.

That... doesn't seem to make sense to me. You're not bringing in extra staff, you're just spreading staff around to cover 7 days instead of bunching all their hours for 5 days. It's still the same amount of labour and truck hours, just spread over the whole week so you can cover all 7 days.

Lets be honest. Is CP even at full capacity during weekdays? I'd argue they can more than cover their daily needs with 70% of their weekday staff so they can re-deploy 30% to the weekend.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

link is broken

There's just a stray hypen in it, it is: https://www.canadapost-postescanada....rs-choice.page

[TorqueDog]

What does the mail delivery truck union have to say about all this? "We want more frequent oil changes! Down with DPF! Quit farting into the driver's seat!"

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You wanted to know how someone can be serving an essential role and do a crappy job, I explained how.


If I keep making the complaint and the same thing keeps happening, then I can only assume that:
- the CSRs don't pass along the feedback;
- management doesn't do anything about the feedback; or,
- whatever punishment exists that the management is empowered to leverage -- relative to the protections the CBA affords the unionized staff whom would face such consequences and what limitations the CBA imposes upon the aforementioned punishments -- are insufficient to stop employees from doing a crappy job.

I'm certainly not the first person to report this annoying behaviour by delivery carriers, either. But here's the thing -- think about "Last Clear Chance" doctrine; in a professional context, am I going to hold management to higher account than the carrier who won't do their job properly and had the 'last clear chance' to ensure it was?

When you order McDonald’s and don’t get a 5 star meal do you complain that the employees are doing a bad job at preparing your food? Or when they don’t give you napkins at the drive thru without requesting them because their manager directs them to not give napkins unless they are requested?

There’s a difference between doing a bad job(not meeting employer expectations) and a company having a poor service model.

As for your comments regarding the protections in the CBA, there are no collective agreements that I’m aware of that prevent an employer from disciplining their employees for just cause.

The Canada Post CBA is available online so if you want to peruse through it and find clauses that prevent them from doing so I’ll be happy to discuss that with you but I don’t think your hypotheticals are worth debating.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The same 100 trucks are already running Tues-Thurs.

You could actually reduce the trucks needed. For simplicity, say 14 work M-F, 14 Tue-Sat, 14 W-Sun, and so on. On any given day you only need 72 trucks now.

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

That... doesn't seem to make sense to me. You're not bringing in extra staff, you're just spreading staff around to cover 7 days instead of bunching all their hours for 5 days. It's still the same amount of labour and truck hours, just spread over the whole week so you can cover all 7 days.

Lets be honest. Is CP even at full capacity during weekdays? I'd argue they can more than cover their daily needs with 70% of their weekday staff so they can re-deploy 30% to the weekend.

Are you both under the impression that Canada Post only wants to add weekend delivery to maintain the current number of parcels delivered each week?

Assuming that CP are wanting to increase their business, if they are not adding part time and keeping full time only they will need additional vehicles.

Ideally they want to be running at capacity and likely are, otherwise they wouldn’t need to add weekend delivery to grow their business. So if they are losing drivers on any of their current days of operation as a result of, for example, moving half of the current staff to Sun-thurs and the other half to tue-sat then in order to maintain current service levels they would naturally need to double their workforce on Mondays and Fridays as a result. If they double their existing workforce on Mondays and fridays without the ability to use part time they would have 50% more employees as they currently do on Tuesday to Thursday with not enough vehicles for them to operate.

This is of course assuming that they only offer Sun-thurs and tue-sat shifts and don’t currently have 33% of their fleet being unused. The latter of which seems like a pretty safe bet. But even if they offered say thurs-mon shifts and/or Fri-tue shifts you would still have more staff than necessary on tuesdays and thursdays.

Yen Man, if your assumption that Canada post could simply spread around the existing work were true I think it would be pretty foolish for them to be fighting this hard just to be able to do that when they are currently getting the job done. It would make zero sense from the business’ perspective.

[GGG]

I think the problem with this whole discussion is it’s missing the first question

What part of Canada post is an essential service and what part does the competitive marketplace serve well?

Canada post shouldn’t expand to weekends to make its parcel service more competitive it should end parcel service where their is competition from existing carriers. It should cut down to weekly or perhaps bi-weekly delivery. Then it should add subsidized parcel service to remote communities. We should expect this revised company to lose money as its core goal is to provide a service that isn’t profitable.

The question of should the union work weekends just misses the whole point of what should be happening. The dramatic downsizing of Canada post.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the problem with this whole discussion is it’s missing the first question

What part of Canada post is an essential service and what part does the competitive marketplace serve well?

