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

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I said union zealot. That word has a specific meaning.

You, for instance, are a union member. And one who has been quite reasonable throughout this thread. Resurrection demonstrates the attitude of the zealot. While the two of you are on the same side of the overall debate, I am quite certain you see the differences between you two, particularly in attitude and combativeness, that the rest of us do.

Edit: I would add that what the union movement was about is not really what it is about today. IMNSHO, modern unions tend to display many behavioural traits similar to that of the employers they view as being enemies. One aspect in particular that I was actually talking about elsewhere today being the trend of consolidation and concentration of power and control that has occurred over the years. One has to ask how unions with literally millions of members representing diverse groups in differing industries can hope to operate in the best interest of all members. That concentration of power also results in another change - one of a union being about pride and unity being replaced with being about entitlement and selfishness. Again, character traits demonstrated by your erstwhile companion.

That word can be used in many contexts with definitions varying in extremity, you may not have meant for it to come off that way but sarcasm in text can be tough to gauge, I found it offensive not so much towards myself or my sociopolitical beliefs, but because it can be misread as insinuating that someone who strongly believes in unions and the labour movement is wrong and thinks this way. Many people labeled union "zealots" were killed or suffered in other ways fighting for social justice and labour "rights" that society takes all too often for granted.

As for the labour movement in the modern day, while unions have grown and structured themselves, they still are still able to fight for their members because locals are set up to cover certain jurisdictions and industries. They can use their expansive network to gain insight on what is going in other areas and industries to provide better representation for their members.

If you are in a legal battle, a lawyer working at a law firm has far more resources at their disposal to help you win your case. The same is true for a union that has multiple locals working together. Solidarity amongst the members from various industries and geographical locations is built on the principles those members are representing: fighting for workers rights. Doesn't matter what industry someone works in, the supporting members have the same goals and values as one another and they know the fight to achieve it is one that is fought on many levels, so a win for any membership group is a win for them, even a win for a different union is a win for them.

The growing size and scale can have its downsides, corruption is one of the biggest worries, fortunately with every case of this comes higher scrutiny and stricter regulations and transparency laws from the labour board and other levels
of government, so while it is always a concern it's not something I worry about because I know if it does happen and someone wants to follows the steps to address it, that person is protected to do so, and there will be an investigation. Given the strict transparency laws surrounding union funds, there will be nowhere to hide the truth and those convicted of wrong doing are held accountable for their actions.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I sometimes browse on my phone not logged in and 95% of your posts are good. We'll just never agree on anything political or business related.


The union said no way, it wasn't in their job description so it wasn't happening. Public service are the worst for this stuff, the managers are mostly all people who came up throught the union. Nobody has any interest in fighting for what is right when they can just do nothing and the money still pours in.

How is any of that the unions fault? I like my union but a lot of the anti union posters in this thread are really starting to make me consider the idea of going to work for one of these Jedi mind trick trained unions.

Anyone can say anything, would you blame the union if they told that same manager to start paying their employees double their salary and he did it? Having a brain dead manager who can't make proper decisions on running the business has nothing to do with a union.

I don't know why the union said that the employee didn't have to do that work, but it seems as though they weren't in the right in their position, mistakes and arguments can be wrong on either side, but if the other side doesn't even try to challenge it when it is so blatantly wrong, then they are at fault for not making an informed decision. I would say the exact same thing if the tables were turned and the employer didn't have the right to make him do the work and the union just said oh well you better do what he tells you.

[iggy_oi]

So.... http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business...iner-1.3666723

Apparently the sticking point for the postal workers union is that they don't want a two tiered pension plan, the existing plan has a defined benefit, that plan currently has $22billion in it, but has $28billion in liabilities, the plan had a surplus of $1billion last year while paying out $880 million to retirees. Why is Canada post making this a hill to die on? At least for this round of bargaining. They have time to wait and see if this thing will continue to show growth and improve, why not opt for a shorter term deal in an effort to avoid a dispute?

I can completely agree with the workers not wanting a two tier system, those cause problems in future negotiations

[peter12]

A lot of really excellent posts in here - particularly from iggy_oi.

I just want to ask the anti-union side - have you honestly not witnessed identically inefficient behaviour on the corporate side? During the oil boom years, on the consulting side, I saw a full-range of behaviours, from people busting their hump every day to people taking every sick day, refusing to work overtime, to PMS overstaffing and overbilling projects to work-plans with absolutely no KPIs.

To pretend this is purely a union problem is laughable.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Apparently the sticking point for the postal workers union is that they don't want a two tiered pension plan

Why is Canada post making this a hill to die on?

Why is CUPW making this a hill to die on? AFIAK CUPW is one of 3 unions CP is bargaining with. CUPW is the only one of those three that have a sticking point with the two tiered system.

