Visit uncharted.ca!
  • authored by remote viewer
  • published Fri, Jan 11, 2002

Maplegrove Warehouse Workers

Let's pick up on the discussion that was starting to develop in this thread http://www.ufcw.net/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000070

An interesting situation is developing at the Loblaw's Maplegrove warehouse in Cambridge Ontario. From what we can gather so far, it seems that at some point in the not-too-distant past, the company shut down a number of existing warehouses and moved to the Maplegrove facility. UFCW Local 1000a got voluntary rec for the place and currently has a collective agreement that expires in 2006! Some of the members are not happy with Local 1000a and are interested in joining the CAW. Local 1000a seems to be taking them seriously and has even set up a separate web site http://www.ufcw1000a.org/maplegrove/ from which to spew the usual propaganda.

The Maplegrove web site is registered to Reno Associates, a company run by Bill Reno, former UFCW Communications Director who once publically criticized "the machine" for holding rigged elections. See http://www.ufcw.net/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=000085 for more about that. (I guess he's happy now, though, in his role as communications organ.) But more about Bill and the propaganda later.

UFCW Local 1000a is headed by Kevin Corporon. You can read more about him in our series on the Swiss Chalet workers http://www.ufcw.net/articles/docs/the_swiss_chalet_workers.html You'll also find him on the Ontario Ministry of Labour's http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/ann/sale.pdf "big earner" list.

Maplegrove workers, we want to hear your story. Tell us more. Give us some background. Start anywhere. If you're at a loss as to where to begin, tell us when the warehouse was opened, when the contract went into effect, how you were told that you have a union, how many people work at the warehouse, what kind of wages and working conditions you have, and why you're looking to change unions.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 9:16am

Ok i'll try to give you some background on the situation at Maplegrove. In the fall of 2000 the company "National Grocers"(NG)now "Loblaws Company East"(LCE)held meetings in the 3 effected warehouses - Kitchener (CAW), Chatham (Teamsters) and London (Teamsters) (Fortinos (UFCW 175) was added to the list shortly after to make it 4 warehouses)to tell the employees that they had bad news and good news. The bad news was your warehouse is closing the good news is we're building a new warehouse in Cambridge On. and everyone has a job if they want one (or take a 2 week/per year severence, 3weeks if you don't disrupt the business). They told us everyone is guaranteed a job but they didn't know who the Union would be or how the seniority issue would be addressed. Over the next 6 months the company would hold meetings to update us (more lies)but then finally stopped coming back when things started to get ugly!We were finally told that the UFCW 1000A had recognition and that they were holding a vote on March 25/2001 do decide if they would give the employees from the closing warehouses any seniority rights or have them re-apply for jobs at Maplegrove and start as a new hire. The vote was very close, 54% in favour of giving us limited seniority. They added an 8 page "letter of understanding" to the existing "Erin Mills Warehouse" (Globle) contract that outlined how the jobs would be posted and how seniority would work at Maplegrove. Here's how they rolled it out-

All jobs will be posted first to all full time employees in existing UFCW 1000A warehouses.

After the UFCW 1000A members were finished, (they took 122 jobs almost all mon-fri prime jobs - clerk, reachtruck, shipper-receivers)they sent the job bid sheets to the closing warehouses to bid on the remaining jobs (mostly working weekends on grocery assembly)

To be continued........ work time

One correction I should add - Fortinos is not UFCW 175 anymore! One year ago UFCW 175 called their Fortinos members for an emergency meeting and told them at the meeting that they were merging with UFCW 1000A. They told the members that they were holding a vote and that they would vote yes "or else" the company would close the warehouse and they would'nt get a job at Maplegrove. (I still can't figure this one out) anyone care to enlighten me?

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

  • posted by Secret Agent
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 11:29am

quote:


Originally posted by DeMoN:
Fortinos is not UFCW 175 anymore! One year ago UFCW 175 called their Fortinos members for an emergency meeting and told them at the meeting that they were merging with UFCW 1000A. They told the members that they were holding a vote and that they would vote yes "or else" the company would close the warehouse and they would'nt get a job at Maplegrove. (I still can't figure this one out) anyone care to enlighten me?


Ahhh, it may be that this was a move to pacify Local 1000a's pres who was quite bent out of shape over something unrelated to Loblaw's or warehouses.

Around about this time there was an internal war between Locals 1000a and 206 about another "disputed property" involving a different employer. It is believed that a truce was arranged between the two locals and that Local 1000a got a warehouse unit as a result of the truce. Maybe this was the one.

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Secret Agent ]

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 12:10pm

The situation at Maplegrove sounds an awful lot like something that happened at Serca Foodservice a few years ago. A number of Ontario warehouses, represented by the CAW and Teamsters, were closed and a big facility opened in Mississauga. UFCW (RW Joint Northern Council) got voluntary rec and signed a 7.5 year deal. There are some OLRB decisions out about this case. If I recall correctly, the UFCW expanded the scope clause in it's Kitchener warehouse contract to capture the new Mississauga location. This sounds similar to the 8 page letter of understanding attached to the Erin Mills contract that DeMoN mentioned earlier. I also recall reading that the UFCW had approached the company about voluntary rec long before the new warehouse even opened. (I often wonder if that influenced the company in deciding which warehouses to close and, if so, what kind of a union would become involved in discussions of this kind - knowing that this would be the eventual outcome.)

It's scary how common this kind of deal-making seems to be. I'm hoping some of the workers at the Serca warehouse see this and tell us what's going on over there.

Re Secret Agent's post: OK machine heads from locals 175, 1000a and/or 206, is this what really happened, or what?

  • posted by <Dave>
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 12:31pm

Are you sure that linl to the Maplegrove Ufcw site is correct, I keep getting an error message

  • posted by <Jack>
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 1:23pm

Hey slek, man... The new website looks good but you've got some broken links now.

I tried to follow the link to the Lloydminster Superstore ALRB decision and all I got was this:

quote:


This document has been moved or removed.

Please return to the Members for Democracy Home Page


  • posted by remote viewer
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 1:31pm

quote:


Originally posted by <Dave>:
Are you sure that linl to the Maplegrove Ufcw site is correct, I keep getting an error message


I think they've taken their site off line. I saw it this morning (at that exact URL). There was a bunch of anti-CAW stuff on it and a lot of statements about how the UFCW has the best this and the best that and how dangerous it is to change unions and so on. Maybe they're re-tooling what with all the unexpected exposure they're getting. I'd check back in a while.

  • posted by <Raymond>
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 3:25pm

All jobs will be posted first to all full time employees in existing UFCW 1000A warehouses.

After the UFCW 1000A members were finished, (they took 122 jobs almost all mon-fri prime jobs - clerk, reachtruck, shipper-receivers)they sent the job bid sheets to the closing warehouses to bid on the remaining jobs (mostly working weekends on grocery assembly

I am an interested warehouse worker in Vancouver working for Western Grocers. What was the comparison of the contracts between CAW, Teamsters, UFCW? Which is the better agreement? You mentioned that the UFCW gave their people first crack at the positions which sounds good to me, but what was the catch? Was something traded for it, or is the Lloyd minster contract that inferior?

  • posted by <Raymond>
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 3:28pm

woops, said it is Erin Mills Warehouse (Globle) contract not Lloydminster. my mistake, but same question.

  • posted by sleK
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 5:34pm

Jack:

quote:


Hey slek, man... The new website looks good but you've got some broken links now.
I tried to follow the link to the Lloydminster Superstore ALRB decision and all I got was this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document has been moved or removed.
Please return to the Members for Democracy Home Page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What link? Where?

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: slek ]

  • posted by <Jack>
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 5:49pm

Sorry to waste space on the thread like this. Please feel free to delete my post after you fix the problem.

When you go to the article on "Voluntary Wreck" at http://www.ufcw.net/articles/docs/voluntary_wreck.html

There is supposed to be a link to the Westfair arbitration decision here: http://www.ufcw.net/documents/docs/ufcw_westfair_alrb_decision.doc

But when I click on it, I just get a 404.

"Voluntary Wreck" is a good article, by the way, and relavant to this thread. Keep up the good work.

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 6:16pm

The links in remotes post above. I am having trouble too!

quote:


UFCW Local 1000a is headed by Kevin Corporon. You can read more about him in our series on the Swiss Chalet workers http://www.ufcw.net/articles/docs/the_swiss_chalet_workers.html.


[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 6:21pm

On the front page mention is made of Reno and Associates owning the www.ufcw4maplegrove.com domain name

quote:


Local 1000a seems to be taking the workers' interest in the CAW seriously and has even set up a separate web site from which it heaps scorn on the auto workers union. Although the site claims to be specifically for members working at Maplegrowe, its URL is registered to Reno Associates, a public relations firm headed by a former UFCW official who was once himself harshly critical of undemocratic practices within the union.


That wouldn't be the same Bill Reno that worked so closely with UFCW Local 1977 during the pay-raise scandal, would it?

quote:


Union hires media consultant to back six-figure salaries

Brian Caldwell
RECORD STAFF
September 21, 2000

Leaders of Local 1977 of the United Food and Commercial Workers have hired a former union executive to defend their huge raises and retirement gifts.
Rank-and-file members, most of them workers at 46 Zehrs Markets stores in central and southern Ontario, were outraged to learn bosses at the Cambridge-based union received 65 per cent raises and are in line for six-figure retirement gifts.
But in an interview yesterday, media consultant Bill Reno said it's the union leaders themselves who feel "attacked and betrayed" since details of their whopping salaries and benefits were made public.
"They're not quite used to this,'' he said. "It sort of came out of the blue.''
Brian Williamson, longtime president of the 7,500-member union local, had his annual salary boosted earlier this year to $118,300 from $72,000. Scott Penner, secretary-treasurer of the local, got a similar raise to $109,200 from $66,000.
In addition, elected members of the executive board created a new executive vice-president position that pays $101,400. It was filled by Al Mclean, a former union representative who earned $55,000 to $60,000.
As part of a package approved at a low-key meeting, the board also made changes that will allow the three senior executives to get 150 per cent of their annual pay as severance if they retire with 20 years of service.
Williamson and Penner have steadfastly declined to comment on their pay hikes since they were publicized this week.
Instead, they have hired Reno, a former president of the Ontario council of the United Food and Commercial Workers, to serve as their "media relations adviser.''
Reno confirmed the amounts of the raises and retirement benefits, but said there should be no controversy because they were all approved above-board.
"I don't see what was really done wrong here,'' he said. "It was an open and democratic process by an elected executive board.''
Reno said he runs a Toronto consulting company and hasn't done any work for the United Food and Commercial Workers for years.
But he acknowledged he held staff posts with the union and ran unsuccessfully for the presidency of Local 175 during a bitter campaign in 1988.
Reno ran at the time as a reform candidate out to shake up a union structure that concentrated power in a few hands at the top and kept members from having a meaningful say.
One of his chief targets was Cliff Evans, then the union's national director. Evans has since retired, but was hired by Local 1977 earlier this year to write a report that recommended the huge pay hikes for its top officials.

"We have a medieval king in the form of Cliff Evans and a bunch of little fiefdoms underneath him," Reno said during his election campaign in 1988. "His knights are the paid business representatives pillaging the countryside. It's all done on the backs of the serfs, the workers."

Reno declined to say how much he is now being paid by Local 1977 to defend the raises its executives were granted on the recommendation of Evans.

"As consultants go, I ain't that expensive," he said.

Reno questioned the credibility of Johnny Roberts, a former board member who criticized the pay hikes, but said the amounts he made public were accurate.

"Even though the numbers are true, the issue is why this is news," he said.


[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by sleK
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 6:31pm

Fixed it!
http://www.ufcw.net/files/docs/ufcw_westfair_alrb_decision.doc

We had a few of directory mix-ups with the changeover... sorry folks

There's bound to be more.

A link hunting I shall go!

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 6:38pm

OK, I fixed my link to the Swiss Chalet workers story in my first post.

Regarding Bill Reno: Yes, that must be the very same Bill. I guess he saw the light or saw something. That's him defending the sickening pay hikes Local 1977 execs voted for themselves after shoving 1% down their members' throats. The highlighted paragraph is from a newspaper article (The Toronto Star, I think) from the late 1980's:

"We have a medieval king in the form of Cliff Evans and a bunch of little fiefdoms underneath him," Reno said during his election campaign in 1988. "His knights are the paid business representatives pillaging the countryside. It's all done on the backs of the serfs, the workers."

Reno goes on to complain about how an election in which he was a candidate was rigged and, as you can see, says a lot of the same things we've been saying on this site.

It would be enlightening if he would explain what happened to prompt him to stop-worrying-and-love-the-machine. A communications tool...ooops, I mean communications whiz, oh no that's not right either, I mean, a communications expert like him should have no trouble coming here and dazzling us with the tale of his conversion. Come on Reno and Ass-ociates, let's hear it.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by <PR Delight>
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 6:52pm

Bill Reno said:

quote:


"As consultants go, I ain't that expensive," he said.


Then he said:

quote:


"Even though the numbers are true, the issue is why this is news," he said.


I think the second statement may explain the first statement.

A so-called communications consultant can't figure out why a 65% pay increase is news!?

  • posted by sleK
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 7:27pm

http://www.ufcw4maplegrove.com/

not
http://www.maplegrove4ufcw.com/

quote:


WELCOME TO THE PLACE WHERE THE TRUTH CAN BE FOUND AT UFCW4MAPLEGROVE.COM


  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 7:32pm

You can also get it at: http://www.ufcw1000a.org/maplegrove/

  • posted by <PR Delight>
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 7:51pm

This is quite a site. I especially liked these pages. They seem to go along quite nicely with this thread: http://www.ufcw.net/files/pdf/andy_affidavit.pdf
http://www.ufcw.net/files/docs/ufcw_westfair_alrb_decision.doc
http://www.ufcw.net/articles/docs/hj_interview.html

Do union members have any say whatsoever in who their union is anymore?

  • posted by Secret Agent
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 7:57pm

"WELCOME TO THE PLACE WHERE THE TRUTH CAN BE FOUND"?

Hey machine heads, the truth is out there...

  • posted by Hound Dog
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 8:33pm

quote:


Kitchener (CAW), Chatham (Teamsters) and London (Teamsters) (Fortinos (UFCW 175)


What happened to the Teamsters? Aren't the teamsters pissed as well at the voluntary rec for ufcw1000a. Why aren't the teamsters digging for bodies?

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 9:36pm

I have to clear a few things up before the story continues. When UFCW 1000A voted on the letter of understanding they were given a copy of the letter and a letter from Paul Doyle, V.P. Labour Relations (LCE) that stated "National Grocers has committed to the union that there will not be any reduction in the overall number of full time jobs at the existing Local 1000A distribution centres as a result of the opening of the Maplegrove distribution centre".

