Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

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.

Who would you blame in a situation when the workers are consistently allowed to not provide the service level you are expecting?

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.

How do you know their employer isn’t instructing them to not follow the special instructions to save time and get on with their other deliveries?

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.

Some CBAs do have that kind of language in them and some don’t, I think you’d actually be surprised at how few do. But let’s say that the CP CBA does, in that case what is leading you to believe that management isn’t directing, enabling or at the very consenting to allow these employees to perform their job in this manor?

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.

Or maybe, just maybe, the company is completely ok with what the employees are doing. If I recall you had an issue during the last strike where the company misled you into believing your deliveries wouldn’t be impacted so I guess I’m a little perplexed as to why you would now be so quick to give them the benefit of doubt now.

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?

I don’t set the expectations for how either do their jobs, their employers do.

But if they aren’t being managed and told they are not doing their job properly then I have a hard time placing the blame for that on the employee regardless of which company they work for.

[TorqueDog]

I'm numbering your post for ease of following the reply.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

1. Who would you blame in a situation when the workers are consistently allowed to not provide the service level you are expecting?

2. How do you know their employer isn’t instructing them to not follow the special instructions to save time and get on with their other deliveries?

3. Some CBAs do have that kind of language in them and some don’t, I think you’d actually be surprised at how few do. But let’s say that the CP CBA does, in that case what is leading you to believe that management isn’t directing, enabling or at the very consenting to allow these employees to perform their job in this manor?

4. Or maybe, just maybe, the company is completely ok with what the employees are doing.

5. I don’t set the expectations for how either do their jobs, their employers do.

6. But if they aren’t being managed and told they are not doing their job properly then I have a hard time placing the blame for that on the employee regardless of which company they work for.

1. In your hypothetical situation? Both. Managers need to manage properly, employees need to actually do the job they're paid to do. If this were to accurately describe this situation? Still both, while also recognizing that the person who has the last possible opportunity to do the job properly should bear the blame for not doing so; these are grown adults. It's why an individual poorly performing employee would get fired before the manager -- unless you can demonstrate the problem exists higher up the chain of command, but this makes an assumption we don't have information to justify making.
2. I don't, but applying Occam's razor would dictate that I would need to make more assumptions to take your position.
3. See #2; nothing, but again -- Occam's razor: I have to assume more -- much of which goes against the way most companies are run -- with the exact same information to take your position over mine.
4. This seems unlikely given how little the company and the employees (or at the very least, the union representing them) appear to agree upon.
5. Customers have expectations of the companies they do business with. A company's employees are the face of said company, meaning our expectations as customers are delivered upon (or not) by those representatives. I would hold someone in a well-compensated full-time role to a higher standard than someone working an entry-level part-time gig at the deep fryer after school.
6. Hypothetical situations, "let's say", "maybe"... "if". As the great Gino D'Acampo once said, "If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike."

To hold your positions require one to make a lot more assumptions than I care to, but if you're comfortable with that then be my guest.

[woob]

I would suspect there's an aspect of Canada Post and/or the Union may have said "Look, yes we know customers can specify special instructions, but we frankly cannot hit those targets currently. So just ignore them for the most part."

If that is the case, then they should remove the option to specify instructions. Or clearly state that they'll make best effort to meet the special instructions but may be limited in doing so.

But agree with TorqueDog, if the option is still there and he's clearly outlined his wishes, then it's on the last mile carrier to fufill that part of their job duty until such a time that CP advertises differently to it's customers.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I'm numbering your post for ease of following the reply.

1. In your hypothetical situation? Both. Managers need to manage properly, employees need to actually do the job they're paid to do. If this were to accurately describe this situation? Still both, while also recognizing that the person who has the last possible opportunity to do the job properly should bear the blame for not doing so; these are grown adults. It's why an individual poorly performing employee would get fired before the manager -- unless you can demonstrate the problem exists higher up the chain of command, but this makes an assumption we don't have information to justify making.
2. I don't, but applying Occam's razor would dictate that I would need to make more assumptions to take your position.
3. See #2; nothing, but again -- Occam's razor: I have to assume more -- much of which goes against the way most companies are run -- with the exact same information to take your position over mine.
4. This seems unlikely given how little the company and the employees (or at the very least, the union representing them) appear to agree upon.
5. Customers have expectations of the companies they do business with. A company's employees are the face of said company, meaning our expectations as customers are delivered upon (or not) by those representatives. I would hold someone in a well-compensated full-time role to a higher standard than someone working an entry-level part-time gig at the deep fryer after school.
6. Hypothetical situations, "let's say", "maybe"... "if". As the great Gino D'Acampo once said, "If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike."

