Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I guess this is as good of an answer we are going to get.

That’s honestly the best answer I could give you. Every Union has different rules for that stuff so I basically know as much as has been reported, $75/day and they have over $200M in a strike fund. I’m not sure if they only qualify to be paid when they picket on days they were scheduled to work or if they can do it every day and get paid. If you and Fuzz want specifics beyond that and what Derek Sutton has posted you should probably call PSAC or one of their members if you know any because they would actually know.

It’s all kind of irrelevant though, a strike fund helps mitigate losses but whether it runs out or not it’s not going to have much if any impact on the strike overall. $75/day probably isn’t going to pay your mortgage.

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

PSAC requiring 4 hours of picketing per day between the hours of 8am and 2pm to receive the strike pay, no idea how it is paid out. No picketing means no pay.

No idea where the $200 million they have access to has come from, but the fewer who picket, the longer it lasts.

It depends who you ask, most people would say dues but pierre Polievre would also add something silly along the lines of it’s money stolen from the taxpayers.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Union people, is that how it works?

What do you mean “U people”?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by you&me

Who would have guessed that union workers don't all strike all days?

I think it’s more surprising that you assumed they did. It’s beyond me how one could have reached that conclusion without somehow assuming that a Union could actually force people to show up to a picket line.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think it’s more surprising that you assumed they did. It’s beyond me how one could have reached that conclusion without somehow assuming that a Union could actually force people to show up to a picket line.

I wonder how /why they decide on the timeline minimums. Like, why wouldn't 1/2 an hour or 1 hour for the photo op do the trick and then everyone go home? Give me my $75, thanks, I made the effort to show up. I support ya, I'm not working, whatever. 4 hrs would be an annoying length to go picket somewhere.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think it’s more surprising that you assumed they did. It’s beyond me how one could have reached that conclusion without somehow assuming that a Union could actually force people to show up to a picket line.

Union membership is so far outside of my wheelhouse, you'll have to excuse my ignorance. Let me explain my understanding of the strike process:

1) Union / members are dissatisfied with one or more conditions of their employment.
2) Negotiations with the employer are pushed as far as they can go and the union / members have no option but to strike as an absolute last resort.
3) Presumably, both sides want a resolution as quickly as possible; employers so they can get back to providing the good or service to their customers, and employees so they can get back to earning a (real) paycheck.
4) To exert maximum pressure on the employer, union workers demonstrate their commitment to improving their working conditions (pay, etc) by picketing everyday.
5) To help with the financial burden for their members being without a regular paycheck while on strike, the union banks some of the dues to pay their workers "strike pay", just to take the edge off (I honestly didn't even know this existed until yesterday).
6) Eventually the sides come to an agreement and the strike ends.

Honestly (really), from my position of ignorance of all-things union, I find it a little surprising that workers striking over being overworked and underpaid don't picket everyday... IMO, from this position of ignorance, it seems like a striking worker - who's now not receiving a regular paycheck - would want to demonstrate maximum commitment to the cause by doing everything they can to reach a resolution as quickly as possible; in the case of the average worker, to me that means picketing, but again, I don't know.

Edit - I think some of my feelings on this come from not knowing strike pay even exisited up until the other day. My thoughts were basically "if you're not working, what else are you going to do? Might as well do whatever you can (picket) for the cause and try to get back to work ASAP"... Knowing now that strike pay exists at least explains why the union would mandate picketing hours to their workers to preserve their funds.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by you&me

Edit - I think some of my feelings on this come from not knowing strike pay even exisited up until the other day. My thoughts were basically "if you're not working, what else are you going to do? Might as well do whatever you can (picket) for the cause and try to get back to work ASAP"... Knowing now that strike pay exists at least explains why the union would mandate picketing hours to their workers to preserve their funds.