The jobs that UFCW 1000A took were not because their jobs were displaced but were taken from the workers from the closing warehouses. The workers from Kitchener were lucky (Maplegrove is about a 7 minute drive from the old warehouse)but the workers from Chatham, London and Hamilton have to make a huge decision, all the UFCW 1000A members had to do is stay where they were (they still had jobs).

The 1000A members not only got first pick of jobs but they protected the jobs so that they could never be bumped from the jobs (without just cause)and they protected the members from job downgrades ("non" 1000A members get job downgrades first regardless of seniority)

The Union and the 1000A members are fond of asking the workers from the closing warehouses if they are enjoying the raise they got (Kitchener and Chatham hadn't had a new contract since 1995) when they came to maplegrove. The London warehouse (was Provigo before LCE bought them) members are taking a huge cut to make the move (I wonder if the 1000A will ask them if they like the money too)! If "non" 1000A members say they're not happy with the deal, the UFCW 1000A and their members tells us we should be happy that we still have a job and if we didn't like it we shouldn't have come (this coming from a bunch of pimple faced teens with a year or two seniority talking to workers with up to 35 years with the company)

Maplegrove opened August 16/2001 with produce from Fortino's being the first thing out the door. The first week of September saw Chatham close and all their dry grocery come to Maplegrove. October saw Kitchener start to send some of their grocery a few stores at a time. Kitchener is set to send the last stores to Maplegrove on January 20th/2002. Fortinoe's will send their dry grocery on February 23rd/2002 (they are keeping the warehouse open for about 1 1/2 years to do "delli and fresh meat" to take the load off the 1000A frozen warehouse). On March 9th/2002 London will close and send all their stores to Maplegrove. The rollout dates could change a bit but thats the plan as of this week.

The Teamsters representing Chatham and London have washed their hands of the whole matter but the "CAW" has been working quietly to help all the closing warehouses. The "CAW" will be taking this to the OLRB very soon now that they can concentrate on this (they just won the vote at Sobeys Toronto warehouse, vs UFCW)

That pretty much covers it all for now. All comments and suggestions are appreciated. L8r

P.S.
This past week some employees from the just closed Sudbury (Lively) warehouse showed up working in the produce department. After members (read ex-CAW) started asking questions and generaly raising a stink about bringing in people for fulltime jobs when there were P/T waiting to get full time work. The union started to do damage control by telling the membership that those jobs were given to the Subury workers before P/T were hired in August. Now this is the first time anyone from any of the warehouses ever heard about "Lively" closing or them being offered jobs at maplegrove. We have nothing against the company offering work to closing warehouses but there is laungage covering that in our contract and it wasn't followed. I guess the Kitchener guys (we have a bad rep. already for standing up for our rights) will have to press the issue because the union won't do shit for the P/T. Stay Tuned!

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

  • posted by Richard
  • Sat, Jan 12, 2002 6:46am

DeMoN, one thing you should understand is that the Teamsters and the UFCW have been working as allies in the last while. Perhaps the Teamsters just didn't want to piss the UFCW off by fighting them.

Here's an interesting thread.

If you read the Westfair decision you won't see much difference in how the Teamsters and the UFCW like to organize. As unions they have more similarities than differences. CAW doesn't see eye to eye with either of those unions.

Your mention of staffing up with kids is important. Demographic hiring is by design, not by chance. McDonalds does it and Loblaws has learned a lot from McDonalds. The younguns are there for a good time, not a long time. Controlled turnover is an important part of keeping distribution costs low.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Richard ]

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sat, Jan 12, 2002 7:58am

Thanks for the info and the links Richard. Some very interesting reading there and might explain the "non" interest on the part of the Teamsters in the plight of their members.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sat, Jan 12, 2002 11:47am

besides Demon, we havn't learnd...yet... just what exactly the UFCW has forked over to the teamsters in return. That's how these guys opperate. To them the members are just chips to toss around, they couldn't care less about what's happening to people as long as they get the biggest slice of pie they can for themselves.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Jan 12, 2002 12:23pm

Another thing that should prove interesting is Sobeys sale of its SERCA division to SYSCO of Houston Texas. SERCA Sale to SYSCO

The UFCW extended it's Kitchener CA in return for being given voluntary recognition for the then yet-to-be-built Mississauga warehouse. That warehouse evenutally swallowed a few other SERCA operations represented by the Teamsters, an employees association and I believe CAW.

It was hotly contested by the other unions, and it sure seemed like a sweet deal for the UFCW. By the looks of it, the deal helped with the marketablility of the SERCA unit.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by <friend>
  • Sat, Jan 12, 2002 2:12pm

Just a thought. DeMoN, you wrote:

quote:


The "CAW" will be taking this to the OLRB very soon now that they can concentrate on this (they just won the vote at Sobeys Toronto warehouse, vs UFCW)


Now, from what I read here, I am wondering if the CAW really has the time or the resources to devote to a fight with the UFCW right now. See: CAW threatens strike over Ford closing

quote:


The Canadian Auto Workers union is threatening a potential strike to protect the 1,500-worker Ford Motor Co. pickup truck factory in Oakville, which the automaker plans to close as part of a "painful" restructuring announced Friday.

"The only weapon workers have . . . in bargaining is our right to withhold our labour," CAW president Buzz Hargrove told a news conference in Windsor shortly after Ford announced the massive restructuring.

"We will go to the bargaining table with Ford Motor Co. with a strike deadline, with one of our key demands being a continuation of the operations of Oakville Truck."


While its nice to see Buzz fighting the good fight, it seems to me that while they're in this war with Ford there won't be a lot of money or staff time to throw around for anyone else.

Do you really think the CAW is going to be there for you to fight a tough decert campaign and a potential strike/lockout with National Grocer?

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Jan 12, 2002 3:02pm

Ah, spoken like a true UFCW troll. Friend you must realize that all unions don't operate the same as the UFCW, so don't try and figure out how the CAW would approach a problem. You'll only hurt your head.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sat, Jan 12, 2002 8:59pm

Well said weiser "Friend" The only resource we need to win this fight is the truth! Once the members on the floor hear the truth (and they will) the UFCW will have lost the warehouse. This will be a landslide victory for democrocy (thats what this fight is all about).

  • posted by Troll
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 11:09am

DeMoN said something about a Toronto Sobeys warehouse going CAW. I checked and apparently, CAW wiped the floor with the UFCW and now CAW represents the full-time warehouse employees. However, the UFCW is now trying to get the part-timers to join the UFCW. Let's see how that fight rolls out. It may be close because the UFCW specializes in representing part-time workers.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 12:48pm

quote:


Originally posted by DeMoN:

This past week some employees from the just closed Sudbury (Lively) warehouse showed up working in the produce department. After members (read ex-CAW) started asking questions and generaly raising a stink about bringing in people for fulltime jobs when there were P/T waiting to get full time work. The union started to do damage control by telling the membership that those jobs were given to the Subury workers before P/T were hired in August. Now this is the first time anyone from any of the warehouses ever heard about "Lively" closing or them being offered jobs at maplegrove. We have nothing against the company offering work to closing warehouses but there is laungage covering that in our contract and it wasn't followed. I guess the Kitchener guys (we have a bad rep. already for standing up for our rights) will have to press the issue because the union won't do shit for the P/T. Stay Tuned!


Well isn't that intriguing. Maybe it's all on the up and up and the co. is just trying to provide workers from a warehouse that's shutting down with jobs. If that's the case, I would assume that there is a signed memorandum somewhere setting out the whole arrangement with a provision that the union agrees to waive the parts of the collective agreement that would give p/t workers at Maplegrove first crack at those jobs. If this deal was made back in August, then we can assume the memorandum was signed and dated back then.

On the other hand, I'd hate to think that the UFCW was borrowing a page from a union-busting manual. Loading up the workplace with management-friendly workers from other operations to beat back an organizing drive is an old technique. They wouldn't be loading up the place with UFCW-friendly people to beat back the CAW, would they?

  • posted by <I have an opinion>
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 7:04pm

It appears "Demon" that you have alot to say with very few facts. It would be nice to see you participate in a discussion group with real facts and not crap. Please do not waste our time. I guess that is why you picked the name "demon" very suiting by the way, shows the true "DEVIL and Deceit" that you represent.

  • posted by siggy
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 7:23pm

DeMoN said:

quote:


In the fall of 2000 the company "National Grocers"(NG)now "Loblaws Company East"(LCE)held meetings in the 3 effected warehouses - Kitchener (CAW), Chatham (Teamsters) and London (Teamsters) (Fortinos (UFCW 175) was added to the list shortly after to make it 4 warehouses)to tell the employees that they had bad news and good news. The bad news was your warehouse is closing the good news is we're building a new warehouse in Cambridge On. and everyone has a job if they want one (or take a 2 week/per year severence, 3weeks if you don't disrupt the business). They told us everyone is guaranteed a job but they didn't know who the Union would be or how the seniority issue would be addressed. Over the next 6 months the company would hold meetings to update us (more lies)but then finally stopped coming back when things started to get ugly!We were finally told that the UFCW 1000A had recognition and that they were holding a vote on March 25/2001 do decide if they would give the employees from the closing warehouses any seniority rights or have them re-apply for jobs at Maplegrove and start as a new hire. The vote was very close, 54% in favour of giving us limited seniority. They added an 8 page "letter of understanding" to the existing "Erin Mills Warehouse" (Globle) contract that outlined how the jobs would be posted and how seniority would work at Maplegrove. Here's how they rolled it out-
All jobs will be posted first to all full time employees in existing UFCW 1000A warehouses.

After the UFCW 1000A members were finished, (they took 122 jobs almost all mon-fri prime jobs - clerk, reachtruck, shipper-receivers)they sent the job bid sheets to the closing warehouses to bid on the remaining jobs (mostly working weekends on grocery assembly)


< I have an opinion said >:

quote:


It appears "Demon" that you have alot to say with very few facts. It would be nice to see you participate in a discussion group with real facts and not crap. Please do not waste our time. I guess that is why you picked the name "demon" very suiting by the way, shows the true "DEVIL and Deceit" that you represent.


Ahhh .. DeMoN presented some good information, < I have an opinion > on the other hand, presented an attack. Wanna try again, 'I have'?

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 7:53pm

Well, "I have an opinion," what are the facts? The only opinion you've demonstrated is that you disagree with the information that DeMoN set out.

The old, "Yo momma wears army boots" is a sad come back. Give us facts, "I have and opinion."

In your opinion what is going on with the voluntary recognition at your warehouse? Do you think the UFCW is better than CAW? If so, why? If not, why?

Read this Loblaws and UFCW and tell us what you think is right or wrong about it.

Give us an intelligent opinion.

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by <I have an opinion!>
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 7:55pm

Well this is Ironic. The C.A.W. and all it's cronies, meaning all of you who denounce the "UFCW 1000A" for it's efforts of protecting it's members and looking after those workers who were affected by closures. What you all seem to forget is that the company "NG" is the one who decided to build a new Distribution Warehouse and close (5)five other Distribution Warehouses. Why is it such a bad thing that the "UFCW 1000A" negotiated in there agreement for automatic recognition for all new Distribution Warehouses? Is that not a good thing for bargaining power with such a large Company. I don't see anyone complaining when the "CAW" does the same thing within the Automotive sector. It appears to me that the UFCW 1000A not only protected their members but they also helped out CAW members and Teamster members when their Union could not do it for them. Non 1000A members came to Maple Grove with full seniority and an increase pay far superior to what they were used to. IF this warehouse ended up under the "CAW" what a loss of income for the working people and families. Does anyone not think of the benefit of the "UFCW1000A" being the bargaining agent? My guess is of course not. Sorry I forgot we live in a cut throat society!! Here is a cut and paste from the UFCW 1000A web site to show the difference in wages between agreements.

UFCW Maplegrove $43,825
CAW Kitchener &#8211; Tier1 $39,624
CAW Kitchener &#8211; Tier 2 $30,888

That is quiet a deal for the CAW. Not only did they get a substantial pay increase they also maintained there full seniority. Show me one time where the CAW has done this for other Union Members that have been affected the way these warehouse workers have been and show me where the CAW has honored their full seniority. Ok....so know you are thinking well they didn't get all their seniority. "YES THEY DID"!!!. The only thing they did not get at the beginning was the first pick at the jobs and the one time job security for "down grades". UFCW 1000A members where compassionate to those workers who were affected by the "COMPANY" making a decision. UFCW 1000A members gave up a lot of rights for those affected workers.
I will be back tomorrow to discuss the "RAID" which is in, itself a disgrace. The "CAW" runs a double standard with it's "DEMOCRACY BULL" when it comes to members having a free choice in deciding Unions. Stay Tuned. All Bull Shit replies need not type.......

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 7:59pm

Like I said, read this UFCW and Loblaws and give us an answer.

Hey, and what about SERCA and the UFCW, similar deal as your warehouse. What's going on?

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by <I have an opinion>
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 8:12pm

Ok weiser. What the hell does that "Loblaws And UFCW" have to do with the "MAPLE GROVE" situation and the "RAID" brought on by the "CAW"????

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 8:20pm

Loblaws/National Grocers what's the difference?

  • posted by <Mr. Provigo>
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 8:29pm

I think it's all about partnering. If you go to http://www.geocities.com/ufcw777/loblawsdeal.html you will get to read an interesting article about how Loblaws companies partner with the UFCW. I don't think those partnerships are healthy.

  • posted by <I have an opinion>
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 8:33pm

Well weiser......you have shown your "intellect"....sorry buddy but your point goes no where!!! I have stated a position and you keep repeating the same thing......which by the way does not even come close to the point that I was making. Any other "real" takers out there. Weiser please do not waste my time with "non related" crap. Thanks.

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 8:43pm

  • posted by <I have an opinion>
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 8:43pm

Dear Mr. Provigo;

What is your point?? How long have you been around?? If you are as educated as your partners you would realize that media is the friend of the employer and "Anti Union"! Oh sorry I had a lapse of memory....and forgot where I was...yes at an "anti union" web site. That is right..... a place that spreads half truth. I am beginning to think that this is a site run by "CONRAD BLACK"! Am I wrong??

  • posted by siggy
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 8:46pm

quote:



  • posted by <Mr. Provigo>
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 8:58pm

So what's not true about the newspaper article? If there is a partnering agreement that takes away peoples' right to strike, that's bad. If there is an agreement that the employees didn't know about, that is bad.

Are you saying there are no partnering agreements with any Loblaws Companies, Mr. I've got an opinion?

What about the secret contract UFCW Local 777 signed without its members knowing about it? (I saw it somewhere on this site). Is that good? Are you sure that the UFCW hasn't done a partnering agreement with National Grocers? Why did National Grocers choose the UFCW rather than the Teamsters or the Auto Workers? Is the UFCW easier to get along with? Or did they choose the UFCW because they wanted a union that would kick the shit out of them. Hey, maybe they are masochists, I don't know.