Any article on CBC or most other sources indicates a DC pension is the scariest and most harrowing thing to have happen to you in your entire employment history. The more realistic view is what, 10% of people lucky enough to even have a pension in this country have a guaranteed pension? Companies have been shifting to a DC for the last 20 years, the fact that CP thinks they're a special little flower and deserves to keep a DB pension is amazing. The more amazing part is that they're not dropping people from a DB to a DC, they're just implementing a DC pension for new employees. Again, like hundreds of companies before them.

CP is making this a hill to die on because from a company's standpoint a DB pension costs exponentially more. Look to GM, it's the pensions that almost killed them. Well that and the Pontiac Aztek.

Regardless, the CUPW is fighting for pensions on NEW EMPLOYEES. They're not fighting for the rights of the current ones. While I get from your standpoint makes sense, but from the standpoint of the vast majority of Canadians makes them seem greedy. It's the equivalent of Blockbuster or the Pony Express fighting for people that won't have jobs in 10 years.

And before I get the typical "yeah well you're a typical conservative capitalist", I've been in two unions over the course of a decade. One completely corrupt, the other mostly show. I've been placed on the stand for arbitration. I've then gone on to employment that isn't forced into a union.

[Resolute 14]

Canada Post is making the pension plan a hill to die on because governments and agencies all over North America are dying because of pensions. Why do you think communities are going bankrupt? History tells us that 'wait and see' isn't going to work, and as I said before, Canada Post has to look long term. Of course CUPW wants a 'wait and see' attitude. All it cares about is the short term and getting its members as much money now as it can. CUPW doesn't give a rats ass about how Canada Post is going to deal with the costs, since they know taxpayers are on the hook no matter what happens.

[iggy_oi]

From what I read in that article, I've come to the conclusion that the current pension plan is showing signs that it is viable, if Canada post is worried that it is a gamble to continue with I don't see why they can't try to make adjustments to the current plan in an effort to protect it from becoming a liability. If they have new employees paying into a new plan I don't see how that will help fix the current plan since it will only be old employees paying into it which will most likely lead to a greater deficit as there will be less and less employees contributing to it while more and more retirees will be withdrawing from it.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

From what I read in that article, I've come to the conclusion that the current pension plan is showing signs that it is viable, if Canada post is worried that it is a gamble to continue with I don't see why they can't try to make adjustments to the current plan in an effort to protect it from becoming a liability. If they have new employees paying into a new plan I don't see how that will help fix the current plan since it will only be old employees paying into it which will most likely lead to a greater deficit as there will be less and less employees contributing to it while more and more retirees will be withdrawing from it.

What adjustments do you think CUPW is going to support exactly? And by adjustments you mean reduction in payouts correct? Is there some other way to come up with $6B? Or do you think they'll support increases to their contributions with no increase in the pension payout?

[Resolute 14]

Government suggests binding arbitration, Canada Post agrees. The union refuses.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/67...line-extended/

Also, a hilariously pathetic example of spin from the union on why... Trying to equate paying rural carriers less as management wanting to pay women less. That is honestly as pathetic and embarrassing an argument as the NDP made when Trudeau bumped Brosseau.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

From what I read in that article, I've come to the conclusion that the current pension plan is showing signs that it is viable, if Canada post is worried that it is a gamble to continue with I don't see why they can't try to make adjustments to the current plan in an effort to protect it from becoming a liability. If they have new employees paying into a new plan I don't see how that will help fix the current plan since it will only be old employees paying into it which will most likely lead to a greater deficit as there will be less and less employees contributing to it while more and more retirees will be withdrawing from it.

We (not they, but we taxpayers) are on the hook for that deficit anyway. The point of punting or greatly scaling back a defined benefits pension is to halt the runaway expense. That's the reality in many places - including my own employer - people who started before the plans ended were grandfathered in. New hires operate on a different policy. It's the economic equivalent of the NHL grandfathering in mandatory helmet rules.

[Weitz]

Geez my company canceled my Pension with the downturn.

I'm surprised the Union is fighting CP so hard on this. They should be far more concerned that IMO CP won't be around in its current form in 5-10 years.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Why is CUPW making this a hill to die on? AFIAK CUPW is one of 3 unions CP is bargaining with. CUPW is the only one of those three that have a sticking point with the two tiered system.

Any article on CBC or most other sources indicates a DC pension is the scariest and most harrowing thing to have happen to you in your entire employment history. The more realistic view is what, 10% of people lucky enough to even have a pension in this country have a guaranteed pension? Companies have been shifting to a DC for the last 20 years, the fact that CP thinks they're a special little flower and deserves to keep a DB pension is amazing. The more amazing part is that they're not dropping people from a DB to a DC, they're just implementing a DC pension for new employees. Again, like hundreds of companies before them.

CP is making this a hill to die on because from a company's standpoint a DB pension costs exponentially more. Look to GM, it's the pensions that almost killed them. Well that and the Pontiac Aztek.

Regardless, the CUPW is fighting for pensions on NEW EMPLOYEES. They're not fighting for the rights of the current ones. While I get from your standpoint makes sense, but from the standpoint of the vast majority of Canadians makes them seem greedy. It's the equivalent of Blockbuster or the Pony Express fighting for people that won't have jobs in 10 years.

