schlock: Chiefly U.S. slang. n.
1. goods or produce of cheap or inferior quality; trash.
puke: Slang. vb.
1. to vomit.
That schlock report makes me want to puke.
Fact Finder or ???
Well, the "Independent Fact Finder" submitted his report and, hey!, everything's hunky dory with Local 1977.
Brian and his crew were "grossly underpaid" and, so, deserved a 65% increase in pay. Loblaws was good enough to help out with supplying Brian and Co. with maxed-out pay rates for their managers (Apparently, the managers can't wait to receive the published amounts).
That bad, bad, reporter Brian Caldwell, from the Kitchener/Waterloo Record, is nothing more than a troublemaker. And Buzz Hargrove is behind every bush just waiting to pounce on the poor mindless Local 1977 part timers.
Buzz is bad and Brian is good. The Independent Fact Finder says:
quote:
There can be no doubt that the CAW is watching this situation to determine if they might be successful in a raid on the Zehrs membership."
In closing the Independent Fact Finder gives a totally gratuitous pat on the back to the UFCW nice guys:
quote:
While it is beyond the scope of my mandate to validate these claims, my impression is that the Local's executive is truly motivated by these ideals and has been continuously striving to achieve them. I wish them well.
What was beyond his mandate to validate?
quote:
...it is claimed that no union in Ontario today is more democratic, more open to its members, has done more for part-time workers over the last 23 years, or has higher membership service standards.
Sniff, sniff, stop, please.... I'm sorry Brian, we must be all wrong about you. You do truly deserve a 65% wage increase. And you do deserve a luxury car when you retire. (that's because you don't get paid as much as a Loblaws VP) And how could we have ever begrudged you a measly $180,000 retirement gift and all the free golf you can play as President Emitrius.
Can you ever forgive us, Brian? 
Judging from the "Executive Summary" of this report and can only say that there is nothing Independent or Factual about it. The IFF does what he was hired to do: give the local exec a fatherly back for trying really hard to do a really good job. A triumph of un-democracy.
I wonder why the "report" gives so much ink to the CAW? How are they relevant to the 65% pay hikes that are supposed to be the subject of the report?
Sorry, too many errors in that post. Here it is again.
Judging from the "Executive Summary" of this report I can only say that there is nothing Independent or Factual about it. The IFF does what he was hired to do: give the local exec a fatherly pat on the back for trying really hard to do a really good job. A triumph of un-democracy.
I wonder why the "report" gives so much ink to the CAW? How are they relevant to the 65% pay hikes that are supposed to be the subject of the report?
Attn: Remote veiwer
quote:
Sorry, too many errors in that post. Here it is again.
(please use [paper/pencil] icon above your post to edit. This will eliminate the need for double posts. thx)
(the edit will appear as follows)
[This message has been edited by siggy (edited 03-19-2001).]
I get to pick who says stuff about me. I pay that person a lot of money to read what I say about myself, but don't give them the mandate to find out if it's true.
1. Is that person really independent? (no)
2. Would the published words qualify as fact in a court of law? (most, no)
3. Do the kiss-ass comments invalidate the whole report? (yes)
4. Are the members bamboozled? (no)
5. Are the members disheartened at their powerlessness to change their union? (yes)
6. Was disheartening the members the object? (yes)
Another day at the UFCW Farm. 
[This message has been edited by Troll (edited 03-20-2001).]
I am completely confused: I would have thought that someone of Don Franks' stature - a former Vice Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board who has obviously written many, many legal decisions - would know the difference between finding facts and heaping praise upon a client.
I couldn't help but smile when I read the IFF's report. First in the covering letter Williamson states:
"The Local's Officers did not participate at all in the selection process."
Then who did?
And secondly, why is there no mention of the 1,400 signed petition. If Mr. Franks is suppose to be responding due to an issue brought forward by the membership why did he conveniently leave it out? Wasn't the memberships concerns about the gross wage increase the reason 1977 embarked on this so called Fact Finding Mission to begin with?