The only opinion you have spewed here is that you think the UFCW is a peachy union and that National Grocers thinks the UFCW is a peachy union.

I don't think this site is anti-union. I think it is pro-union. I do think it is ani-union-corruption though. I think this Internet site is against unions that abuse their power.

I think this Internet site is A-OK! And that is MY opinion!

  • posted by <I have an opinion>
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 9:29pm

Dear Mr. Provigo;

I made my point.Thank you! I would suggest that you get all the facts from all sources before you blast away and not think about what you are saying. Media is about spreading half truth and if you were a true seeker of the truth you would know that the "paper articles" will not give you that. They twist and turn to tell what the reader wants to see or hear. That is lesson #1. To the next point. Here is lesson #2.........The UFCW is not an end all be all. However, UFCW 1000A have shown the true meaning of what "UNIONS" are all about. They negotiated in their 98 agreement a recognition clause for all new warehouses. Ohhhhhh myyyyyy godddddd.That was a bad thing to look out for the interest of their membership. Isn't that why the members pay Union Dues??? Don't dump on the Union that does it's job with propaganda "bullshit". That is what they are all about. To suggest that the "UNION" and "COMPANY" are in bed for such a good negotiated tactic, is nothing but uneducated misleading crap that has no merit. UFCW 1000A stands behind it's members and members from "OTHER UNIONS". I challenge you to show me were that is not the "TRUTH"!!!!!.......Secondly I challenge you to show me where there is a positive remark about Unions and what they have done for working people on this web site!!!!

  • posted by siggy
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 10:19pm

quote:


Well this is Ironic. The C.A.W. and all it's cronies, meaning all of you who denounce the "UFCW 1000A" for it's efforts of protecting it's members and looking after those workers who were affected by closures.


So you are saying everyone who does not support, "denounces" as you put it, Local 1000A makes them CAW cronies? That's just plain silly!

quote:


What you all seem to forget is that the company "NG" is the one who decided to build a new Distribution Warehouse and close (5)five other Distribution Warehouses. Why is it such a bad thing that the "UFCW 1000A" negotiated in there agreement for automatic recognition for all new Distribution Warehouses?


Ahh..&#8216;cause it robs the Power Source of their democratic right to the representation of their choice?

quote:


Is that not a good thing for bargaining power with such a large Company. I don't see anyone complaining when the "CAW" does the same thing within the Automotive sector.


Examples? Proof? Links?

quote:


It appears to me that the UFCW 1000A not only protected their members but they also helped out CAW members and Teamster members when their Union could not do it for them.


Did you get rose colored glasses from Santa or the machine?

quote:


Non 1000A members came to Maple Grove with full seniority and an increase pay far superior to what they were used to. IF this warehouse ended up under the "CAW" what a loss of income for the working people and families.


You came through unscathed right? You lucky bum!

quote:


Does anyone not think of the benefit of the "UFCW1000A" being the bargaining agent? My guess is of course not. Sorry I forgot we live in a cut throat society!! Here is a cut and paste from the UFCW 1000A web site to show the difference in wages between agreements.
UFCW Maplegrove $43,825
CAW Kitchener &#8211; Tier1 $39,624
CAW Kitchener &#8211; Tier 2 $30,888


Apparently some do think about the benefit of belonging to 1000A, apparently some people don't feel there is one, that's what we are discussing, try to keep up, then check your sources for bias.

quote:


That is quiet a deal for the CAW. Not only did they get a substantial pay increase they also maintained there full seniority.


Proof?.. examples?.. links?

quote:


Show me one time where the CAW has done this for other Union Members that have been affected the way these warehouse workers have been and show me where the CAW has honored their full seniority. Ok....so know you are thinking well they didn't get all their seniority. "YES THEY DID"!!!.


Actually, wasn't thinking that, but now that you mention it!

quote:


The only thing they did not get at the beginning was the first pick at the jobs and the one time job security for "down grades". UFCW 1000A members where compassionate to those workers who were affected by the "COMPANY" making a decision. UFCW 1000A members gave up a lot of rights for those affected workers.


Table scraps?

quote:


I will be back tomorrow to discuss the "RAID" which is in, itself a disgrace. The "CAW" runs a double standard with it's "DEMOCRACY BULL" when it comes to members having a free choice in deciding Unions. Stay Tuned. All Bull Shit replies need not type.......


You hide your own Easter eggs don't 'ya?

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Jan 14, 2002 10:52pm

"I have an opinion" (this should read "i've been BRAINWASHED)!

I'm at a loss trying to figure out what the UFCW 1000a was protecting their members from. If you had taken the time to go to the meeting on March 24/2001 you would have read the letter from Paul Doyle, V.P. Labour Relations (LCE) that stated "National Grocers has committed to the union that there will not be any reduction in the overall number of full time jobs at the existing Local 1000A distribution centres as a result of the opening of the Maplegrove distribution centre".

No reduction of full time jobs, while the members from the closing DC's had little choice in the matter. The work that Maplegrove was going to be doing was not "NEW" work, it was work that the closing DC's did to service stores that are still open and in need of servicing. If the UFCW 1000a was losing full time jobs i could see the argument. As for "looking after those workers who were affected by closures" (that was a joke right) full dovetailing of all the warehouses (UFCW and non UFCW) would be a start in the right direction. Oh ya, then nobody (from 1000a) would want take jobs at maplegrove.... and it would be too easy for the workers to decert! So what to do then? Hmmmm lets see..... I know lets make it real cozy for our 1000a members and screw the closing DC's so more people will go to Maplegrove and to top it off lets scare our members by telling them that the company will probably close their dc's too, so grab a gravy job while you can. Hmmm.... something to think about!

Wages seem to be good at Maplegrove (compaired to Kitchener) until you go back in time to 1994 when Erin Mills warehouse(1000a) did some "CONCESSION BARGAINING, UFCW STYLE" wages went from $22/h to $17/h for full time and from $16/h to $8.50/h part time, they went from a 12 month progression to a 60 month progression, lost all their paid sick days, should I go on? Erin Mills set the pattern for bargaining at the other DC's a few months later in Kitchener, Chatham, Ottawa,Cochrane, Peterburough and Sudbury, needless to say things didn't go well for any of the DC's. Kitcheners full time wages more or less stayed frozen at around $19 from 1995 till Oct.30/2001 and part-time went from $12 to $8 etc. Current top rates at Maplegrove are $21.36 F/T and $13.25 P/T after a 60 month progression (almost caught up after 8 years) The UFCW 1000a is very fond of telling the part-time at Maplegrove that they will only get $8/h and the full-time will go back to $16-19/h (depending on who's telling the story) because thats what they get in the Kitchener DC (CAW). Why don't you tell them the truth about why the wages are lower and the fact that the CAW didn't negotiate that contract (Steelworkers-RW did) I guess that won't win you too many votes though will it! Are you going to tell the Maplegrove members that the London DC workers (Teamsters)took a huge cut in pay to work at Maplegrove, FT make $21.91 and PT $18.50 as of May/2000 with 100% company paid benefits. Gee your contract doesn't sound so good any more does it. Do you want the wages from the A&P warehouse in Toronto that the CAW negotiated in the fall, they put your contract to shame too and so will the new Sobeys contract! Why don't you rip the pages out of your contract and use them for the only thing they're good for (anyone need to take a CRAP).

As for "Raiding" Maplegrove, why don't you do a little more research before you make a fool of yourself. Auto-Wrecks are considered open season (for 1 year) for anyone who wants to challenge them (I think the CAW has proved that to the UFCW more than a few times). Get used to the idea of a "democratic" union (CAW) being your bargaining agent and (be happy). Instead of discussing "Raiding" tommorrow maybe you could tell us a scary story about the big bad company "locking" the poor CAW members out in the cold to freeze their asses (opps, bad word)off.

And as why the CAW didn't get an "auto wreck" to protect the Kitchener employees, well I think that Loblaws already gave it to the best union (UFCW) that money could buy

Hows that for a (NON) bullshit reply?

P.S. you might learn more if you research the CAW, talk to the "non" 1000a members (and actually listen) and stop listening to Brian Reid, Machine head (wana-be).

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

  • posted by <lark>
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 5:23am

Do you work for the UFCW in a paid position <I have an opinion>? Your views concerning the media (being right wing anti union) sound very familiar to remarks I've heard before coming from UFCW representatives. They insisted the media was against them as well as the Labour Relations Boards of the various provinces. It was ironic these remarks were made in Saskatchewan, a very pro-union province, in fact the only province to ever ban the use of replacement workers during a strike (Pepsi in Saskatoon).

In all fairness, i'm sure the UFCW has done some good things over its history. However the last 15 years of backroom dealing and butchering CA's has destroyed any goodwill most workers had left for the union. So until the UFCW reverses the concessions and bad agreements they've made with the various highly profitable employers, i'm a non-believer. Getting back what they've given up is going to be so much harder now that we have situations like the Brandon Maple Leaf plant arising which is destroying any bargaining power that remained.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 6:27am

Just to set the record straight for "i have an opinion", we are NOT an anti-union web site and would thank you not to engage in these kinds of bush-league attacks on us. What we are opposed to to are business unions or, as we've come to call some of them, business partner unions.

We're highly critical of these kinds of unions because we don't think they're very effective for working people. On this web site you'll find all kinds of examples of biz-union activities that we oppose: Making secret deals with employers, treating members like a commodity, swallowing all kinds of corporate bullshit, partying with the bosses, appointing presidents who rule for life, engaging in undemocratic governance and silencing people who dare to criticize you with lawsuits - is just a short list of what we are against.

We WANT strong, democratic worker representative organizations (unions). That's why we do what we do. Conrad Black?! He'd shit his pants if he knew my vision of the workplace and thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of achieving it!

A couple of questions for you: At Maplegrove, how many workers are there in total and of those, how many make 43K? What other rates of pay and classifications are there and how many workers are in those classifications? (You can use ballpark figures if you don't have exact totals.) Is there a gendered division of labour at the warehouse?

  • posted by Richard
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 6:55am

Hey, <I've got [a warped] opinion>, you might find the following site quite interesting: http://www.reapinc.org/Briefing%20Papers/Summary.htm

It's loaded with information on the UFCW. After you're finished, you can visit this site: http://www.caw.ca/flash.html

I know, it's not as tacky as the UFCW Locals 1000a, 1977 or 175 sites, but it has some valuable information on it anyway.

I have no connection whatsoever with the CAW, I'm a lot closer to the UFCW. And CAW isn't the best union in the world, but it's head and shoulders above the UFCW, And That's MY OPINION!

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Richard ]

  • posted by <Tattler>
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 7:09am

Hey opinion I'm not sure if you know the MFD equation

by the way, it Looks like the leadership of local 1000A did a good job of negotiating an agreement at the new Maplegrove facility
no second tier rates. $2.00 more than The CAW first tier and about $6.00 than the CAW second tier. WAY TO GO.
This situation just goes to prove how blindly the MFD opposes everthing the UfCW does. if this situation were reversed they would be screaming about how the workers should be fighting to get out the lousy 2 tier contract but since it's UFCW that negotiated the better deal they just can't bring themselves to admit That the workers are better off telling the CAW to "Buzz" off we're better off sticking with the union that negotiated the best deal namely the UFCW.
On the issue of voluntary "wreck"
consider the following points
1. Opinion is correct, the Caw has voluntary agreements and accretion clauses with the all of the Auto makers The MFD seems to find nothing wrong with that.
2.The MFD looks to Hugh Finamore as their moral/intelectual compass. Lest we forget he is the king of the voluntary "wreck" remember the Castlegar Supervalu, the Extra Foods he represented with the Textile processors and of course the famous Real Canadian Superstore agreement he signed for the Textile Processors.
When examined closely the MFD's moral compass is spinning wildly instead of pointing north.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by secret agent
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 7:12am

Hmmmmm.....

In 2000, Local 1000a got voluntary recognition for a big warehouse. They get a contract they say is very good and some workers get as much as $43,000 a year.

In 2000, Local 1000a signed a 6 year deal for Loblaws stores across Ontario. The Local had strong support for a strike (in the 90% range) but agreed to a deal that gives workers a 1% increase in each year.

Secret Agent is suspicious...alternative explanations please.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 7:56am

remote viewer, I can only give you what I know today (maybe "i have an opinion" can fill in the blanks)
Projected F/T warehouse = 385
Projected P/T warehouse = 125
Projected F/T drivers = 125 (not sure on this one)
Projected P/T drivers = unknown
these numbers represent the workforce needed to do the work of the closing DC's and work sent from Erin Mills (they were overcapacity). I'll try to get wages but it's hard when there is a 50 month pay progression to get accurate numbers.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 8:12am

Sorry tattler, we edit posts where machine head sympathizers try to ID other forum posters. That's one of the very few rules we have around here.

Isn't it time you guys got over Finnamore? You're making a legend out of the guy and he's only one person. He was held in high esteem by many of your leaders at one time from what we can gather.

Now, could you answer Secret Agent's question which I read as: If the UFCW got such a great deal for Maplegrove, why was the deal they got at the Loblaw's stores so underwhelming?

The attack-dog strategy won't take you very far around here. You started defending your position about why you feel the UFCW did a good deal but quickly fell into what is called a "fallacious argument" by engaging in a personal attack. You will be far more effective in presenting your argument if you avoid this in future.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 8:13am

Hey tattler, keep guessing.

First you say you're "I've got an opinion." Then you say the Conrad Black runs this site. Now you say weiser=HJ. The machine is so wrapped up in their own bull-shit and smellin' each other's farts that they can't take the time to realize that it's the Power Source that's knockin at their doors, not the employers.

And besides, who gives a hoot who anyone is on this site except the Machine? This site is about information. From information comes knowledge, and Power Source knowledge will be the downfall of the Biz Machine.

And BTW, why does HJ scare you so much? What can he tell us that you are so afraid of?

What has he said to date that wasn't the absolute truth backed up by documentation?

Keep guessing fellas.

  • posted by <Tattler>
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 8:42am

I would hope that in the future The rule about outing contibutors to this site will apply to moderators and other MFD activists, (who have access to our IP addresses) some of whom in the past Have threatened to out people by Saying "I know who you are" or have pointed out that two different names are using the same IP address.These appear to be attempts to shut people up. Incidentally the person I identified Had been Identified months ago by someone else.

  • posted by <Pliskin>
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 8:42am

remote viewer,
A few answers concerning the wages...
There is a 60 month progression,
Warehouse classification starts at $14.00/hr
Machine Operator & Receiver/Loader $14.10/hr
Over 60 months you get a small raise every 6 months until you reach top rate which is $20.50/hr + COLA (cost of living adjustment) + .25 cent and .50 cent raises in the remaining years which are underlined in the contract. As for the progression ... the gap between someone who is not at top rate and someone who is ..is rather substantial. Someone who has 4 years and 6 months full time service and is waiting for their last raise.. will be making $16.70/hr. Workers on the progression also do not receive COLA, nor do they see any of those .25 cent or .50 cent raises. Those are all for top rate employees. So basically... for anyone hired recently... you will not see anything close to that $43,000 a year before the end of this contract which is up in 2006.