Canada post shouldn’t expand to weekends to make its parcel service more competitive it should end parcel service where their is competition from existing carriers. It should cut down to weekly or perhaps bi-weekly delivery. Then it should add subsidized parcel service to remote communities. We should expect this revised company to lose money as its core goal is to provide a service that isn’t profitable.

The question of should the union work weekends just misses the whole point of what should be happening. The dramatic downsizing of Canada post.

Why would we want them to lose money if they can be profitable?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why would we want them to lose money if they can be profitable?

The first question would be can they be profitable while performing their mandate to offer subsidized services? We have not seen any indication they can be. I would doubt it as their competition doesn’t need to provide the subsidized services therefore by only doing the profitable portions they will always be able to to win business away from CP. But you could instead mean lose less money than they other wise would.

But ignoring the above I think it’s more philosophical in nature. This comes down to the question of what services should the government provide.

So we know that the competition motive leads efficiency where their is sufficient competition for services and monopolization where their isn’t. We also need consumer choice to have a meaningful number of times of using a service to be able to differentiate results. So in general there isn’t a reason for the government to provide parcel service in most cities and non remote areas.

I have the same views with the CBC it should be providing only services that lose money like news and radio and not complete in other spaces where the private sector is effective at delivering entertainment services.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Why would we want them to lose money if they can be profitable?

If they can be profitable, why are they choosing to lose money? And, while they're losing money, why should they be paid more for an underperforming service?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

If they can be profitable, why are they choosing to lose money?

Probably a number of reasons but I can’t really answer that for Canada Post.

And, while they're losing money, why should they be paid more for an underperforming service?

Well the employees aren’t the ones dictating how the service is provided.

You’re at this point basically arguing that employees working for a company that didn’t turn a profit shouldn’t be paid at all. If you really want to go down that road I guess no company would ever be able to make a profit because if you want the employees to cover all of the losses then I guess they’d have to reap all of the benefits from the profits. I never would have guessed you were a closet communist Locke.

You know that a company’s profits can be impacted by investing revenues into growing the business so while the company may not be making a profit for that quarter or year they still could be amassing property/equipment, the value of which could allow them to break even. Employees shouldn’t be expected to take a hit for that.

Not to say that that is the case here but I think that broad of a question without considering any nuance is an over simplification of business in general.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When you order McDonald’s and don’t get a 5 star meal do you complain that the employees are doing a bad job at preparing your food? Or when they don’t give you napkins at the drive thru without requesting them because their manager directs them to not give napkins unless they are requested?

McDonalds is probably one of the most consistent experiences for what you pay, and expectations are typically met or exceeded. Further, it’s a whole team of people that delivery the components that comprise an individual meal, so it’s much harder to pinpoint an individual failing in service delivery, and in fact the last person you interact with — the window person — is far enough away in the process that it was someone else earlier on that would have dropped a QA check, which is not even remotely relatable to this situation.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There’s a difference between doing a bad job(not meeting employer expectations) and a company having a poor service model.

In the CP instance, it is absolutely down to the carrier themselves who has the last clear chance to do the job properly. When receiving tracked parcels, you have the ability to specify delivery instructions such as to where the parcel should be delivered, which I — well in advance — always indicate to the front door of my suite. If the parcel can fit in the parcel lockbox and they put it there, I’m totally fine with that, but if it doesn’t, then all I’m asking is that the carrier follow my bloody delivery instructions. If there is a spot for the customer to provide delivery instructions, I don’t see a scenario in which ignoring said instructions is meeting employer expectations — it sure as hell doesn’t meet customer expectations. Even Skip drivers have a better track record of obeying delivery instructions, and a third of them can’t even figure out how to use an apartment buzzer.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

As for your comments regarding the protections in the CBA, there are no collective agreements that I’m aware of that prevent an employer from disciplining their employees for just cause.

The Canada Post CBA is available online so if you want to peruse through it and find clauses that prevent them from doing so I’ll be happy to discuss that with you but I don’t think your hypotheticals are worth debating.

I never claimed what you said I did. Even for cause, CBAs generally do set out what disciplinary actions are allowed, what corrective actions must be done first, the process for escalating disciplinary actions up to and including termination, etc. I only surmised — after providing two other very plausible reasons — that whatever actions are allowed are either insufficient in threat or in actual execution to dissuade carriers from not carrying out delivery instructions properly if it continues to be a problem.

You’re welcome to dig up the CBA yourself if you want to have that conversation. At this point, I’m just here to stop you misrepresenting what I’ve said or applying inaccurate comparisons which — bloody hell, is that the expectations we should have for Canada Post employees? The standards we have for McDonald’s employees?