I would imagine there would be more than a few striking workers doing side gigs and second jobs instead of being on the picket line.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by you&me

Union membership is so far outside of my wheelhouse, you'll have to excuse my ignorance. Let me explain my understanding of the strike process:

1) Union / members are dissatisfied with one or more conditions of their employment.
2) Negotiations with the employer are pushed as far as they can go and the union / members have no option but to strike as an absolute last resort.
3) Presumably, both sides want a resolution as quickly as possible; employers so they can get back to providing the good or service to their customers, and employees so they can get back to earning a (real) paycheck.
4) To exert maximum pressure on the employer, union workers demonstrate their commitment to improving their working conditions (pay, etc) by picketing everyday.
5) To help with the financial burden for their members being without a regular paycheck while on strike, the union banks some of the dues to pay their workers "strike pay", just to take the edge off (I honestly didn't even know this existed until yesterday).
6) Eventually the sides come to an agreement and the strike ends.

Honestly (really), from my position of ignorance of all-things union, I find it a little surprising that workers striking over being overworked and underpaid don't picket everyday... IMO, from this position of ignorance, it seems like a striking worker - who's now not receiving a regular paycheck - would want to demonstrate maximum commitment to the cause by doing everything they can to reach a resolution as quickly as possible; in the case of the average worker, to me that means picketing, but again, I don't know.

Edit - I think some of my feelings on this come from not knowing strike pay even exisited up until the other day. My thoughts were basically "if you're not working, what else are you going to do? Might as well do whatever you can (picket) for the cause and try to get back to work ASAP"... Knowing now that strike pay exists at least explains why the union would mandate picketing hours to their workers to preserve their funds.

Does the actual picket line help to press for a resolution in a case like this? I understand when it's a factory or something like that, and the union prevents trucks/people from going in and keeping things running. But the workers down near Southland and Macleod picketing aren't in that kind of role?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Slava

Does the actual picket line help to press for a resolution in a case like this? I understand when it's a factory or something like that, and the union prevents trucks/people from going in and keeping things running. But the workers down near Southland and Macleod picketing aren't in that kind of role?

Like I said, honestly, I have no idea... The entire concept of a union and striking is so far beyond my realm, I'm not the one to ask... I thought the entire point of picketing was to draw attention to your grievance and gain support for your cause.

Whether he believes it or not, I'm genuinely curious and recognize oi_iggy's knowledge, so that's why I'm willingly sharing my ignorance and asking for insight.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I would imagine there would be more than a few striking workers doing side gigs and second jobs instead of being on the picket line.

Wonder if some are doing both.

Didnt the govt say that workers who log in will still get paid ?

Is anyone is checking.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by you&me

Like I said, honestly, I have no idea... The entire concept of a union and striking is so far beyond my realm, I'm not the one to ask... I thought the entire point of picketing was to draw attention to your grievance and gain support for your cause.

Whether he believes it or not, I'm genuinely curious and recognize oi_iggy's knowledge, so that's why I'm willingly sharing my ignorance and asking for insight.

I think in the past the idea of picketing was to build support for your cause. I doubt it does anything now. In fact inconveniencing anyone likely makes people less sympathetic to your cause these days.

[belsarius]

So a few points which might help clarify some things.

- For a lot of these strikes with the government, they will still continue to receive their normal paychecks (not required, just standard practice in some cases) and after the contract is finished they will clawback the overpayments during the strike period. Union cautions these people to save as much as they can as they will have to return it, but also it ensures people can still pay their bills on time.

- Strike pay is based on normal working conditions, if you normally work over 20 hours you will receive the $75/day up to 5 days a week. This is higher for workers in the Territories, and lower if you normally work less than 20 hours a week.

- To receive strike pay you must be present and have your barcode scanned in and out and must be on the line for a minimum of 4 hours to receive it.

- There are some employees who are deemed essential and cannot participate in the strike. They can walk the line before/after work or lunch breaks and are warned to not do work that is not normally theirs.

- Strikers are to let these essential workers through, which means they can impede people. I haven't been part of a Federal picket line so I don't know how much of that is done, but in other strikes we have definitely been ensuring that scabs have a hard time getting in.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by belsarius

So a few points which might help clarify some things.