  • posted by Richard
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 8:45am

And then the infamous UFCW two-tier will appear!

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 9:40am

Hmmmm...? Tattler says he/she read something on this site and readily accepted it as fact. Other stuff Tattler reads on this site she/he says is just anti-union rants by Conrad Black wannabees. (In fact some brilliant mind intimated that Conrad Black owns this site.) Yup, that's why he sold Southams and the National Post, he needed cash to buy the MFD site.

The machine heads who lurk and snipe, can't defend the truth, they have rely on ad hominem attacks.

quote:


Ad hominem (false)Argument
(ie. Attacking the Person)

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

1. ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

2. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

3. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Examples:
i. You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)

ii. We should discount what Premier Klein says about taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial)

iii. We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial)

iv. You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.


I'd expect more from machine heads because they are supposed to be masters of critical thinking. I guess not.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 9:59am

Good examples of fallacious arguments, weiser. There is also another variety that I see being used by the biz-unionists a lot and that is called poisoning the well (i.e., "poisoning the well of discourse"). This occurs whenever the attacker argues in a way that leaves their opponent in a no-win situation. A good example of this is when the biz-unionists say things like:

"You're either with us or you're against us" or "You're criticizing our union therefore you are an anti-union web site".

There's another good example on that ufcw4maplegrove.com web site. On one of the pages, there's a rant against the CAW where language to this effect is used: "You're liars CAW guys. We're giving you this one last chance to prove that you're not liars." Well, we all know that it's difficult to to prove yourself innocent, so essentially the author is saying "you're liars and nothing you can say will change my mind about that".

So people, next time somebody pulls this sort of thing on you, don't stand there trying to argue your way out of it, just say "Excuse me, but you are poisoning the well of discourse. Please cut it out and defend your position in a way that is relevant to the argument I'm making."

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 10:07am

quote:


Originally posted by <Pliskin>:
remote viewer,
A few answers concerning the wages...
There is a 60 month progression,
Warehouse classification starts at $14.00/hr
Machine Operator & Receiver/Loader $14.10/hr
Over 60 months you get a small raise every 6 months until you reach top rate which is $20.50/hr + COLA (cost of living adjustment) + .25 cent and .50 cent raises in the remaining years which are underlined in the contract. As for the progression ... the gap between someone who is not at top rate and someone who is ..is rather substantial. Someone who has 4 years and 6 months full time service and is waiting for their last raise.. will be making $16.70/hr. Workers on the progression also do not receive COLA, nor do they see any of those .25 cent or .50 cent raises. Those are all for top rate employees. So basically... for anyone hired recently... you will not see anything close to that $43,000 a year before the end of this contract which is up in 2006.


Pliskin have a look at this http://www.ufcw.net/files/docs/sc6wages.doc it was part the series MFD ran about the Swiss Chalet Workers who are also UFCW members. This page is an excerpt from their current collective agreement and describes what seems to be a three-tier wage scale.

Even though this is a totally different industry and and the wage rates are different, when I read your post above, I was struck by some similarities: A 60 month progression, with small increments between the steps and workers not getting any other increases until they get to the highest step in the progession.

I can't help but wonder if 1000a used this as a model for your wage scale.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 10:38am

History Lesson

The UFCW warehouses used to have a probationary rate and three calendar months later you were at top rate.

In the stores, you started at $12.00 an hour and the hourly equivalent of 12 months later, you were at top rate.

Now, the UFCW had agreed to contracts that take a full-timer (of which there are now less than 10% in most stores) five years to reach the top rate. Part-timers can take 10 to 15 years to reach top rate. Oh, and do part-timers get benefits or a few cents per hour in leiu?

These five-year progressions are deals cooked between the UFCW and its partners. They are cheap deals that allow the employers to same millions of dollars every year.

The Unions have traded cash paid into "education" and "pension" funds for cheapo contracts. Who benefits most from the pension funds and education funds?

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 10:49am

Alright everybody lets catch our breath here. 'I have an opinion' I hope you'll look into the links provided for you and start to form your own opinion. Your not the first bright eyed kid we've seen on this site spewing UFCW propaganda and you won't be the last. I hope the others feel less threatend by his attacks and try to understand that when the UFCW hacks get a hold of these "true believers" in the union movement they fill their heads with nothing but catch frase's and slogans. People like "I have" never see the business side of the union.

Now as for the comments about our site being run by Conrad Black...don't do that. First stop and think, can you think of any other place on this earth where wroking people of different unions, backgrounds and beliefs can disguss, argue and even fight about their different points of view? Is that not true democracy and is that not something that will better working people?

Stop and think about if the MFD ran this site the same way the UFCW runs theirs. I don't agree with anything you've said 'I have' and you have not convinced me at all. If this was the UFCW site your posts would not be here. Period. Nor would they be up on the CAW site either. Thats what another thing we oppose 'I have' Union leaders have learned a great deal from the media because they employ the same twisted tactics. We say that's not good enough. I will fight for your right to say your piece every bit as hard as I will fight for my rights. That's the true test of democracy.

On this site you have the opportunity to convince all your co-workers to stay with the UFCW. Show them that you actually read the other material and yet your still a believer. Show them WHY and don't do it with attacks on everyone who doesn't support you. Do it with facts. A good start was the wages, but then Demon has came back with some history. It sounded to me like excuse's but non the less he didn't attack, he provide evidence. Fire back at him with proof. Come on, you wanna stay UFCW show us why. While I'll believe it when I see it you may be right. Why is voluntary rec. a good thing?

Here, on this site you have the stage. Get your co-workers to log on and take the mic. If you want we can start a new thread and have either myself or Remote or both play referee between your two groups. There isn't another place on this earth that will do that for you my friend. Niether the UFCW nor the CAW and certainly not the TEAMSTERS will ever offer you the same opportunity. And on that score I think you first owe the people of this site an oppology. Good luck.

And just for the record, I started out believing in union reform but have since changed to supporting the creating of new a better worker representation. And on that score I think Maple grove would be better served with a union of their own and not the baggage of the other two. That's just my opinion.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 11:24am

Sorry for the double post but you guys have been busy since I started writing the other post. Tattler, I for one didn't know about the voluntary rec deals with the CAW. If you look on this site you'll see I posted an open invitation to any supporter of the status quo anywhere in North America including Buz to defend things like Voluntary rec deals amoung other things. It's one thing to say hey, were gonna get them anyway, it's another to say "we won't strike if you give us the store/warehouse's etc"

I do agree with you that machine heads have been outed on this site and it appears to be a double standard. We should rethink that. Personally I'd like to know why a machine head won't post under their real name anyways. I'm not affraid or ashamed of my points of view why are they? Alias's are for members affraid of retaliation from the UFCW or their employer (to me one in the same)not for paid staff.

The wages for the moment appear to be better through the UFCW. Why? is a very good question. Is this just a lame attempt to court new members for market control only to sell these same people out in 2006? I hope not. And please see a previous post I wrote while you were posting yours. I for one actually don't know all the details of this situation. I can't learn anything with people attacking each other instead of debating the issues.

And by the way, your welcome to join me alone in a post room anytime to talk about my compass and that of the MFD. You can bring whatever attacks you want in that room, I'M GAME. Yes I know HJF personally but you've got some kind of balls to suggest to me his hand is up my a@@ and I'm nothing but a talking dummy. I'll log in tommorow, and I'll expect you'll have our own private room set up for us. Be a man and use your real name too, I like to know who I'm talking with.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 12:02pm

OK, I fixed the link in my last post (about 3 posts back). Here it is again in case you don't want to look for it http://www.ufcw.net/files/docs/sc6wages.doc

  • posted by <Raymond>
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 12:33pm

This is to Demon, what is it like dealing with the CAW. Is the contract better than the UFCW one? CAW has a reputation of being pretty militant.

  • posted by Troll
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 12:46pm

Tattler said up top of this page:

quote:


2.The MFD looks to Hugh Finamore as their moral/intelectual compass. Lest we forget he is the king of the voluntary "wreck" remember the Castlegar Supervalu, the Extra Foods he represented with the Textile processors and of course the famous Real Canadian Superstore agreement he signed for the Textile Processors.
When examined closely the MFD's moral compass is spinning wildly instead of pointing north.


And a little further down there's a piece about arguments that "attack the man"

Here's an interview that appeared on the site, and I think the guy is quite candid about his past. HJF Interview.

I found another one where he tells how he came to work for the UFCW: Workplace Strategies Inc.

From what I've heard, the Textile Processors stuff was close to 20 years ago and if he was such a bad ass, why did the UFCW hire him and then still use his company until 1999?

From what I've seen, he tells the truth. I think it's a fact that the UFCW did the dirty partnership deals. Loblaws demanded and got their own local which Finnamore worked for under a UFCW President. He told us about the secret contract that the UFCW signed. He told us all sorts of undiputed facts about the UFCW. You guys attack the man but you can't dispute what the man has to say.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 1:43pm

Troll, did I hear you say that the UFCW did business with Finnamore's consulting company up to 1999?

Without going through all the different posts, that seems to me to be well past the point when he stopped working for them as an employee (mid-1990's?).

How can they be saying all these bad things about him if they did business with him long after he stopped working for them?

If you have info you'd like to share about this: news@ufcw.net

  • posted by eagle_one
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 3:51pm

They seek him here, they seek him there, those union toadies seek him everywhere.
Is he telling secretes? or opening eyes?
Just how did HJF get so wise?
They've got to stop him lest they fail, He'll tell us all that Scarlet Pimpernel.

Pissst; he's over here

  • posted by <"I have an opinion">
  • Tue, Jan 15, 2002 10:40pm

Dear Scottie;

Thank you for your response. You see I do have my own opinion and my opinion does come with facts, In my previous posts I have sent out a challenge that has been unanswered, Why is this? Could it be because I have made a challenge where answers do not have real merit? Or could the answer be twisted with half truth and no one knows how to this time with out looking like a fool.

Here is a cut and past of the comments regarding "CONRAD BLACK"........
"What is your point?? How long have you been around?? If you are as educated as your partners you would realize that media is the friend of the employer and "Anti Union"! Oh sorry I had a lapse of memory....and forgot where I was...yes at an "anti union" web site. That is right..... a place that spreads half truth. I am beginning to think that this is a site run by "CONRAD BLACK"! Am I wrong??"

In reading this I fail to see where you the responders see that I have stated the this site is truly run by "CONRAD BLACK" you see, it is what people like you and your anti union supporters and cronies do in order to twist and deceive those who would like the "whole truth" and nothing but the "truth".

A site that discusses all the facts is truly a good site. However In viewing what members on this site post here only offer "twisted truth", "half the truth" and "twist the facts" to suit their needs. That to me is "disgusting" and "pitiful"

I have challenged this site and it's "posters" to show me where "UFCW 1000A" has done in justes to the working people at Maple Grove. Has there been an answer? So far the answer to my question is "NO"! Why is that" Could it be that what has happened at Maple Grove shows that UFCW 1000A has shown the true form of unionism to not only look after it's existing members but, look after working people from other Unions in protecting their rights as well.

Scottie your twisted words and muffled points do nothing but make my point clearer.

And to Weiser.......buddy I don't have time for your crap. If you have a real point or a comment backed by facts then please entertain me that way. Polluted comments go no where with me.

This is "My Opinion"

  • posted by sleK
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 12:06am

quote:


You see I do have my own opinion and my opinion does come with facts,


Facts?

"Challenges" aren't "facts". Nor is your opinion.

quote:


In reading this I fail to see where you the responders see that I have stated the this site is truly run by "CONRAD BLACK"


Is this "fact" or opinion?

If this is a fact, I'd like you to "prove" it.

To be blunt, who this site is run by is none of your business. Yet, if you had any brains whatsoever, you'd know how to find out as this information is freely and widely available.

quote:


I have challenged this site and it's "posters" to show me where "UFCW 1000A" has done in justes to the working people at Maple Grove. Has there been an answer?


Other posters have offered you links to information showing how the UFCW, as a whole, has done, and continues to do, injustices to it's members.

Do us all a favour and read them. Then come back with your "opinion".

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: slek ]

  • posted by sleK
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 12:27am

quote:


I would hope that in the future The rule about outing contibutors to this site will apply to moderators and other MFD activists,


quote:


I do agree with you that machine heads have been outed on this site and it appears to be a double standard.


There is no hard and fast rule, however if you're a union exec/rep/emp/what-have-you and you come here with the express purpose of stirring some shit up you will be identified and embarrassed accordingly.

If you're a union exec/rep/emp/what-have-you and you come here with the express purpose of chatting, debating, sharing news, opinions etc. etc. without acting like a jackass, it's likely I'll never even look at your IP address.

Only the trolls get such attention from me.
I like to call it "accountability".

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 6:07am

<"I have an opinion"> It's quite obvious that you're not reading other members posts (or you fail to understand them). Go back to the first page and read them all again and you'll see that most of you're points were responded to. Both you and <Tattler> like to compare the wages of Maplegrove to Kitchener wages (both DC's wages are the same since Oct.30/2001 because they needed to extend the Kitchener closing date) The fact that you know CAW never negotiated the Kitchener contract never comes up in your posts either (why is that). A&P (Toronto Warehouse) just finished negotiations with the CAW in the fall of 2001 and i'm glad to say it puts the Erin Mills/Maplegrove/Freemont/Cambridge GM/Surveyors Road (Global) contract to shame. A&P is the #3 Retailer/wholesaler in Canada and Loblaws is the #1 retailer/wholesaler (Sobeys is #2) what kind bargaining do you think the CAW is going to do with Loblaws (less than what A&P got, I think not).
The second point you keep bringing up is "voluntary Recognition". Inherently it "should" be a great bargaining tool and it is the way the CAW uses it(the CAW got Vol. Rec. through tough bargaining and use it correctly). The problems start when the companies dangle it in front of the unions nose till the get what "they" want. The UFCW are like "crack addicts" and need to have their Vol. Rec. or they can't get new members, it's a viscious circle and the companies will continue to offer "another Vol. rec. FIX" as long as the union is still addicted. I think it's time to send the UFCW for "de-tox" to break their ugly habit.

just my 2 cents......