And before I get the typical "yeah well you're a typical conservative capitalist", I've been in two unions over the course of a decade. One completely corrupt, the other mostly show. I've been placed on the stand for arbitration. I've then gone on to employment that isn't forced into a union.

Actually the pensions did kill GM, they got bailed out by the Government.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Locke

Actually the pensions did kill GM, they got bailed out by the Government.

Actually not completely true... More of the blame falls on those greedy capitalists.

The real reason is that they don't make that much money on their cars due to inter-brand competition. Turns out flooding the market with a bunch of cars that pretty much look the same is terrible for business. But still those GD union pensions, right?

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/200...n_the_mar.html

Why? Very competitive market: six Honda dealerships within 90 minutes. Extra $500 seems like taking a loss--how can you stay in business? Inventory: Selling '08 cars this month means that more than likely they'll be replaced with '09 cars. Want to have inventory large enough that someone walking in can find the car he wants and walk away with it. So the $500 is viewed as investment in higher-profit cars.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

Actually the pensions did kill GM, they got bailed out by the Government.

Wasn't the case with GM the fact that they didn't fulfill their pension obligation of matching funds and instead used it as a slush fund?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually not completely true... More of the blame falls on those greedy capitalists.

The real reason is that they don't make that much money on their cars due to inter-brand competition. Turns out flooding the market with a bunch of cars that pretty much look the same is terrible for business. But still those GD union pensions, right?

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/200...n_the_mar.html

Oh yes of course, the most trusted name in news, the Sales Manager at a Honda Dealership on a Podcast.

Or maybe poor management and the pension were to blame:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...gms-bankruptcy

Then there was labor, and management's decision over the decades to grant the United Auto Workers higher wages, medical benefits, and pensions with each contract negotiation. This helped to elevate the standard of living for many blue-collar Americans, but health-care costs would emerge as a major burden on GM, as would a confrontational standoff between management and labor.

Then there was overseas competition. GM simply was not ready to respond to Toyota Motor (TM) and other Japanese manufacturers when they began to gain serious ground in the early 1980s. Toyota, in particular, had developed a lean manufacturing system that was completely different from the mass-assembly-line techniques GM was still using, many decades after Henry Ford perfected them. GM's fractured structure meant that each division had its own manufacturing processes, its own parts, its own engineering, and its own stamping plants.

[V]

I think you need to look at the pension in more than a snapshot in time to determine if it's viable long term. I'm sure the actuaries have done their work. I'm also sure the aging workforce is going to become a greater drain every year. I'm in a DB pension myself, so I hope mine is viable, but I sure wouldn't be surprised if my company made the same policy change in the near future.

One question I have, though, if the DB pension works by those paying in to support those who've retired, how does that work when you eliminate the DB for all new employees?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Oh yes of course, the most trusted name in news, the Sales Manager at a Honda Dealership on a Podcast.

Or maybe poor management and the pension were to blame:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...gms-bankruptcy

The podcast - hosted by a pretty famous economist - directly addresses your second point. The sales manager is there to provide anecdotes, and commentary to the overall analysis. And he is actually a pretty smart dude.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually not completely true... More of the blame falls on those greedy capitalists.

The real reason is that they don't make that much money on their cars due to inter-brand competition. Turns out flooding the market with a bunch of cars that pretty much look the same is terrible for business. But still those GD union pensions, right?

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/200...n_the_mar.html

This happens at every car company and yet some make money and some don't.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by V

I think you need to look at the pension in more than a snapshot in time to determine if it's viable long term. I'm sure the actuaries have done their work. I'm also sure the aging workforce is going to become a greater drain every year. I'm in a DB pension myself, so I hope mine is viable, but I sure wouldn't be surprised if my company made the same policy change in the near future.

One question I have, though, if the DB pension works by those paying in to support those who've retired, how does that work when you eliminate the DB for all new employees?

The old employees' pension would likely have to stand on the growth of its current value of assets, which as pointed out are less than its' projected liabilities.

Basically they'd hope that the fund would achieve enough growth to cover the current deficit while not adding more potential pensioners ie. not allowing the liability to grow.

In truth though they'd just take the shortfall out of General Revenue to cover the difference. Thats the kicker about Government backed DB pensions, the difference will always come from somewhere.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually not completely true... More of the blame falls on those greedy capitalists.

The real reason is that they don't make that much money on their cars due to inter-brand competition. Turns out flooding the market with a bunch of cars that pretty much look the same is terrible for business. But still those GD union pensions, right?

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/200...n_the_mar.html

Its not 'completely true' because when the biggest company in the world goes down theres usually a number of factors involved, but huge liabilities for pensions and health benefits for people who dont work for you anymore was among the most significant factors.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Wasn't the case with GM the fact that they didn't fulfill their pension obligation of matching funds and instead used it as a slush fund?

They did fulfill their pension obligations because no retired workers' pension cheques bounced. As for using their pension fund as a slush fund, I'm not sure.