Thirdly, why isn't the actual documentation of the investigation posted instead of this self rightous spin doctor? In fact I don't see Mr. Franks signature anywhere in the report, why is that? I would have thought if you were truly "Independent" you would have submitted a report that was reflective of your findings and not a reworked piece of propaganda?
Finally, I love to hear how the membership has "grown". Because if the membership growns that means more dues, and the more dues the union has, the more they can try and justify a 65% wage increase. What they don't tell you is out of the increase of membership how many of them are actual full-time jobs? How many would be considered "gainful" employment? Out here in BC, in Local 1518 alone 50% of our total membership will be living under the poverty line by the year 2003! That doesn't include Local 777 or 2000. THAT'S UNION?!!! THAT'S UFCW!!???
Shame Williamson shame... and shame on you too Franks if think you have bamboozled the membership of Local 1977 in believing your so called "Independent" report.
Why would they hire "Done Franks" to write a report? I guess they wanted someone who could meat their deadline.
I wonder if Done Franks is a friend of Brooke's? Urp! Pass the Mustard.
How wonderful it must be for a person to be willing to do anything for a pay check. Rat out your co-workers and we'll spare you. Give us a phony report card and we'll give you a big paycheck. Sign this C.B.A. and we'll make the new hires work all the crapy shifts with no benefits and no wages but protect you. I live my life by one very simple saying;
"what ever you do today you'll have to sleep with tonight."
I have a lot less money in my pocket today than I had just 2 years ago, but I sleep well. Do you?
The UFCW is the most democratic union in Ontario. When members have a problem, all they have to do is file a complaint.
Step Right Up With Your Complaint
quote:
Originally posted by sleK:
you got that right!!
Well, the whole thing is very odd.
It does seem as though the fact-finder tried to maintain his integrity at one point, and not allow those who retained his services put words into his mouth:
"It it is claimed [not by the fact-finder, mind you] that no union in Ontario today is more democratic, more open to its members, has done more for part-time workers over the last 23 years, or has higher membership service standards."
This sounds like a Brian Williamson memo.
Allow me to quote from the "Statement by Brian Williamson, President, UFCW Local 1977 to the Executive Board of UFCW Local 1977 Friday, September 22, 2000."
(This memo is still available online at http://www.ufcwlocal1977.on.ca/Strike_Ratification_Votes.html).
In this memo, Williamson was defending the conduct of the bargaining committee, and the raises that he and others had received.
I quote:
"I also deeply resent that Clifford Evans is also being attacked. This is a man who has done more over the last 40 years for the members of UFCW in general, and the members of Local 1977 in particular, than any ten people you could name. It's extremely unjust that the integrity of such a man is being questioned."
This language that 'no-one has done more for this-or-that over the last so-many-years than so-and-so' has a ring of familiarity to it.
I suppose the fact-finder had certain conclusions pressed upon him. At least at this one point he resisted them!
On a more sarcastic note, I suppose that the growth of the union, which so puzzled Dave (see Brighton post above), might be related to the expansion of the part-time workforce in grocery.
Of course over the last 23 years no local has done more for that army of part-timers in grocery than Local 1977.
Right? Yeah, right.
[This message has been edited by Solidarity (edited 03-21-2001).]
Solidarity, you're absolutely right. They were words put to Mr. Franks. He said his mandate wasn't to verify their validity.
The point is a true independent probably would not have added those words to his report. Neither would he add gratuitous remarks--like the ones which flowed from his pen.
Near $80,000 a year is not "grossly underpaid" by anyone's account. That statement alone calls into question Mr. Franks independence. He must not only be independent, but he must be seen to be independent. In that regard he failed.
Think about it. Any growth to Local 1977 comes from it's cosy relationship with Loblaws (Zehrs).
Local 1977 grows because they've stripped part-timers of their ability to reach top rate. The local is a partner in an agreement that creates a part-time ghetto for thousands.
Williamson's argument that the Local has done great things for part timers is a chicken or egg statement. Yes the Local has helped create thousands of part-time jobs, but their sick deal decimated full-time opportunities.