  • posted by <uniondude>
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 7:39am

Maple Grove Dilemma!
As an effected party, I have been researching and following the Loblaw's Maple Grove situation since day one. All posted stories are 100% correct. Loblaw's companies were looking at purchasing a building in Georgetown to house there fresh meat, frozen and such lines. A collective agreement arose from it with no membership and yes no building. That is how Maple Grove came to be. The company gave 1000a voluntary recognition and first dibs of all prime positions before that of any of the closing branches. The only other union showing any interest in the rights of the workers is tyhe CAW. The teamsters had membership rights in London and Chatham, CAW in Kithener and at first Local 175 of the UFCW in Fortinos in Hamilton. The CAW is a democratic union that is a firm believer in its members rights, and the right to vote and have a say into which union they want representing them.
In further research, I have obtained a copy of the collective agreement at Maple Grove. It is a company written agreement. It has to be due to the fact there was no membership to ratify it. There are five plus clauses stating, " The union AGrees...," How to you file a grievance on a clause that states the union agrees???? The money is excellent but money doesn't buy you protection. Company has unlimited rights, changing your vacation time, moving you from shift to shift, changing stat days etc. The top two clauses in my opinion are 6.01a and 19.01. 6.01a states the union is to aid the company in reprimanding their employees. 19.01 states that as a union guy if I see someone stealing or damaging propert and I don't report them, I am subject to reprimand. Rat Rat Rat. Go figure. There is far to much to mention. I'll be back with even more facts.
Enjoy your day

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 8:10am

Oh, you should see the UFCW Local 777 CA for the Real Canadian Warehouse. They had a peachy clause that allowed them to rid themselves of top-rate full-timers. In it the union agreed that full-time (not part time) employees if found in the employer's view to be unsatisfactory in two reviews to be held at the any time the employer wished, those employees would be put to the bottom of the part-time seniority list. That's worse than being fired. Such an employee's hours would be cut so dramatically that he or she wouldn't qualify for more than a couple of bucks of EI if they were layed off and if they quit--no EI.

Apparently the company wanted language to fire employees when they slowed down, but that was too much for the union to agree to, so the demotion clause was agreed to.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 9:15am

For management, these kinds of clauses provide a great way to getrid of workers they don't like and to control the number of workers who will ever to those top rates.

The erosion of protection from arbitrary treatment in the workplace by the kinds of clauses that uniondude and weiser are pointing out are really disturbing. One of the most important benefits of being a union member is protection from arbitrary demotion or firing. Without that, what's the point of paying union dues?

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 12:15pm

<I've got an opinion> said:

quote:


posted 01-14-2002 08:43 PM
I am beginning to think that this is a site run by "CONRAD BLACK"! Am I wrong??


What's the question, you're "beginning to think" or "this is a site run by CONRAD BLACK?"

The answer is no on both counts.

However, Mr. Opinion, you may want to begin to think on an "opinion" Mr. Chomsky holds in regard to people like you who seem caught up in the machinery: The Inevitable End of an Era

quote:


"You begin to conform your being to get the privilege of conformity. You soon come to believe what you're saying because it's useful to believe it, and then you've internalized the system of indoctrination and distortion and deception, and then you're a willing member of the privileged elites that control thought and indoctrination. That happens all the time, all the way to the top. It's a very rare person, almost to the point of non-existence, who can tolerate what's called "cognitive dissonance" -- saying one thing and believing another. You start saying certain things because it's necessary to say them, and pretty soon you believe them because you just have to." - Noam Chomsky


[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 12:20pm

quote:


Dear Scottie


My name is Scott, or if you'd prefer than by all means address me as Mr. Mcpherson. Scottie is not nor has it ever been my name and I don't want you to address me as such. I trust you have the maturity to understand this and honour my request.

As for your constant accusations about this site being run by Conrad Black, are all your so called facts as accurate? Tell me, what precisely is on this site that leads you to believe this?

All we have done is provide you with the opportunity to express your point of view and afforded your oppenents that same opportunity. So I'm at a loss as to why your so insistant on attacking the MFD rather than outlining your position regarding the Maple Grove situation.

For me I find this to be the benchmark in your overall credability and that of the UFCW local 1000a. By telling people this site is run by Conrad Black, or even hinting he has some kind of influence here your lying. My experience with liers is that you can't trust anything they have say. If your supporters can't trust you to tell the truth about something as simple as this why should any of us believe those members are better off staying in the UFCW?

I know you think you've made some profound points here, I'll remind you of the company you keep on this site. There arn't many green horns here, we've seen it all and if you want people to address your points than you'll have to back them up with cold hard facts. You've passed most of your opinions off as facts and most us see right through it. Seperate yourself from the issue and you'll see I'm right. Aside from the wages you haven't provide proof of anything and there is a great deal more to a contract with an employer, and in particular with choosing your union than wages.

If a ball player hits a home run to win the game does that make him more valuable then the guy who made 3 great defensive plays and went 4for4 at the plate. Perhaps. What if that players only hit came from the HR and prior to that he'd made 2 errors?

Just because the UFCW got a good wage for you and your co-workers doesn't mean they are the better choice. You have to look at the big picture. What union has the overall better batting average? who has the better track record at the OLRB? who has the better education system for training shop stewards and informing members? Who provides better service for grievances? What union has the more progressive constitution and bylaws? which union makes leadership or staff job more accessible to average union members? which unions leaders are more accountable to the members? and why? which union has more section 12(duty to faily represent) grievance's filed against them at the OLRB by their own members? You wouldn't buy a car without getting the opinions of current car owners would you? why would you choose a union without asking current members if they are happy and why? Most important of all, who does the employer want to deal with? and why?

If I was going to pick a union to represent me wages would be important, but that's only one point of many. In the end what ever union can win the most points will win my vote. Focus your arguments to that end or go someplace else.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 1:21pm

<Scott Mcpherson> I have to stand and applaud. That was eloquently and comely stated. If all union members took that to heart there would be no arguments about which union is better than the other. My hat goes off to Scott Mcpherson and the other MFD members that are taking a stand for "democracy" and "accountability" in "ALL" unions.

  • posted by <"I have an opinion">
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 5:12pm

Union Dude wrote:

The CAW is a democratic union that is a firm believer in its members rights, and the right to vote and have a say into which union they want representing them.

What a load of "CRAP"... "Dmeocratic Union My Ass!!"

Tell me this is democratic!!!! read on....

The Auto union's "Double Standard"
CAW punishes its own members for doing what it asks SEIU members to do
It's a textbook case of hypocrisy by the CAW. Really, it's sort of unbelievable.
Less than one year ago, two CAW local union officers in Stoney Creek, Ontario were indefinitely suspended from office by CAW President Buzz Hargrove for doing exactly what Ken Brown and others did to the SEIU. The case ended up at the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It's now a matter of public record. (OLRB Reports &#8211; 1509-99-U). Here's the essential facts:

In early May, 1999, two members of the Executive of CAW Local 525 filed an application for termination of CAW's bargaining rights at Bartek Ingredients in Stoney Creek. A large number of their fellow employees supported the application and a representation vote was ordered.

Just prior to the representation vote, the President of Local 525 called membership meetings to argue against the decertification and suspended the two officials. The decertification vote narrowly failed.

On June 8, 1999, Buzz Hargrove informed the defendants by letter that they were "indefinitely suspended..." because:

"It is clear from the documents provided and the information from the local union, that you have been involved with trying to decertify the national union in your workplace. This is a violation of Article 11, Section 5 of the CAW Constitution."

Hargrove then quoted from the CAW Constitution:
"Section 5 (a) No member is eligible for any position in the union is s/he is trying to decertify the National Union or is helping a group or union that wants to replace CAW-Canada as the recognized bargaining agent."

The officials appealed this suspension to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the CAW fought back, defending its action. The Auto union said that this case was exactly the same as an earlier Ontario court case in which a union official had tried to merge his local with another union [Just as Brown & Co. tried to merge their locals with the CAW].

Lawyers for the CAW quoted the judge who had ordered the injunction against that particular merger:
"It seems to me to be fundamentally unfair for the defendant to continue in [his union's] employment, to have accepted remuneration from it, and at the same time to have used its facilities and records to destroy it. I agree with counsel for the plaintiffs that to act in this manner is contrary to the constitution of the union."

In other words, the Auto union says that its union officials should not be allowed to do precisely what it conspired to do with SEIU officials. If there was ever a case of hypocrisy, this was it.

Another, similar case was cited by the CAW in which the B.C. labour board ruled:
"A union has the right and obligation to protect its own existence. Such a union has the right to resist a raid. The union would have the right to discipline, suspend, or otherwise deal with members of its executive who may be acting contrary to the interests of the union."

In the end, the Ontario Labour Board agreed with the CAW in the Stoney Creek case. In its decision, the Board said:
"Article 26 of the [CAW] constitution requires local union officers to pledge &#8216;to bear true allegiance to the union'. Clearly that pledge was breached when the [defendants] brought legal proceedings to put an end to the union in the workplace...Had the [defendants] respected their obligations under the union constitution they would have resigned their offices within the union prior to initiating the decertification application. That would have been their proper course of action." [Emphasis added because the CAW did not ask Brown & Co. to resign their positions before attempting to decertify the SEIU.]

So "uniondude" give us some more of your facts......bahumbug.....hopefully you will do better next time.

This is not "an opinion it is a fact.....:"

  • posted by <"I have an opinion">
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 5:42pm

UFCW1000A has done nothing wrong in the Maple Grove situation but rather take unionism to it's fullest. They looked after their members interest and that of other Union that where affected by closures. Must I remind you readers that it was "NG" that decided to close warehouses. It was UFCW1000A who looked after those members who were affected by the closures by allowing then to come into a "UFCW" contract with their seniority. For those of you who did not know 78% of these members received a 2 - 4 dollar an hour raise under UFCW, along with a better pension package, better Union representation, Better benefits and most of all superior contract language. UFCW is and always will be a better "Union" in the food industry than the CAW. I still challenge "ONCE AGAIN" for anyone to show me UFCW 1000A has done any wrong for the working people from all sides!
Here is an article to show "AGAIN" why UFCW is the right choice for the food industry and why the CAW really does not look after their membership!

A&P to close Hamilton Barn stores
Move startles customers; 480 to lose their jobs

HAMILTON - Customers of the Barn supermarket on Hess Street were startled to learn yesterday that the store will be closing its doors.
Barn's corporate parent, A&P, announced on Thursday that it would shut down three Hamilton-area Barn stores along with its Burlington warehouse. The stores at Hess Street and York Boulevard and Barton Street and Kenora Avenue will close within the next three months, while the Barn on Rymal Road will be converted under the A&P's Food Basics banner.

The closings will leave about 480 people without jobs.

At the Hess Street store yesterday, many customers said they were shocked by the announcement.

Gitta Sandor said she doesn't know where she'll do her shopping once the store is gone.

"There isn't any place else in this area,'' she said yesterday.

Meanwhile, union workers were finalizing settlement deals for the 480 Barn employees who will soon be out of work.

A spokesperson for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents the grocery store employees, said yesterday that the union had negotiated an "enhanced" severance package for the employees.

Bob Linton said the package will consist of three weeks' pay for every year worked, without any cap on the number of years. Both full and part-time employees will qualify, Linton said, regardless of how recently they were hired by the company.

The standard package is a minimum of one week's pay for every year worked, up to a maximum of 26 weeks, and requires a minimum of five years with the company.

But anyone who wants a job at another A&P-store - including the remaining nine Barn stores - will have to re-apply, Linton said.

However, "we have got assurances from the company that in other company-owned stores, they (Barn employees) would be given preferences in hiring.''

But the picture isn't as rosy for employees of the G.A. Love Foods warehouse in Burlington (also scheduled to be closed) who have only been offered the standard severance package of one week's pay per year, according to an employee who asked not to be named. The warehouse workers are represented by The Canadian Auto Workers.

The employee said he and other warehouse workers have been given the option of relocating to the central warehouse in Toronto, which will serve as the new supplier for the Barn.

However, they would have to start at lower level positions, the employee said - an unattractive option for most.

"We're getting a really bad deal,''-he said, adding that yesterday's news met with a wave of emotion at the warehouse.

"It's so bitter down there it's unbelievable.''

Torstar News Service

Foot Note:

CAW negotiated over a year ago knowing this would happen. They negotiated a "Clause" in their agreement that would only recognize seniority back to 2000. These were CAW members in the same company and the warehouse chain. "WOW"...and they have the nerve to criticize the fact that UFCW. UFCW 1000A negotiated to recognize every ones seniority no matter what Union or where they came from. This to me is a true "UNION".

This again is not "only my opinion" but a fact.

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 7:39pm

Well I'd actually like to thank Mr./Ms. "Opinion" for the beginnings of a coherent argument!

You've given us a few examples of where the UFCW has actually done some *good*, and it's been a while since we've heard that. I think people on this site need to hear it. This union reform is an unpleasant job to say the least, and it tends to make us grumpy. Thanks for showing us the UFCW isn't all bad. Good UFCW things you've said:

1. Start rates are higher at Maple Grove then they were in Kitchener.

2. The UFCW negotiated a better severance package for Barn workers than the CAW did. (BTW we've actually had some discussion about this on another board. If you'd like to tell us more over here I'd appreciate it: A&amp;P/Barn Fruit Market closings)

In addition to these two examples of UFCW good work, you've also given us an example of a CAW *bad*, namely, the whole hypocritical SEIU raid. And hey, I agree with you. The CAW plays some of the same dirty games as the rest of the union movement. That's why I personally don't trust them much further than the UFCW, or any of the other CLC unions for that matter.

Still, the problem with arguing by example is that your opponent can just respond with a counter-example:

1. Demon tells us that the CAW has negotiated an grocery warehouse contract with A&P in Toronto that puts even your Maple Grove agreement to shame.

2. While the CAW has done some naughty things with Ken Brown, the UFCW has cut some downright *nasty* deals with Loblaws, CARA foods, and a dirty little rat union called CURRE. Please read The Swiss Chalet workers' story. I would like to hear your opinion about that. I'd also like to know what you think about the UFCW Local 777 story, or your opinion on the voluntary wreck in Lloydminster.

But even more important, I'd like to know your opinion on the UFCW's culture. The UFCW has gotten a lot cozier with the employers over the years, certainly much more so than a union like the CAW. How do you feel about this "business union-partnership" approach. Is it helping the worker on the shop floor? Or is it just turning our leaders into rich real estate moguls.

I'm looking forward to more of your opinions.

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 7:54pm

Finally, <I have an opinion> you have provided some solid reasons why you belive your union has done good. However, you miss the point. Why does your employer like your union so much?

Local 1000a started out as a single employer (Loblaws Companies)employee association. Danny Gilbert rolled the group into the UFCW and lived happily ever after until he "retired" to a job as Mike Fraser's Executive Assistant. Unfortunately, Danny had to leave his son behind in a cushy job at 1000a.

The fact that 1000a thrives on voluntary "wrecks" from the Weston empire isn't lost on anyone.

