Superstore Workers to go on strike

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

So we will have to nut up and get the mix at the liquor store then?

Don't to that. It's god damned expensive there, let me tell you!

[iggy_oi]

I think for most of the workers the strike isn't really costing them that much and that is the issue. Superstore/Loblaws likes to point to the hourly wages and say their staff are well paid, but if you're only getting 1 or 2 shifts a week and no benefits because you are considered part time (despite wanting full time hours) it really doesn't matter how much you make per hour.

I've been talking a lot to the people working at the superstore near my house and most of them have been forced to take second jobs anyways due to a lack of hours at the store.

Where the strategy that Loblaws has used to save on costs(basically get 5 employees at a part time rate with no benefits to work 1 eight hour shift each instead of 1 full time worker w/benefits) is going to fail them, is simply that these employees don't need their 1 shift per week but Loblaws needs it's 5 employees covering the 1 full time role. At some point they are not gonna be able to continue covering the 40ish full time roles that the ~200 employees on strike work by using managers from their corporate head office and crackheads from temp agencies.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think for most of the workers the strike isn't really costing them that much and that is the issue. Superstore/Loblaws likes to point to the hourly wages and say their staff are well paid, but if you're only getting 1 or 2 shifts a week and no benefits because you are considered part time (despite wanting full time hours) it really doesn't matter how much you make per hour.

I've been talking a lot to the people working at the superstore near my house and most of them have been forced to take second jobs anyways due to a lack of hours at the store.

Where the strategy that Loblaws has used to save on costs(basically get 5 employees at a part time rate with no benefits to work 1 eight hour shift each instead of 1 full time worker w/benefits) is going to fail them, is simply that these employees don't need their 1 shift per week but Loblaws needs it's 5 employees covering the 1 full time role. At some point they are not gonna be able to continue covering the 40ish full time roles that the ~200 employees on strike work by using managers from their corporate head office and crackheads from temp agencies.

You're forgetting that with any strike there are always workers who cross immediately. As the strike goes on more will cross. As for the crackheads comments, it doesn't a lot of brain cells to stock shelves. Pretty simple job that doesn't require a lot of training.

[LockedOut]

8500 workers across 28 stores sounds way out of whack.

[justkidding]

Looks like a tentative deal has been reached. The vote will be tomorrow according to Twitter.

[The Goon]

Memories of Labour Unrest marinade to go on sale Wed.

[Regulator75]

Was T&T impacted?

[albertGQ]

I wonder what Loblaws gave in on

[iggy_oi]

Tentative deal reached, but employees remain on picket lines

http://globalnews.ca/news/885493/alb...-go-on-strike/

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by LockedOut

8500 workers across 28 stores sounds way out of whack.

Average of ~250-300 employees per store is fairly reasonable for a Superstore.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Was T&T impacted?

No they are not in the same union, if they have one at all. Same goes for no frills, box, real Canadian wholesale club.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Where the strategy that Loblaws has used to save on costs(basically get 5 employees at a part time rate with no benefits to work 1 eight hour shift each instead of 1 full time worker w/benefits) is going to fail them, is simply that these employees don't need their 1 shift per week but Loblaws needs it's 5 employees covering the 1 full time role.

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when I worked there back from 2003-2007ish the part time workers also got full benefits. To maintain benefits you only had to maintain 10 hours per week. Like I said, it might have changed since then. From what I know this is all about hours anyway. Big grocery stores are definitely known for being stingy on hours.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when I worked there back from 2003-2007ish the part time workers also got full benefits. To maintain benefits you only had to maintain 10 hours per week. Like I said, it might have changed since then. From what I know this is all about hours anyway. Big grocery stores are definitely known for being stingy on hours.

They don't receive benefits

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

They don't receive benefits

I am going to have to disagree there. Here is their benefits package:

http://www.gounion.ca/benefits/parttime.cfm

and here is their eligibility:

To be eligible for participation in the benefit program you must be employed part-time by Real Canadian Superstores or Liquorstores, and be a Member of the UFCW Local 401. To be eligible for claims reimbursement you must have worked five (5) consecutive months and have worked at least 120 hours in the last twelve (12) consecutive-week period. Coverage, for you, starts the first of the month following the above-noted requirements. Entitlement continues provided you work ten (10) hours per week, or have an average of 120 hours during each twelve (12) consecutive week period.

It appears they have dropped their dental from when I worked there, but they still have benefits for working 10 hrs. per week

[iggy_oi]

^^ I should have clarified, they aren't guaranteed benefits is what I was trying to say. And if you read it carefully you can see where the problem is, you must work a minimum number of hours per week to maintain the benefits, so ironically if you are sick or injured and can't go into work, you could lose your health care benefits. Most people will look at it and say how hard is it to show up for more then 120 hours in 12 weeks? Well if you are only getting scheduled 10 hours a week, all it takes is one missed shift, which is why the employees want more hours.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

^^ I should have clarified, they aren't guaranteed benefits is what I was trying to say. And if you read it carefully you can see where the problem is, you must work a minimum number of hours per week to maintain the benefits, so ironically if you are sick or injured and can't go into work, you could lose your health care benefits. Most people will look at it and say how hard is it to show up for more then 120 hours in 12 weeks? Well if you are only getting scheduled 10 hours a week, all it takes is one missed shift, which is why the employees want more hours.

For the vast majority of employees this isn't even an issue. Scheduling is largely based on when you are available, so if you are available anytime to work, you will almost always have no issue meeting this minimum requirement. You will not be working FT hours, but I can almost promise you that you will not be scheduled below 10 hours per week, especially if you have any seniority.

If you do restrict yourself, you will have a much harder time meeting this requirement - the biggest issue is evenings/weekends, which a lot of people try to restrict, which puts them much lower in the waterfall of hours. But if you can't work evenings / weekends, then you probably shouldn't be working in Retail, since that is when the majority of shopping is done.

[Maccalus]

^^ I agree, I never claimed they were guaranteed. I was just arguing that part time employees do get benefits at superstore, unlike many of their competitors (Walmart, etc.). Like I said before, the strike is about hours.

I wish more companies would take the Costco approach and retain a certain percentage of full time, decently paid employees who can maintain a decent level of customer service. The amount of money these companies waste on hiring, training and managing unreliable employees is staggering. I still remember when I was there during the boom and the mess that would happen after the 4-5th cashier wouldn't show up for their shift on a Saturday afternoon.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

I wish more companies would take the Costco approach and retain a certain percentage of full time, decently paid employees who can maintain a decent level of customer service.

I think this is what the workers want

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by SHOGUN

Kind of off topic here.. but does anyone know where to buy the cheapest chicken breast? I find Superstore to be pretty expensive in terms of their poultry.

We usually buy our chicken boobies at m&m's......I offset the cost buy eating and drinking a lot of the samples........

[iggy_oi]

In response to CaramomLS, the other problem with this requirement is even if your availability is anytime the maximum amount of hours you will get is 28, and at even at that they scatter people's shifts to the point where it's near impossible to work another part time. So while in that situation you can get benefits, I think most people would have a hard time living off 28 hours pay regardless where they work. (Even though everyone on CP makes >$100k/year)