Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I actually brought that up with a few of the workers at the store near my house, apparently Loblaws wants nothing to do with that. All these issues are always part of a bigger picture in collective bargaining.
As for your next post about waiting by the phone to be called in to work, that's what the workers are also fed up with, having to be so desperate for hours that you have to plan to always be ready for work. I don't think anyone would want to live like that when you could just be scheduled full time, most of these part timers want full time, but Loblaws doesn't want to guarantee benefits.
|
I'm not sure if I agree with that.
A couple of things - the people typically most heavily represented on the union side are the most senior employees. They are typically the loudest and the Union Reps at SS have known them the longest. They are FT and have usually topped out on the scale. The contract prior to this one was 80cents/80cents/80cents IIRC per year increases to those employees, while securing little in the way of benefits. I can tell you that securing non-monetary benifits was not as much of an interest to them as you might seem to think. The #1 concern of the Union was securing money for their longest term employees.
Over the last couple collective agreements there has been a willingness to sacrafice the PT employees in barginning in exchange for FT and top end wage increases. This is largely because they aren't as active with the union as the more senior employees.
Those FT positions cost the money, roughly 20-30% more and if you're the company, you will try to keep those costs down, especially in an increasingly competitive environment. The union has done everything they can in their previous contracts to raise the average cost of a FT long term employee - so they should not be too surprised when the company wants to minimize those.
In a lot of ways they are trying to make changes to the foundation of the house that they already built.