Now, there's an old maxim, "you don't get nothin' fer nothin'." Why would an employer offer its employees to a union? Why wouldn't it try to treat its employees real nice, so they wouldn't want a union?

Why would an employer pick the UFCW over the CAW? I think this Loblaws VP (Roy Conliff's boss at the time) said it quite well: Loblaws VP Affidavit

We know that a Loblaw Companies subsidiary wasn't getting what it wanted from the UFCW, so it called in the Teamsters. See: Voluntary Wreck And take time to read the linked decision; the good parts are in red. It's pretty plain that unions that engage in voluntary wreck agreements aren't in the driver's seat.

Hey, and if you think voluntary wrecks are a-okay try "Partnering" agreements. You'll love this UFCW deal: Partnering Agreement The good parts are in blue.

Would the CAW do this sort of deal? Name one union other than your UFCW that would.

Hey, isn't Kevin Corporon the honcho for 1000a? I think he's mentioned in the Swiss Chalet series. Talk about a deal for workers. Twenty years in a union and the UFCW still has them at minimum wage. Read all about it: Swiss Chalet series. Read all six units and give us your opinion.

I'll say it again, "you don't get nothin' fer nothin'." An employer doesn't do a voluntary wreck without expecting something in return. That's more than an opinion--it's a fact of life.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Wed, Jan 16, 2002 10:33pm

Demon, thanks for the compliment. However I fear my post has been lost on everyone. Why does everyone insist on showing what's wrong with the other union instead of focusing on what's right with the union they want? Yes the CAW isn't perfect, I just don't see how that makes the UFCW a better choice given the long list of dirty tricks they've pulled over the years.

Point and counter point, attack and defend and all the while nobody learns anything. Sleky I think we should take the bull by the horns here. All this school yard "my unions better than yours" is wearing thin don't ya think? We should set up a post where specific questions are asked and answered to give these workers a clear understanding of their choice. Personally, I couldn't care less what union they choose just as long as they get the opportunity to make an informed choice.

I'm thinking we need a brain storming session to compile a list of specific questions.

quote:


-how many section 12 complaints against each union
- wages for the latest warehouse negotiated
- senority rights
-pension funds/records
-accountability to the membership
-bargaining records etc etc etc


We should chart them so people can compare the two like a consumer report instead of this endless finger pointing that's not getting us anywhere. Don't you agree? Gee wiz.

  • posted by sleK
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 12:02am

quote:


Sleky


My name is sleK or, if you'd prefer, by all means address me as Mr.sleK. Sleky is not, nor has it ever been...

quote:


We should set up a post where specific questions are asked and answered to give these workers a clear understanding of their choice.


Won't work.
We've tried organized discussions before and they didn't work. I've seen them fail on other boards as well. This particular message system just isn't cut-out for that kind of discussion. Don't let my cynicism get you down though! If you wanna give'er a whirl - feel free.

It sounds, to me, more like the makings of an article with a subsequent discussion.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: slek ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 7:09am

Okay, here's a positive, CAW doesn't sign "Partnering" agreements. (Neither do 99% of Canadian unions).

Scott, you're not talking brainstorming, you're talking months of research. Pointing out dirt is good. The difference may be corruption vs. heavy-handed control. Neither is good, but corruption is worse.

  • posted by activist
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 7:43am

Maple Grove Update
Part Time eligibility for full time work. With all the contoversy surrounding the Maple Grove warehouse, the part time people should be extra concerned. The ability for them to obtain a full time position is very very slim. First of all, if a full time job posting goes up, it is posted in a global atmosphere. It is available for workers at the Erin Mills Facility, surveyor Road facility, Freemont facility, Cambridge General Merchandise facility and Maple Grove. After all full time employees apply, which could be in the hundreds, if they still don't have an available applicant then it goes to the part time applicants. But wait, seniority doesn't matter. After applying, the part timers have to meet a 3 point eligibility requirement involving picking standards at 100%, absentiism and employee record. So far, you can see that a part time employee is very far stretched in obtaining full time work. To make matters worse, the current collective agreement has it that the company can exercise part time hours unlimitedly for a seven and a half month period and 20% over and above full time hours and a one for one replacement with absent full time employees. How's your full time chances now? I simply hope another union has the courage to force a vote, to allow workers their personal choice at choosing a union. Not one that is shoved down their throats by the UFCW or Loblaws.
Keep you posted. Thanks for reading.

  • posted by activist
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 8:14am

Contract comparisons.
Maple Grove Ufcw 1000a vs Kitchener's CAW

There is no comparison. Why?? The Kitchener contract was shoved down our throats 6 years ago by National Grocers no different than that of Erin Mills (1000a), Ottawa(Teamsters), Chatham(Teamsters) and Peterborough( Retail Wholesale). Kitchener is and was a different union than that of the CAW. Retail Wholesale merged with the CAW in November of 99 through a democratic vote of all delegates representing all locals. I was there. It was unaimous. I really don't want to go on and talk international unions due to the fact that the UFCW can't cut it. Out of 862 or so locals under the UFCW banner, only approximately 68 attend the convention. Out of the 68, only a select few attend. The basis for the convention is to vote on salary increases for the executive. What would you vote if you were one of those executives attending the convention? Salary levels of UFCW executives are a direct relationship to the number of its members and the dues collected with no services or representation. Easy to figure out. Buzz Hargrove's salary is 118,000 per year under the terms of a collective agreement. It can't increase. All staff reps and national representatives are covered by a collective agreement. All salaries are that of conventional agendas decided by the members. Thre members call the shots. That's the only acceptable structure. Have to go, getting a little heated over contract comparison's between the UFCW and the Kitchener contract. Not comparing appples to apples. tomorrow's edition, Maple Grove's contract in detail. Money is everything!!! Stay posted.

Thanks for reading

  • posted by <Pliskin>
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 8:18am

Also for any part-timers that may be reading this... I'd just like to take a second to recommend that you read Appendix A.08 (f) of our collective bargaining agreement. A part-time employee who has acquired seniority in accordance with the provisions of this Appendix shall lose all seniority and his employment shall automatically be terminated if any of the following should occur:

(vii) he refuses an offer of work on three (3) occasions within any three (3) month period without reasonable cause.

So the next time you are at home with your feet kicked up watching South Park and work calls you asking to come in .... you better haul ass and get a move on.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 8:38am

I think that directing questions at "I have an opinion" are going to fall on deaf ears. The questions fall "outside of the box" or scope of his understanding. If he reads any the articles that we put links to, it will put doubt in his mind about his beliefs (in the UFCW), so he will NOT read the articles, but continue to spout propaganda about things "inside the box". Apparently instead of teaching the union stewards at Maplegrove how to deal with problems on the floor and how to administer the collective agreement (5 stewards, 5 different answers) they are spending all their time teaching them how respond to questions on the CAW - UFCW issues (by feeding members dis-information).
From what I can see "i have an opinion" will never comment on questions "outside of the box", unless he gets someone (from the Machine) to build him a bigger "box" (comfort zone) or ghost write an answer for him to cut and paste.

Sorry "i have an opinion" but even though you're finaly putting some ammo in your guns you're still way off the target.

Reload and try again!

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

  • posted by siggy
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 8:44am

quote:


Retail Wholesale merged with the CAW in November of 99 through a democratic vote of all delegates representing all locals.


Is this the merge you are referring to? www.newswire
"Retail Wholesale Canada Union (RWC) voted by 93 per cent to merge with the
Canadian Auto Workers union."

quote:


The Kitchener contract was shoved down our throats 6 years ago by National Grocers no different than that of Erin Mills (1000a


Sounds familiar! Two tier agreement which keeps part-timers at the bottom. Don't have much chance of moving up the food chain. There are voluntary wrec's [sic]abound in B.C. that still have no agreement.
'Changes'.. vol. wrec - no agreement.
'Price Smart'.. vol.rec. - no agreement.
'Gas Stations'.. vol.wrec. - agreement still in the works. All a spinoff from the agreement that got shoved down our collective throat!

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 10:30am

Mr. Slek, (just had to give it to me didn't ya? ) this is what I was thinking;

what union offers the best wage? CAW UFCW
11-18 8-21
how many section 12 against 7 7

the numbers are made up so everyone just take a pill. That's what I was thinking, a chart but if it's not doable than it can't be done, oh well.

C'mon has given us some valuable information that calls into question the UFCW's commitment to total honesty if I read his post right. Mr Opinion and other UFCW supporters have been making hay comparing the UFCW Maple Grove CBA to the Kitchner CBA yet we now learn that the CBA in Kitchner was negotiated by Retail Wholesale not the CAW. The CAW only assumed that contract with the merger in '99. I did get that right didn't I?

If that is the case than what local 1000a and their minions have said hasn't been totaly honest has it? To quote Mr. Opinion on this very thread.

quote:


A site that discusses all the facts is truly a good site. However In viewing what members on this site post here only offer "twisted truth", "half the truth" and "twist the facts" to suit their needs. That to me is "disgusting" and "pitiful"


It seems Mr. Opinion you have some explaining to do. The UFCW would know if the CAW negotiated that contract or not yet everyone from their camp including you have pointed to it as a symbol of their ineptitude at the bargaining table. Is that not twisting the truth to suit your needs? This site is all about facts Mr. Opinion and it seems both the UFCW and yourself have not been totally forthcoming. If in fact they have not been totally honest about this than what else are you not coming clean about? I think the members of that warehouse need to find out.

  • posted by Richard
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 10:44am

Rumour has it that Mr. Opinion got his chain yanked by the machine. The Finnamore thread sent them running for cover.

  • posted by <"I have an opinion">
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 7:49pm

I have to say you people make me sick.......to "c'mon" nice try buddy on your attack at the P/T language. The fact is other than the vast number of UFCW members to CAW members in the distribution warehouses the language is very much similar. Another fact is in the Kitchener warehouse the amount of full time opportunities is slim to none, However in the UFCW represented warehouses the full time opportunity is "Far Greater".Nice Try though....

Next;

Where did you get your fact that P/T have to pick 100% standard. You are way off the mark on that. No where in the C/A does it state that and no where is that any part of the criteria. And may I remind you the UFCW has the most progressive grievance in the Industry on engineered standards; To say the least has tried to help the CAW for all working people.....who by the way has refused.........as a consequence has cost your members jobs while saving ours..... read on.......

The C/A was only shoved down your throat because you the CAW have no bargaining power ie "lack of membership" and "lack of distribution knowledge" with the fact that you are not experienced in the Retail Distribution Sector. Shall I remind you of the fact that CAW's knowledge and lack of interest to take care of the real working people.........You sold out the members of your Union and agreed to allow a company to treat them like robots and, when they did not perform agreed that, that was ok.......here is the facts........ "Yes I repeated myself".UFCW was faced with the same scenario as the CAW but our senior members did not cave and allow for a 2 tier system, and at the end of the day ended up with a better contract.

By failing to challenge Sobey's ELS standards, CAW gave the company the right to fire those who "can't keep up". Older workers are most affected.
CAW lack of knowledge about Engineered Labour Standards has led to a recent Arbitration decision that could well end up causing much more pain and suffering to warehouse workers across Canada.
The case involved a food distribution warehouse operated by Sobey's in Moncton. One year ago, the company established an "Engineered Labour Standards Performance Monitoring Policy". The policy says:
"Job performance will be assessed on a weekly basis, from Sunday to Saturday. The expected performance level is 100% of the standard and discipline will result when performance is below 95%."
Employees who do not maintain a weekly average of 95% are hit with progressive discipline. The first time they fall below 95% results in "verbal counseling" and retraining. Four more instances of just below 95% and you're fired. Out the door. "Sorry, old timer. You're just a little too slow. Have a nice rest of your life. What's left of it."
In response, the CAW put in a policy grievance against the disciplinary part of the Sobey's policy. That was
good. But they did not challenge the reasonableness of the standards themselves. That was bad. That failure to challenge how fast workers were required to work led to the loss of the grievance, and a permanent headache (as well as back and shoulder aches) for the Sobey's workers.
The September 14, 2001 award from Arbitrator Gregory I. North actually thanks the CAW for not challenging the company's standards.
"At the outset, I would acknowledge my appreciation to the Union for accepting throughout these proceedings that the Employer's policy with respect to Engineered Labour Standards is not unreasonable or subject to challenge, except for those provisions dealing with discipline. That concession has made the analysis of the issues in this case much more straightforward."
Later, in dismissing the grievance, North writes:
"Given that the [CAW] has stated in its submission that the standards themselves are not being challenged, it follows that the standards must be deemed to be fair, reasonable and achievable for the average worker working at an average pace."
What does this tragic loss mean? It means the company now has the right to fire workers who can only reach 94% of the standard during five weekly periods. To add insult to injury, the company gets to raise the standards whenever it wants. So if they want to get rid of older workers, all they have to do is raise the standards until the more senior people keel over from exhaustion or quit because they can't take the pain.

This to me with and yes "I have an opinion" is the CAW...........

Next;

Tom Collins as a result of the "merger" represents the retail division of the "CAW".......he "TOM" has been named as buzzes right hand man again just incase c'mon reads improperly......heads up the retail division of the CAW. What does this mean? It means that he will be apart of the negotiation committee for any retail division, and, the workers will once again get screwed........you can give it a new name but the inside is still the same.

Canadian "Auto" workers belong in the "Auto" industry.........United "Food" and Commercial....belongs in the "FOOD" industry..........

"I have an opinion" and I have facts........

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 7:49pm

They're so predictable aren't they.

I think the most important thing, DeMoN, whether <opinion> believes anything that he reads on this site or not, is that at least we are able to discuss and debate these issues publically. That's a big step forward for workers. These are subjects that have been considered taboo for too long. It's also important that workers can get information about what's going on and come to their own conclusions rather than being told what to believe.

Tell us more of what's going on.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 9:29pm

Dear mr. Opinion
Please get back on your medication, you're becoming completely incoherent. I had to read most of that last post a few times to try and figure out what you were saying.

Lets see you said,

quote:


Another fact is in the Kitchener warehouse the amount of full time opportunities is slim to none


Well I think that some sort of revelation considering the Kitchener warehouse is closing this Saterday,19/2002.

you also said,

quote:


UFCW was faced with the same scenario as the CAW but our senior members did not cave and allow for a 2 tier system, and at the end of the day ended up with a better contract.


A) The Kitchener contract was signed by the Steelworkers(RW) union in 1995, the CAW came into the picture in 1999 (is that too hard to understand)

B)Kitchener F/T got 2 tier pay and what amounts to a pay freeze, the P/T went from $11.75 top rate to $8 start wage. The UFCW 1000a F/T took a $5/H pay cut from $22/H and P/T went from $16 top rate down to $8.50/H start.

You said,

quote:


This to me with and yes "I have an opinion" is the CAW...........


Well this one is undecipherable!