1. You as a customer don’t get to dictate the job the employee is paid to do, their employer does. I don’t need much more than the information you have provided to determine that the company likely doesn’t have an issue with the employee not following the special delivery instructions. As you’ve stated CP does not try to stop it, which suggests to me that they are ok with it.

2. I use a Gillette razor myself but you go with whatever brand you like. You’re trying to argue that one assumption is more than a different assumption. If you tried to argue that it’s possible that all of the posties are reverse vampires that have to get home before dark and therefore don’t have time to waste on following special instructions, you’d still only be making a single assumption.

3. Ok, you may want to consider switching razor brands.

4. Well the union wouldn’t have a say on the company’s policy so I take it that you’re trying to argue that if the company decided to not discipline employees the union would oppose that because the two parties are having difficulty negotiating an extension to the CBA? Interesting theory. Not a logical one but interesting nonetheless.

5. So you’re going to throw out an assumption that all McDonald’s employees are high school students? The irony is rich. Employees don’t dictate the acceptability of the service you receive. If CP wants their employees to ignore special instructions and just put the parcel back on the truck for customer pickup then that’s what the employee is going to do. They’re likely not going to risk disciplinary action for going against what they are directed to do by their employer even if it would make the customer happier. Parcel companies generally track their employees like hawks and unnecessary down time is generally something employees get disciplined for.

6. Your entire assumption/theory is a hypothetical situation, you haven’t proven any of it. Zero. But I must say your whole post was an awesome read.

To hold your positions require one to make a lot more assumptions than I care to, but if you're comfortable with that then be my guest.

One assumption is the same amount of assumptions as one different assumption. That shouldn’t be as complicated of a conclusion as you’re making it out to be.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by woob

I would suspect there's an aspect of Canada Post and/or the Union may have said "Look, yes we know customers can specify special instructions, but we frankly cannot hit those targets currently. So just ignore them for the most part."

If that is the case, then they should remove the option to specify instructions. Or clearly state that they'll make best effort to meet the special instructions but may be limited in doing so.

But agree with TorqueDog, if the option is still there and he's clearly outlined his wishes, then it's on the last mile carrier to fufill that part of their job duty until such a time that CP advertises differently to it's customers.

Unfortunately in every single CBA there’s this one pesky clause called “Management Rights”. The long and short of it is that so long as the company isn’t violating any terms outlined in the CBA then they have the right to run their business as stupidly as they want to.

The employees duty is to follow the direction of management or face disciplinary action. It’s not the employees decision to make even if they know it’s the right thing to do so if CP says don’t follow the special instructions, they ain’t gonna follow them.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Unfortunately in every single CBA there’s this one pesky clause called “Management Rights”. The long and short of it is that so long as the company isn’t violating any terms outlined in the CBA then they have the right to run their business as stupidly as they want to.

The employees duty is to follow the direction of management or face disciplinary action. It’s not the employees decision to make even if they know it’s the right thing to do so if CP says don’t follow the special instructions, they ain’t gonna follow them.

So if management has a policy that packages are to be dropped off at doors. If an employee doesn’t follow the policy and there is no discipline is that managements fault, the employees fault or both?

[TorqueDog]

CP strike somewhat averted, CUPW just refusing to work overtime.

Even the CUPW understands appropriate strategy to win public favour better than the Conservative Party of Canada.

Originally Posted by GGG

So if management has a policy that packages are to be dropped off at doors. If an employee doesn’t follow the policy and there is no discipline is that managements fault, the employees fault or both?

OOH OOH I KNOW THIS ONE! Management! It’s always management, even when it’s the fault of an employee!

Management owns systemic failure, sure. But frontline execution still matters. Pretending employees have no agency or accountability in this context is just as flawed as pretending management is blameless (which, let’s be clear, no one is).

The idea that a corporation like Canada Post would officially instruct employees to ignore delivery instructions just to shave a few seconds off each stop is a pretty big assumption. If we go by what’s typical in most organizations, that’s not how operations are structured. If one wants to claim systemic direction to ignore customer instructions, the burden of proof is on them.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

So if management has a policy that packages are to be dropped off at doors. If an employee doesn’t follow the policy and there is no discipline is that managements fault, the employees fault or both?

Legally? The courts would say that if the policy isn’t being consistently enforced by the employer then the employee isn’t at fault.

[TorqueDog]

If a company has a rule and an employee knowingly violates it, they’re still making a choice. The fact that management doesn’t follow through with discipline doesn’t magically convert poor performance into acceptable behaviour. Failure of enforcement doesn’t excuse failure of execution.