- For a lot of these strikes with the government, they will still continue to receive their normal paychecks (not required, just standard practice in some cases) and after the contract is finished they will clawback the overpayments during the strike period. Union cautions these people to save as much as they can as they will have to return it, but also it ensures people can still pay their bills on time.

- Strike pay is based on normal working conditions, if you normally work over 20 hours you will receive the $75/day up to 5 days a week. This is higher for workers in the Territories, and lower if you normally work less than 20 hours a week.

- To receive strike pay you must be present and have your barcode scanned in and out and must be on the line for a minimum of 4 hours to receive it.

- There are some employees who are deemed essential and cannot participate in the strike. They can walk the line before/after work or lunch breaks and are warned to not do work that is not normally theirs.

- Strikers are to let these essential workers through, which means they can impede people. I haven't been part of a Federal picket line so I don't know how much of that is done, but in other strikes we have definitely been ensuring that scabs have a hard time getting in.

Is a scab someone who has been deemed essential, and therefore required to still work? I thought a scab was someone who could participate in the strike, but instead chose to continue performing their job (i.e. "crossing the picket line").

[Slava]

Originally Posted by belsarius

So a few points which might help clarify some things.

- For a lot of these strikes with the government, they will still continue to receive their normal paychecks (not required, just standard practice in some cases) and after the contract is finished they will clawback the overpayments during the strike period. Union cautions these people to save as much as they can as they will have to return it, but also it ensures people can still pay their bills on time.

- Strike pay is based on normal working conditions, if you normally work over 20 hours you will receive the $75/day up to 5 days a week. This is higher for workers in the Territories, and lower if you normally work less than 20 hours a week.

- To receive strike pay you must be present and have your barcode scanned in and out and must be on the line for a minimum of 4 hours to receive it.

- There are some employees who are deemed essential and cannot participate in the strike. They can walk the line before/after work or lunch breaks and are warned to not do work that is not normally theirs.

- Strikers are to let these essential workers through, which means they can impede people. I haven't been part of a Federal picket line so I don't know how much of that is done, but in other strikes we have definitely been ensuring that scabs have a hard time getting in.

On that first point, aren't a lot of these settled retroactively? Does that mean that there's no real overpayment in a lot of these cases or is that just the "raise" that ends up retroactive and as a result it doesn't really even out (necessarily)?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by timun

LOLWAT?!

CRA workers do not make an average of $140K per year. That's laughably inaccurate. Not saying that's not what you found on a cursory google search, but a quick search will lead you to a copy of the agreement between PSAC-UTE and the CRA.

Go to Appendix "A" and it'll tell you all the pay ranges. The absolute bottom at the lowest entry-level range is $41,658, while the tippy-top of the managerial scale earns $132,427.

So...I'm reading through this thread and came across this.

And I'm scratching my head now.

Because I have 2 clients who work for CRA. I've seen their T4s.

One has been there a long time and makes significantly more than $140K and the other is fresh out of University and started at ~$77K.

But these pay scales are supposed to be set, standard and public, but whats posted and what you're showing us does not match up with what I've actually seen in real life.

Intriguing. I'm sure thats something like overtime, pension benefits, etc. stuff that doesnt technically get included in the scale?

For instance my daughter is a teacher and you can look up her salary scale and her T4 matches that almost to the dollar, so I find this discrepancy more than a little odd.

I'm not going to draw any conclusions from it because I cant identify the cause of the difference, I'm just saying that my experience does not jive with that information.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by you&me

Is a scab someone who has been deemed essential, and therefore required to still work? I thought a scab was someone who could participate in the strike, but instead chose to continue performing their job (i.e. "crossing the picket line").

No essential wouldn't be considered a scab worker, the union recognizes that they are legally not allowed to strike in their position and would allow them full access - they are not trying to counter the strike action.

Scabs are people who are crossing the line to do the work of those striking (Which is also why essential workers are told not to do the work of those on the line). It is usually an outsider that the company hires to do the work during the strike, but it can be workers who are striking and decide to go back in. Usually that forfeits their union membership so when a contract is signed they would no longer be employed.