You also said,

quote:


Tom Collins as a result of the "merger" represents the retail division of the "CAW".......


Past tense on that one buddy, get up to date! There no longer is a "Retail Division".

You're making this much too easy and you're losing the little credibility you had!

Reload and try again.......

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

  • posted by eagle_one
  • Thu, Jan 17, 2002 10:48pm

I get the feeling this guy opinion is finding his coworkers are leaning towards the CAW don't you? His posts are getting increasingly hostile and he's making less and less sence. Now he's talking about a greivance from Sobeys's? tommorrow it'll be some other thing the CAW didn't do well. God we could fill this site up with things the UFCW have messed up.

I sounds to me like this guy's just looking to get on the UFCW gravy train and he's willing to tell people just about anything to do it. If I had to guess I'd say he's been offered a staff job if he can convince his coworkers to stay UFCW. He sure sounds desperate. Hey opinion, the steelworkers did the deal at Kitchner not the CAW

Why does he keep bringing it up??? "I have facts" please, buddy this site has the facts. If anything official was ever posted on this site that wasn't true the UFCW lawyers would slap a law suit on the MFD so fast NASA would think a UFO just flew by. We make your sick? why? because we can see right through your bull? like we haven't heard this crap before? 1518 is 3X the size of 1000a with 10X the BS, you guys are light weights. All you've done is huff and puff and accuse and attack and finger point and try to scare. Not once have you ever put a real argument forward. Your not even worth listening to and I really don't care if you post something flapping your gums at me, your not worth another word.

Don't feed the trolls

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jan 18, 2002 7:13am

You'll notice that <Opinion> had to be yanked until his handlers could put together some refutable half-truths. Anybody who knows anything knows that RW was a food union and their contracts were inherited by the CAW and UFCW. Within any union you will find a best and a worst agreement. The big question that <opinion> can't and won't answer is why is the UFCW so favoured by Sobeys and Loblaws? Why did SERCA choose the UFCW for the union that would represent it's Mississauga warehouse? Why did NG choose the UFCW for the union that would represent its Maplegrove warehouse?

It was saide earlier, you don't get nothing for nothing. An employer doesn't do a voluntary "wreck" and expect nothing in return. In the BC Superstores the expectation was being allowed to squeeze at least a 25% advantage over the competition.

In the Provigo case, it was agreeing to never shut down the whole operation. I believe Local 1518 has done a similar deal in BC. They have agreed to let only one half of any bargaining unit strike and bargain. The other half lives with the results.

Tell us your "opinion" on that type of stuff, Mr. Opinion.

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jan 18, 2002 7:16am

BTW, have any of you heard of loss leaders. That's where a store offers a unbelievable deal to get the customers in. Sometimes they call it a bait and switch. You advertise something that is unavailable to get the suckers in the door.

The UFCW retail food agreements used to look pretty good too. They still do, but not for part timers.

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Jan 18, 2002 8:21am

quote:


The UFCW retail food agreements used to look pretty good too. They still do, but not for part timers


%75 part-time to %25 full-time, that is the 1518 agreements' target. Some stores are supposed to be 50/50. You'd be hard pressed to find those. Part-timers make up appr. %75 of the Power Source trying to make a living under the 1518 agreement.

  • posted by Troll
  • Fri, Jan 18, 2002 8:22am

You're looking at 90% p/t in Local 777 contracts.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Fri, Jan 18, 2002 10:33am

I honestly don't know how UFCW officials can stand themselves when they take home six figure saleries while more than 75% of the membership work part time and live below the poverty line. That's what I find disgusting. Yet for them that's still not enough. Trips to Florida and Hawaii, new cars,huge severance packages upon retirement with cars and in some case's even house's. $1000 clothing allowances per year, all the gas their vehicles can guzzle, meals etc etc etc.

Even then for some that's still not enough. UFCW officials have been caught embezzling union funds, misusing the union plane, fraud, taking employer bribes, election fraud, and the mighty list of shame goes on and on. Yet the best they can do is have a fool like Mr. Opinion come on this site and point his finger at some things the CAW has done that quite frankly pail in comparison. Why would anyone want to support these guys?

The receptionist who answers phones at the UFCW union hall earns more than any of the warehouse workers at Maple Grove who have to pick orders at a certain pace or they're out the door. I think the loss leader idea from weiser is right on the money here. There's something fishy about this deal at Maple Grove, I can't put my finger on it yet but I'll figure it out and given my experience with the UFCW I wouldn't put that money in the bank just yet. Not as long as they can still wield thier infamous "letter of understanding".

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Jan 19, 2002 7:23am

Local 1000a, in defending its activities at Maplegrove said:

quote:


We opened up our contract to save their jobs and their seniority.


I'm perplexed at why the UFCW had to "open" a, presumably, signed collective agreement to "save" anyone's jobs. Doesn't Ontario have successorship protection in it's Labour Relations Act? I know the UFCW opened it's SERCA contract not to protect anyone's job, but rather to expand its jurisdiction to a geographic area in which SERCA was about to build a large warehouse that would absorb four or five warehouses.

You don't have to open contracts, to protect jobs. However, you do to grab off representation rights. And that seem to be what happened with the SERCA deal. The union and the employer made a decision which union would represent the yet-to-be-transerred or hired Mississauga employees.

And that brings us back to the question, "why did the employer choose UFCW over the other unions?" Was it because the UFCW had the most expensive contract with the most restrictive terms guaranteeing job security? I think employers naturally go where the best deal is. It's just human nature.

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sat, Jan 19, 2002 9:49am

Business is about the bottom line and what's best for it. Comapanies give voluntary rec deals to the lowest bidder 98% of the time. To not understand this is to either be completely stupid and totally lacking in understanding of the market economy, or completely blinded by your beliefs in unionism.

I watched the movie JFK last night and I'm amazed with the magic bullet theory. How can people actually buy this load of crap? The Z. film shows his head went back and to the left,impossable for a shot coming from the rear yet the American people accepted the Warren comission findings and to this day accept files being locked away until 2038. Why?

Because they're told it's anti American to question the government. Just like we're told it's anti union to expose corruption in unions or question the leaders of unions. There's a line in that movie that rings true for me,

quote:


A Patriot must always be ready to defend his country against it's government


It's not anit union to question or expose corruption in our unions, it's anti union to keep quite about it just like it's anti American to accept the Warren comisions findings. That quote is the smartest peice of true wisdom I've ever heard. What our unions and our governments do for us should NEVER be good enough. We should never stop questioning them and we should never accept what they tell us at face value. For those who do they do so because they are either fools, or they a part of the corruption and deceit.

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 6:30am

i have a question about a grievance
i filed one in september that went to third stage.i won but...have not been paid
i filed as a CAW 414 member
then i was moved to Maplegrove
who do i talk to to get my money
and how?

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 6:36am

i have another...
how do i force 1000a machine wanna be Brian Ried to give me a copy of 1000a by-laws
besides going through him how else can i obtain a copy

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 6:45am

I'd say that because the move was a cosolidation, you're employer remains the same. If you are paying dues to 1000a, then they are responsible to get the particulars from whomever resolved the greivance. Then it is 1000a's responsibility to make the company live up to it's commitment under the collective agreement, which 1000a claims to be the successor.

I'd say this is a case where the two unions put aside all differences to represent the interests of those whom they both claim to represent the best interests of. Your well-being should be paramount; their differences secondary.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 7:03am

quote:


how do i force 1000a machine wanna be Brian Ried to give me a copy of 1000a by-laws?


I'd be surprised if they would give Brian a copy. UFCW locals are notorious for keeping Local Union By-laws and the International Constitution locked up. Here's a copy of the International Constitution:UFCW Constitution

They guard this stuff so tightly that they threatened to sue a Local 777 member who put the Constitution on his web site.

He's also published the Local 777 By-laws, which would be similar to 1000a's. All UFCW locals seem to be in the process of restricting the ability of members to run for office. I think Local 832 was the latest. Anyway here's Local 777's: 777 By-laws

If Brian won't cough up the By-laws, write a "registered" letter to Kevin Corporon asking for copies to be sent to all dues payers at Maplegrove.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 7:26am

You may also want to contact the Ontario Labour Relations Board and ask if you have a legal right to a copy as a union member. (I think you might.) If you do, ask the Board what it can do to help you obtain a copy.

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 7:49am

Does anyone have a copy of the Zehrs local 1000A contract signed in 2000?

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 8:42am

ufcw is passing around a flyer that says rw/caw,ufcw 1000a and 175 have agreed to stop raiding each other, signed by Tom Collins, Kevin Corporon and the local 175 rep on Feb 22/2000 (they agreed to 7 points in all)

i think that he already sold us out!

does anybody have info on memorandum of settlement signed by these guys, what does it mean?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 8:54am

If you can't get a copy of the Zehr's agreement through somebody on this site, you can look at and get copies of any current collective agreement in Ontario at the Office of Collective Bargaining Information, Ontario Ministry of Labour. Their office is at 400 University Ave. (at Dundas St. W.) in Toronto. You can also call them at 416-326-1260 if you want to be sure they have what you're looking for before you make the trip downtown.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 9:04am

quote:


Originally posted by 1000a sucks:
ufcw is passing around a flyer that says rw/caw,ufcw 1000a and 175 have agreed to stop raiding each other, signed by Tom Collins, Kevin Corporon and the local 175 rep on Feb 22/2000 (they agreed to 7 points in all)

i think that he already sold us out!

does anybody have info on memorandum of settlement signed by these guys, what does it mean?


I think you should contact Corporon and demand to see a copy along with an explanation, in writing, of exactly what it means. You may also want to contact the CAW and ask them about it. Before you actually see the document, don't assume anything. There is often a lot of propaganda and "misinformation" floating around when biz-unions feel threatened.

How about sending MFD a copy?

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 9:10am

quote:


How about sending MFD a copy?


MFD contacts

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 9:53am

If you need contract info from Ontario just talk to this lovely lady from the MOL.

Christine Fontaine
Labour Relations Information Specialist
Office of Collective Bargaining Information
400 University Avenue, 9th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 1T7
Direct Line: (416) 326-1162
Fax: (416) 326-1277
E-mail: Christine.Fontaine@mol.gov.on.ca

Just make sure you give her enough details to find what you need. She's been very helpfull to me in the past. It will be sent same day as you call too, either faxed or snail-mailed.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 10:03am

Oh, and if you want a copy of that memorandum signed by Tom Collins, Kevin Corporon and the local 175 rep on Feb 22/2000, i'll get a copy and scan it for you. All you need to do is give me an e-mail address to send it to.

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 10:06am

Remote Viewer, thanks for the info. I can get a copy of that for you but how do I send it to you?

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 10:43am

Maybe it can be scanned into a PDF file and posted for a couple of weeks, so people can print it off.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 12:37pm

Just a note, Brain Reid (is he a business agent?)or any other UFCW officail has to by law provide you with a copy of your local's by-laws. They have no choice.

Also, ask the same of the CAW. Perhaps Slek can put a link to both up on this site to compare. If one or the other has a problem with that then give your vote to the other union. If they both oppose, then tell them both to piss off and form your own union. I'd be happy to help you get started. Just let me know.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 12:58pm

Anyone who wants to email me stuff, send to remote@ufcw.net

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 4:39pm

Demon, maybe you could send in a scanned copy, I don't have a scanner. Thanks

Yes, Scott, Brian Reid is 1000a's rep

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Jan 20, 2002 9:20pm

I asked for a copy (of the memorandum) today but nobody had one, i'll have to get my copy back and scan that one (not in very good shape) when I get it i'll e-mail it to "remote".

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Jan 21, 2002 10:46am

The UFCW 1000a is having a general meeting tonight at Maplegrove on company time (45 min.) Management asked everyone yesterday that wasn't working today if they would like to work overtime today and stay for the union meeting tonight. Something smells fishy here..... I'll keep you all posted on what the meeting was about. L8r guys

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Jan 21, 2002 12:46pm

Paying overtime to give your partner a chance to propagandize your employees may not seem too bright--in fact it may seem financially imprudent. However, NG is anything but financially imprudent. They always expect a return on their dollar. Maybe they look at the overtime as an investment. The only question is, out of whose pockets will the dividends come?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Jan 21, 2002 4:36pm

Very interesting. DeMoN, you must give us an update. And please let us know if they say that this web site is the work of the devil (or HJ Finnamore, who I think they believe is the devil). Now, considering that and the fact that you call yourself "DeMoN", I wouldn't be surprised if the machine heads show up all decked out in garlic

  • posted by <"I have an opinion">
  • Mon, Jan 21, 2002 6:35pm

I have an opinion
This is your first warning. Continued posting in this manner will get you banned.
Got it?
If you've got a problem with this take it to email. slek@ufcw.net

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: slek ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Jan 21, 2002 6:59pm

Gee, "IGO", was it a rough day at the warehouse? Chill out. DeMoN said:

quote:


The UFCW 1000a is having a general meeting tonight at Maplegrove on company time (45 min.) Management asked everyone yesterday that wasn't working today if they would like to work overtime today and stay for the union meeting tonight. Something smells fishy here....


I didn't read that people were asked to "stay" overtime, but rather to come in on their day off, which would require overtime.

If the employer is willing to pay people extra to come in on their day off and pay people to attend a union meeting on company time, I say great. What a wonderful employer, and what a wonderful working relationship it must have with its favourite union.

I believe DeMoN isn't used to such a close relationship between and employer and its union, so he smells something fishy. Hey, that's his "opinion" and he should be entitled to hold opinions.

I'm sure he'll tell us what happened at the meeting. I think once "IGO" has a hot chocolate and a little rest, he'll feel a lot better.

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Mon, Jan 21, 2002 7:28pm

To(o) opinion(ated)
why don't you find yourself a ufcw friendly site...if you can find one
I was told(by a supervisor) that there was a meeting today on day shift at 1:40, but for some reason it was cancelled...maybe the machine heads had to get their stories straight.
I wonder what gets Brian Reid out of bed and at Maplegrove by 6:30am like he was today

Speaking of standards...no f/t in Kitchener NG were ever fired for not making the required 95%...but at Maplegrove supervisors are threatening disipline already...each week..how many ufcw members have been fired for not meeting the ESL?...I heard of a few people...just ask guys from Erin Mills, Freemont & Pinebush rd

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Mon, Jan 21, 2002 11:58pm

Ah, company paid OT for a meeting with the union????????????????????????

Have I got enough question marks there to finally get guys like IGO to pull their heads out of their ass or should I add some more?

Haven't unions who had employers pay out money to their employees to attend that union's meetings been declaired "employer dominated" and been removed as the bargaining agent? isn't that to protect workers from scams that try to get workers to believe they have fair representation when in fact all they really have is employer control via the union? I thought I heard of case's like that.