Local 1977 has prospered to the point that it can lavish the lifestyle of the rich and famous on its executives. That's because they have benefitted extrordinarily from the creation of thousands of part-time dues payers. ie. take one full-time position and turn it into two or three part-time positions.
It's pretty sick that a union would try to sell such crap as good for workers.
They effectively create a ghetto and then throw a 12-foot fence around to keep the rabble in.
Maybe the caption should be:
Hey, this ain't bad. When I'm finished with this trough, they give me take-out and a car to drive it away in. And don't believe for a minute that pigs can't drive.
I don't understand the problem here!!
Just before he set up the IFF he said:
quote:
We must address our members' dissatisfaction. And we must do so to their satisfaction, not ours.
All you have to do is say your NOT satisfied..right?
If Mr. Williamson is good to his word, and all that stuff he said at http://www.ufcwlocal1977.on.ca/Strike_Ratification_Votes.html is true, (????) and if he is on the up & up, he will live up to his rantings. Right??
siggy, siggy, siggy. The only thing "up and up" about some of these guys is their pay raises. 
[This message has been edited by weiser (edited 03-21-2001).]
Wieser, Wieser Wieser... you are such a cynic!!
Don't you think that if Mr. Williamson was not on the up & up the membership would know??
And don't you think they would rise up against him???
Wait...the membership did rise up... didn't they??
In fact 1400 of them stood up and called foul...
But all he did was stage a mock investigation. (paid for no doubt with members money.)
Now I wonder why he would make promises he had no intentions of keeping???
Answer:
bamboozle vb. (tr.) Informal.
1. to cheat; mislead.
2. to confuse.
flimflam Informal.n.
1. a. nonsense; foolishness.
b. (as modifier): flimflam arguments.
2. a deception; swindle.
Need I say more?
The membership of 1977 have been flimflammed by a bamboozler??
(or bamboozled by a flimflammer)?
Either way....UFCW's total disregard (spit in your face approach) for members concerns/rights has once again reared its' ugly head.
[This message has been edited by siggy (edited 03-21-2001).]
Anyone who has attended a UFCW meeting in the last 10 years will see that many UFCW leaders have taken bamboozle to an art form.
"And the Bamboozler of the year is.....!"
Well once again our money was wasted. I didn't realize the fact finder was hired to try and justify the raises. What a waste of $10 000.00.
Now me, don't be so hasty with your conclusion that the $10,000 was wasted. Don't you think it would have been cheap at twice the price just to know for sure that 
quote:
1. the UFCW is good and that the Canadian Auto Workers are bad. 2. that Williamson and his crew were "grossly underpaid" and deserving of 65% salary increases and huge retirement money gifts and fancy retirement gift cars. (note: nobody ever costed out those incredibly expensive perks. Just like nobody ever revealed that they already have better pensions than their members.)3. Williamson and crew are swell guys and have their hearts in the right place.
[This message has been edited by Richard (edited 03-22-2001).]
If it takes a proctologist to check a patient's heart, can it really be in the right place?
Most employers now require a post secondary degree for management positions on the premise that the person will have acquired a wide range of skills while going to college or university (analytical skills, reasoning skill, communication skills and so on) and these are beneficial no matter what field they work in.
All of these skills are helpful for union representatives but the problem in making post secondary education mandatory is that it makes these positions even less accessible to the majority of the members. As I understand it, business rep jobs are filled mainly on the basis of favouritism or nepotism or both. An important part of reforming the union is opening up these jobs to rank and file members so that this administrative layer of the union becomes more in tune with the interests of the members.
I have always thought that the most important "must have" for union reps is a strong sense of commitment to improving the working lives of working people. There are many members out there who possess this. The other skills can be learned. Unions certainly should encourage their staff reps to pursue further education because this will enhance the quality of representation for members (and I'm not talking about drunken convention stuff or in-house propaganda sessions).
The sense of commitment to working people is also important in that it minimizes the greed factor. Those who want to make big bucks should find a different career.
The above should have been posted under UFCW Salary Comparisons-The Real Story. Technical experts, can you send it there? Thanks.