This discussion started with real-world, lived experiences, not a courtroom. From a customer’s perspective, it’s not unreasonable to expect both the employer to enforce expectations and the employee to try to follow them. Your responses seem to consistently wipe the slate clean for the employee.

[chemgear]

It was eye opening to personally see how the City of Calgary dealt with a problematic city employee with multiple sexual harassment cases being a pain in the ass.

Basically nothing was done due to the union erring on the side of the creep after multiple instances rather than the union member experiencing the harassment.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Legally? The courts would say that if the policy isn’t being consistently enforced by the employer then the employee isn’t at fault.

I don’t particularly care about legally. I was asking you as a person who has likely been both an employee and a manager where your personal ethics fall.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

OOH OOH I KNOW THIS ONE! Management! It’s always management, even when it’s the fault of an employee!

If only you were sarcastic more often.

The idea that a corporation like Canada Post would officially instruct employees to ignore delivery instructions just to shave a few seconds off each stop is a pretty big assumption. If we go by what’s typical in most organizations, that’s not how operations are structured. If one wants to claim systemic direction to ignore customer instructions, the burden of proof is on them.

I lol’d.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by chemgear

It was eye opening to personally see how the City of Calgary dealt with a problematic city employee with multiple sexual harassment cases being a pain in the ass.

Basically nothing was done due to the union erring on the side of the creep after multiple instances rather than the union member experiencing the harassment.

The union in a situation like that should be ensuring that the employee doing the harassing is given due process and should be going after the city for failing to provide a safe work environment. On the surface there does not appear to be a conflict.

[chemgear]

Excellent, now let's see some action on this and support on this file in spite of rhetoric from some of the other cabinet ministers.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ce-for-alberta

New Liberal energy minister vows to support oil, pipelines, ‘clean slate’ for Alberta

Hodgson said that Canada would 'remain a reliable global supplier' of oil and gas under his watch

“It’s high time to trade more with people who share our values — not just our border,” said Hodgson.

The new energy minister also repeated Prime Minister Mark Carney’s campaign promise to fast-track projects of national interest, including major energy projects.

“Canada will no longer be defined by delay. We will be defined by delivery,” said Hodgson.

“Frankly, I think Minister Guilbeault spoke out of line, and we’re seeing a much more positive tone from the minister who’ll be in charge of these projects,” said Legge.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t particularly care about legally. I was asking you as a person who has likely been both an employee and a manager where your personal ethics fall.

Unfortunately there’s a number of things that I disagree with ethically where at the end of the day the law is all that matters.

Would I say that the person should follow the direction? Yes. (So long as it’s not a safety issue)

Would I say that the person should be punished for doing something their employer is ok with? No.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Unfortunately there’s a number of things that I disagree with ethically where at the end of the day the law is all that matters.

Would I say that the person should follow the direction? Yes. (So long as it’s not a safety issue)

Would I say that the person should be punished for doing something their employer is ok with? No.

So then TouqueDog being upset at Canada post employees not delivering his package to his door is reasonable in the absense of any evidence from a directive from management telling them not to

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

So then TouqueDog being upset at Canada post employees not delivering his package to his door is reasonable in the absense of any evidence from a directive from management telling them not to

There is evidence though, the lack of action on behalf of the employer

I haven’t been saying he’s wrong for being upset about the poor service, I’m saying he’s assigning the blame on the wrong person and I stand by that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

There is evidence though, the lack of action on behalf of the employer

I haven’t been saying he’s wrong for being upset about the poor service, I’m saying he’s assigning the blame on the wrong person and I stand by that.

You just said the employee should follow the procedures provided there are no safety issues so you to blame the employee too

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

You just said the employee should follow the procedures provided there are no safety issues so you to blame the employee too

If you want to take one line out of context in the hopes of getting a “gotcha” moment fill your boots.

I don’t blame an employee for not following a procedure that the employer has demonstrated doesn’t need to be followed. A company could have a call-in policy that requires employees to call-in an hour before their shifts if they are going to absent but if that company hasn’t enforced the policy for years and randomly decides to arbitrarily discipline an employee for not calling in an hour before their shift I’m not placing blame on that employee.

Even you in all of your contrarian glory can probably agree that the company’s actions would be unreasonable in that scenario.

The same logic would apply here.

[rubecube]

Not sure if this was posted already because I didn't have the time to wade through dozens of essays on Canada Post, but Christ, what a ####ing loser.

Clearly hasn't learned a thing from the election.

https://x.com/PierrePoilievre/status...JvBMHamOg&s=19