Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by opendoor

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.

This assumes they get retro pay, they probably will but it’s still something that would need to be negotiated. I thought the government was offering 9% over 3 so I’m not sure your 11% retro pay figure is accurate but your overall point should give people a better understanding of the not so obvious leverage the union members have here.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by opendoor

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.

City employee here, but same problem. We're STILL negotiating our 3 year contract, and we're almost 2.5 years THROUGH it. At the rate things are going, we're going to finish negotiating our 'current' contract a handful of months into a NEW contract. It's getting rather ridiculous.

[iggy_oi]

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?

In these cases the primary purpose is to raise awareness and inform people about what is happening in the hopes that it puts pressure on the government to get a deal done. While it’s unlikely the government would hire replacement workers, the last message any Union would want to send to its employer is that there would be no deterrent if they decided to try.

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 don’t think that it’s any secret I’m more than happy to discuss and answer whatever questions I can about this kind of stuff. But if that’s really what you’re looking for, in the future it might be helpful if you didn’t come out of the gates with comments like “unions doing math” and later admitting that you really don’t have any clue how this stuff works.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This assumes they get retro pay, they probably will but it’s still something that would need to be negotiated. I thought the government was offering 9% over 3 so I’m not sure your 11% retro pay figure is accurate but your overall point should give people a better understanding of the not so obvious leverage the union members have here.

How would they not get retroactive pay? They're negotiating for salary increases for work done up to 2 years ago, so they're going to get compensated in some way.


For the 11%, it's based on the offered raises over that period. Just to use a trivial example, if the employer offered a 10%, 0%, 0%, 0% increase over 4 years and that was accepted 3 years into the contract period, workers would get retroactive pay equivalent to 30% of their salary (10% extra x 3 years of work). So using the same math with the government's offer, it's roughly equivalent to 11%.

But obviously that makes several assumptions; for instance I don't know when their contract starts/ends within the year, so if it's mid-year then the retroactive payment would be lower because they've worked less time without a contract.

[cSpooge]

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.

They may not be part of PSAC since there are 2 unions that deals with CRA. Depending on their position they may be a member of the other union with CRA (PIPSC).

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

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.

That’s really for their members to decide at the end of the day. I think it’s worth pointing out that for Unions strikes really aren’t about getting a photo op, there’s far easier(and less expensive) ways to get a photo op.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by opendoor

How would they not get retroactive pay? They're negotiating for salary increases for work done up to 2 years ago, so they're going to get compensated in some way.

Retro pay isn’t a given, it has to be negotiated. Like I said, they’re likely going to get it but it’s not a guarantee.

For the 11%, it's based on the offered raises over that period. Just to use a trivial example, if the employer offered a 10%, 0%, 0%, 0% increase over 4 years and that was accepted 3 years into the contract period, workers would get retroactive pay equivalent to 30% of their salary (10% extra x 3 years of work). So using the same math with the government's offer, it's roughly equivalent to 11%.

But obviously that makes several assumptions; for instance I don't know when their contract starts/ends within the year, so if it's mid-year then the retroactive payment would be lower because they've worked less time without a contract.

Thanks for clarifying, I had previously thought you trying to include post ratification increases into the retro pay as well.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by cSpooge

They may not be part of PSAC since there are 2 unions that deals with CRA. Depending on their position they may be a member of the other union with CRA (PIPSC).

Of course the CRA would have more than 1 Union.

Thanks for the explanation.

[timun]

The CRA doesn't have any unions: the workers do.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1651488313734225925

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1651488313734225925

Apples, meet oranges

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That’s really for their members to decide at the end of the day. I think it’s worth pointing out that for Unions strikes really aren’t about getting a photo op, there’s far easier(and less expensive) ways to get a photo op.

The strikes are to pressure the company to pay workers what their demands are, they’re essentially a negotiating tactic.

However, the pickets etc are most definitely attempts at leveraging visibility with the public for that negotiation and as such yes, there’s definitely a huge (maybe the most?) key part of it that is a photo op.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1651488313734225925

Someone get on the phone with Freeland ASAP so that the bank accounts of the striking workers and union can be frozen.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The strikes are to pressure the company to pay workers what their demands are, they’re essentially a negotiating tactic.

However, the pickets etc are most definitely attempts at leveraging visibility with the public for that negotiation and as such yes, there’s definitely a huge (maybe the most?) key part of it that is a photo op.

Yeah I’m not sure I can agree with your definition of photo op, it’s kinda tough to label something like strike action as a photo op when workers striking pre-dates photography don’t you think?

I would consider a politician showing up to a picket line for 5 minutes to be a photo op.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1651488313734225925

Well that kind of thing should work wonders to get public support on their side!

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well that kind of thing should work wonders to get public support on their side!

Agreed, the difference will be how the media covers the story.
“brave souls fighting for the basic human right to not come in to work two days a week.”

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Agreed, the difference will be how the media covers the story.
“brave souls fighting for the basic human right to not come in to work two days a week.”

That or the fact that they’re probably not completely restricting access. Do you actually believe that a bunch of office workers are going to be able to prevent the Canadian Armed Forces from entering one of their bases?

[belsarius]

I don't think anyone ever agreed that blocking roads, railways or access to buildings was out of bounds. Convoy supporters are already crying foul, but they were allowed to keep the blockages for weeks on end 24 hours a day. I can guarantee you that the picket lines won't be set up 24/7 and that all of these blockages are temporary, and will just result in delays at the border, not full stoppages. Its also funny to complain about access to passport offices when all of the workers are the ones outside, so its not like you are getting anything done in there anyway.

If it goes on for a couple weeks, then sure I can support the government stepping in to disperse them, but the idea that its comparable to the 3 week convoy blockades on day 1 is ridiculous.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I don't think anyone ever agreed that blocking roads, railways or access to buildings was out of bounds. Convoy supporters are already crying foul, but they were allowed to keep the blockages for weeks on end 24 hours a day. I can guarantee you that the picket lines won't be set up 24/7 and that all of these blockages are temporary, and will just result in delays at the border, not full stoppages. Its also funny to complain about access to passport offices when all of the workers are the ones outside, so its not like you are getting anything done in there anyway.

If it goes on for a couple weeks, then sure I can support the government stepping in to disperse them, but the idea that its comparable to the 3 week convoy blockades on day 1 is ridiculous.

talk about strawman cherry picking?

Shutting down a port
Blocking access to a base
Blocking a border crossing
Blocking a lift bridge
Shutting down a retail center, that happens to have a passport office

And of all these things mentioned, you focus on the passport office blurb? That's one of the expected ones. Who's complaining about it?

Also not sure what freedumb convoys have anything to do with a strike? why are even bringing up that type of whataboutism outside of some type of partisan jab...to who exactly? Andrew Coyne was very outspoken against the convoy. Yoho? He didn't even say anything.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1588327076846764034

You can be totally against the freedumb fighters while also condemning current picketing actions that go beyond a picket line you know?

It's simply an extremely poor strategy to piss off the public beyond government services because for the most part the majority of people support the strike action.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

That or the fact that they’re probably not completely restricting access. Do you actually believe that a bunch of office workers are going to be able to prevent the Canadian Armed Forces from entering one of their bases?

Yeah that would be as absurd as a group of natives stopping a train from rolling down the tracks.

Oh wait...