I've seen it where the strike went so long that most of the employees just crossed the line and went back to work and ended up breaking the union for that company. As a member of the same union but a different company at the same worksite there was a lot of animosity to those people for a long time, so people don't usually cross a strike line.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Slava

On that first point, aren't a lot of these settled retroactively? Does that mean that there's no real overpayment in a lot of these cases or is that just the "raise" that ends up retroactive and as a result it doesn't really even out (necessarily)?

I think what is saying is that you will continue to get a paycheck you aren't entitled to and that will be clawed back later. So right now the government doesn't have to pay the striking workers but in the interest of good faith, they will continue normal paychecks. But lets say the strike lasts 10 working days. After it is settled, they will take those 10 days of pay back probably as a % claw back on future pay periods.

I haven't actually been in this situation so its mostly an educated guess based on second hand information, but from what I gather for the federal employees this is a practice they have done in the past, but its not guaranteed to happen. FWIW anytime I have been on strike payroll was cut immediately, but it also was never near this scale.

[Tron_fdc]

Pretty sure strike pay is set by the union, and it's f-all. It's tax free I guess, but good luck living on it for an extended period.

It's not really the point though. Our union guys can't exist on it long term, and we can't exist long term without our workers.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by belsarius

No essential wouldn't be considered a scab worker, the union recognizes that they are legally not allowed to strike in their position and would allow them full access - they are not trying to counter the strike action.

Scabs are people who are crossing the line to do the work of those striking (Which is also why essential workers are told not to do the work of those on the line). It is usually an outsider that the company hires to do the work during the strike, but it can be workers who are striking and decide to go back in. Usually that forfeits their union membership so when a contract is signed they would no longer be employed.

I've seen it where the strike went so long that most of the employees just crossed the line and went back to work and ended up breaking the union for that company. As a member of the same union but a different company at the same worksite there was a lot of animosity to those people for a long time, so people don't usually cross a strike line.

Thanks for that.

That basically confirms my understanding of scabs (at least I got that right!)... I was talking to a PSAC member who's essential and working through this and I couldn't imagine they'd put up with any friction from the strikers and being labelled a scab.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Locke

So...I'm reading through this thread and came across this.

And I'm scratching my head now.

Because I have 2 clients who work for CRA. I've seen their T4s.

One has been there a long time and makes significantly more than $140K and the other is fresh out of University and started at ~$77K.

But these pay scales are supposed to be set, standard and public, but whats posted and what you're showing us does not match up with what I've actually seen in real life.

Intriguing. I'm sure thats something like overtime, pension benefits, etc. stuff that doesnt technically get included in the scale?

For instance my daughter is a teacher and you can look up her salary scale and her T4 matches that almost to the dollar, so I find this discrepancy more than a little odd.

I'm not going to draw any conclusions from it because I cant identify the cause of the difference, I'm just saying that my experience does not jive with that information.

The over $140K person is probably someone who's high up in management, who likely wouldn't be part of the union. And the other person starting at $77K is possible if they got hired into a higher salary position to start. But based on the figures the government is providing, the average salary for the union members (i.e. the people on strike) is about $67K.

I assume there's a bit of selection bias going on with your experience. Middle-wage earners who make $60K a year don't normally hire accountants to do their taxes.

[PepsiFree]

Honestly, who making less than $100k that doesn’t own a business is using an accountant? Complete waste of money and the next thing AI is going to kick to the curb after tax filers.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Pretty sure strike pay is set by the union, and it's f-all. It's tax free I guess, but good luck living on it for an extended period.

Most of the workers don't necessarily need to live off it though, because normally they still get paid during the strike. Yes, they have to pay back overpayments, but because of how far back the current agreement is going (back into 2021), they'd need to be on strike for a decent amount of time to actually end up losing money out of pocket.

Even just with the government's offer, employees would be owed about 11% of their annual salary for the retroactive payment, so that's almost 1.5 months' worth of salary right there, plus any strike pay they get. And if they somehow get their wage demands met, then their payment would be about 18% of their annual salary, which means they could sustain 2-3 months of strike action without losing any money.