I would never, ever sign a union card to join a union the employer so badly wanted to deal with it was willing to fork out OVERTIME just to get me to attend the unions meeting/info session.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 5:51am

Sorry guys, but the meeting (with Kevin Corporon or was that Corporate) ended up just being a Rah! Rah! aren't we doing a great job at beating ELS (engineered Labour Standards). Can't say as I see any improvements at all. Actually it's worse than it was at Kitchener (much) with a bunch of the supervisors trying to be the tough guy and scare everyone into making the standards. I guess they want to climb the corporate ladder on the backs of the assemblers at Maplegrove.

quote:


Haven't unions who had employers pay out money to their employees to attend that union's meetings been declaired "employer dominated" and been removed as the bargaining agent? isn't that to protect workers from scams that try to get workers to believe they have fair representation when in fact all they really have is employer control via the union? I thought I heard of case's like that.


I have to agree with you on this one! This is cutting it very close to contravening the OLRB act. They stuck to the agenda and didn't get into propagada mode though. It does go to show how closely the company and the UFCW are working though (nice and cozy).

On another note I was having an argument with one of the stewards last night about the UFCW not doing a damn thing to improve things at Maplegrove since it opened, his response was "if we were'nt so busy fighting to keep the CAW out of here we could get things done" (as always members come last if at all!)

  • posted by Richard
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 7:01am

quote:


"if we were'nt so busy fighting to keep the CAW out of here we could get things done"


Strange logic.

If they got things done in the members' best interest, there'd be no trouble keeping the CAW out--or any other union for that matter.

Exactly what are they doing that takes up the time they should be spending on the members? All the work for the cosy contract was done before the members were there, so bargaining isn't taking up any time.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 8:49am

Richard, they also feel that the CAW should be spending all their resources on the Ford workers and not waste there time and effort at Maplegrove.

Hey Remote, you have mail

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 5:43pm

Thanks DeMoN, I got it. My isn't that special? What was Tom Collins thinking when he inked this stinky deal? I wonder whether these things are enforceable, given that workers have the right to join the union of their choice. Anyway, we shall find a place for it where it can be put studied, examined and questioned by all.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 5:55pm

Well that's really it isn't it? Good old UFCW making excuse's. Who cares what union you want to represent you, your common goal is a better work environment isn't it? Shouldn't all of you be working towards that end? If the boss is hounding a guy do you mean to tell me if he supports the "other" union your going to pretend you didn't see it and leave him to the wolves? Come on, your still brothers arn't you?

There were people at Save-On I absolutely hated, but I fought every bit as hard for them as I did for my best freinds because fighting for your coworkers is the sameas fighting for yourself. This union thing is strickly "in house" and a union worth belonging to would never loose sight of that. Brothers, there is alwaysplenty of time to fight the employer over injustices in the workplace.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 6:17pm

Hey Remote, you're right about that being a stinky deal for all the members of those locals. I hope this gets back to "Buzz" and he cans Tom Collins for being an idiot!

  • posted by ozium
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 7:20am

Being that I am new hear I would like to thank all those who post here for helping educate me a little more. However, I must admit ,there was quite a large amount of venom spewed forth which confused facts and left me less informed. I am currently employed at, "the grove", and am subjected to a whirlwind of rantings, politics, jealousness, and more......

Ask me anything.

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 7:32am

quote:


which confused facts and left me less informed


Ask again and again. People can keep answering 'til we understand!

  • posted by <Pliskin>
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 8:22am

undecided grove worker,
Are you part-time or full time? And what exactly are you confused about? I have talked to numerous part-timers who have been told by UFCW supporters that they will make $8.00 /hr if CAW gets in. (part-time rate in Kitchener). And I have also seen it first hand, from a steward no less. I was second tier full time in Kitchener, so I find it intersting that they dont come to me and say I'll be making $13.00/hr again if CAW gets in. I'm sure they know I wouldn't suck up the bs. It's obviously a scare tactic aimed directly at young part-timers who don't know any better.

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 8:53am

Hey, "undecided grove worker" please read some of the information such as: Loblaws Vice President

UFCW/Loblaws "Partners"

Partner Union

Voluntary Wreck

Cut a deal or we go with another union bidder--a lesson that only has to be taught once

Union signs secret contract behind members' backs

That should keep you busy for a while. Read them and ask some questions.

  • posted by <answer>
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 11:38am

I think the answer to Remotes question about the agreement between the union is both yes and no. It probobly cannot be enforced at the labour board. The only thing they would likely (or could) consider is the employees wishes, but there could very possibly be a legitimate action in civil court should the CAW decide to apply for certifacation for Maplegrove or any other unit contemplated by the deal.
Remotes other musing about employees having the right to join whatever union they want is true, but only if the union they want to join agrees to organize them. A union is not required to accept all who approach them and do reject inquires for various reasons, such as: lack of experience in the type of workplace, geographic location, size of bargaining unit, etc.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 1:09pm

I should clarify my question about the effect of this kind of deal on workers' wishes to join the union of their choice. I realize that unions are not obliged to organize any group of workers that comes their way (although I have to wonder why a union would turn their backs on workers seeking representation), but what if a group of workers wants to join a particular union and that union is willing to organize them but has been bound to one of these "non competition pacts", do these pacts override the rights of the workers?

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 2:07pm

Responding to "answer" and "Remote": In the minds of those who make these pacts running the business overrides the wishes or rights of workers. It's a business decision, not a philisophical decision.

It is rare that any union would turn their nose up at any group of employees unless, of course, they are employed in the construction industry. There are few, if any, truly craft-based unions in existence anymore. Teamsters and Steelworkers have casinos and the Communications Engergy and Paperworkers union has candy makers.

About the only time you will see a union turn down a group of employees is if there is a no-raid or "partnering" agreement or if the cost of serviceing out weighs the cost of servicing.

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 2:30pm

Yes that is the thinking isn't it? I can't help but think, when I look at this Memorandum, about what I call the commodification of workers. These deals, whatever the machine heads may say, are a means of protecting each other's turf or each other's property. "These are mine and those are yours and here is my signature on a legally binding (I think) document to put your mind to rest about that."

I find answer's comment that "there could very well be a legitimate action in civil court" to enforce the deal, points in that direction as well. It's similar to people going to court to fight over property ("by virtue of this contract, I am entitled to this property, if you take it from me, I am entitled to damages for the value of that property or for my investment in that property and for my future losses on that property...."). I wonder if that is the intention of the UFCW Locals? If so, I wonder what the "value" of the property would be or how you would arrive at the number? What is the worth of these workers in dollar terms? What about the complicating fact that the "property" may have some rights of its own? Finally (for now), why would unions want to get into these arguments in the first place? Unless, there's something I'm not seeing, the further you delve into these issues, the more commodified the workers become. Oh wait, I think what I'm missing is: What is the value of these deals to the workers? How do they benefit the workers? (Reasoned arguments please, not rhetoric.)

BTW, I think it's really good that they've made this deal available, that they're publicly circulating it. It gives us an opportunity to raise these questions and get our heads around how we feel about these deals and whether they serve the workers' interests in any way.

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 3:08pm

Unfortunately there is no justification that can be argued. Remote is absolutely right when he/she says that deals like these turn members into commodities to be bought and sold.

Mergers aren't bottom-up affairs. They are business decisions made by union managers. With a merger, except for a new membership card, nothing significant changes for the members. They don't get a cushy job or extra pensions. They keep paying their dues. The machine heads get pumped up pensions and other perks to walk their "assets" over to the new union.

Here's a prime example: UFCW/Textile Merger

The members didn't get a dime spent on them, but the machine heads got a couple of million spread among them and many of them got to keep their jobs with the new union.

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 8:00pm

Concerning memorandum of settlement

Is there not a way to make Tom Collins rescind that deal under the CAW constitution?

Talk about conflict of interest!!

How does CAW ever expect to make inroads in the retail food industry?

As a 414 member looking and hoping that they do something for us, how can I possibly count on them...stick my neck out for them, why...I'M CALLING ON ALL AND ANY UNION TO COME TO MAPLEGROVE TO ORGANIZE !

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 8:49pm

Perhaps you should consider saying to hell with all of the dirty, scheming CLC business-unions. Instead, take matters into your own hands.

Someone independent like the Wobblies might be able to help you out. Check out this site:
Retail and General Distribution Workers IU Local 660

Industrial Workers of the World U.S.A.: www.iww.org

Industrial Workers of the World Canada: www.iww.ca

Contact the IWW Retail and Distribution Workers:

Mail: 5215 Ballard Ave NW, Seattle, WA 98107
Phone: 206-706-6250
E-mail: iu660@bari.iww.org

Contact the IWW Toronto General Membership Branch:

Adam Tworkowski, Branch Secretary
Mail: P.O. Box 108, Station P Toronto, ON M5S 2S8
Phone: (416) 654-1778
Email: toronto.gmb@iww.ca

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 9:41pm

We have to remember that memorandom was given out to confuse the Maplegrove employees. It doesn't tell the whole story, just enough to take the employees mind off the real issues at Maplegrove. It makes kevin Corporon, and Wayne Hanley look just as bad as Tom Collins but I guess they were willing to take that risk in order to smeer the CAW. It's obvious from the dates on the memorandum that this started long before RW merged with the CAW in Nov. 1999 and was signed just after the merger. If someone has the real story on this memorandum please enlighten us, it should be interesting.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Jan 24, 2002 6:04am

Oh I think you're right that the deal was hatched before the merger. You may want to ask the CAW where they stand on it. It's possible the leadership didn't know about it. (I know that sounds really unbelievable but you'd be surprised at how selective union honchos can be in what they communicate to each other).

If they don't want to take up your cause, hey, go check out other unions (including the IWW). I wouldn't wait for them to come to you. It's your worklife, check out who else is out there and what they have to offer.

  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Jan 24, 2002 7:08am

[edit, I was dead wrong in identifying the Parties to the no-raid pact.]

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Jan 24, 2002 7:39am

Check again - Collins signed the deal on behalf of "RW/CAW Division". By February 2000, the RW had already merged with the CAW. I suspect it must have pissed off the USWA who were quite pissed with him for leaving them at the time.

In any event, given the timing and the CAW's presence at Maplegrove, my guess would be that won't let it get in the way.

  • posted by scotty-lester
  • Fri, Jan 25, 2002 7:35am

A question for all you former Kitchener Workers.........
You say that the UFCW treat people that came from non-ufcw people are treated like second class people.......
Our members protected OUR MEMBERS
What the Hell did you guys do when you voted a 2 teir system in? well you screwed all the junior people.
All of you people talk about Tom Collins as this %$# Hole but yet he is still in there?
If you people dont have respect of your officals how do you think your union will do in maple grove?
Oh by the way how do you guys are enjoying the raise,the better vacations and the better benifits??

  • posted by scotty-lester
  • Fri, Jan 25, 2002 7:48am

ALSO there is a CAW member showing people a copy of the contract that CAW got for A & P. If you people the company will open the contract and give us more you are out of your minds.
LCE just spent a fortune on Maple grove and if you think they are about to give us more you are just as messed up as Tom Collins

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jan 25, 2002 8:22am

I think the argument has shrunk to what type of shit is best to have on your boots. Secret deals are shit no matter who does them.

If you take the argument up a notch, you argue whether it's better to have an apple with a bruise or one that worm-ridden and rotten to the core.

What Hargrove does to publicly rectify what RW/CAW has done will say a lot about the CAW as a whole.

Globalize_this may have a point about looking for alternatives. Perhaps starting your own union--one similar to the UE. Or dropping theIWW a line.

I think Doug Dority said it best, "Change or get out of the way."

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Fri, Jan 25, 2002 10:25am

quote:


Originally posted by scotty-lester:
You say that the UFCW treat people that came from non-ufcw people are treated like second class people....... [QUOTE]

I don't think any has said that, what was said was that Kitchner staff only got to choose leftover jobs.

[QUOTE]Our members protected OUR MEMBERS
What the Hell did you guys do when you voted a 2 teir system in? well you screwed all the junior people.[QUOTE]

Multi tier collective agreements are the UFCW's trade mark. Nobody does them more often than the UFCW so lets not have the kettle call the pot black ok.

[QUOTE]If you people dont have respect of your officals how do you think your union will do in maple grove? [QUOTE]

Do you really mean "respect" or are you really suggesting blind faith with no accountability? T.C.'s motives are in question here as I understand it, and what's wrong with questioning his motives or actions?

[QUOTE]Oh by the way how do you guys are enjoying the raise,the better vacations and the better benifits??


Step back for a second.......can you see it?.....do you realize just how childish that last statment is?

To start with their contract at kitchner was negotiated by the Steelworkers in 1995 while Maple Grove is brand new yet you still bragg about a $3-4K increase? That type of increase doesn't even keep up with inflation over the last 7 years. This is also why I strongly oppose long tern CBA's. Furthermore, as I understand it the Kitchner people went from full time to part time at Maple Grove which suggest an overall pay "decrease".

Lastly, why the overall hostility? these people just want the best representation they can get for everyone. It's not going to effect your senority. Is that what the UFCW told you? The only thing that will change is what union your certified in so just vote your conscience and live at let live. For Pete's sake your still brothers, you'll still be union and both unions are charter members of the CLC. What's the problem?

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Fri, Jan 25, 2002 9:25pm

Well "scotty-lester" it's nice to see you back but I really was hoping you would have seen the light by now. Why don't you just admit to everyone that the only reason that you, (and most of the other 1000a members) want the UFCW in Maplegrove is to keep your cozy Mon.- Fri. "prime", "protected" jobs. I know it's not the collective aggrement because the A&P(CAW) contract that was being passed around at Maplegrove today was miles ahead of the UFCW contract. Apparently the A&P (CAW) contract caused quite the commotion today at Maplegrove. We will be bringing in more "CAW" collective aggrements to show the workers at Maplegrove that you've been lying to them about the CAW's ability to negotiate a superior contract. After the workers know the "truth" there will be a Representation vote to see who the Maplegrove workers want to represent them. Hopefully the Maplegrove workers finally see through all of your "misinformation" and make an informed decision.

quote:


You say that the UFCW treat people that came from non-ufcw people are treated like second class people.......


That should read we "FEEL" like second class people, on the other hand, everyone there is "treated like second class people......."

quote:


Our members protected OUR MEMBERS


Perhaps you can tell me what you were protecting "your members" from? National Grocers gave you a guarantee in writing that no UFCW 1000a full-time jobs would be lost because of the closing warehouses.

quote:


What the Hell did you guys do when you voted a 2 teir system in? well you screwed all the junior people


When you negotiate a contract you worry about current members, not perceived (future members). We could have done like Erin Mills (UFCW 1000a) and taken a $5/hour wage cut or the 2 tier pay scale, which was the lesser of two evils.

quote:


All of you people talk about Tom Collins as this %$# Hole but yet he is still in there?


If he's guilty of any wrong doing then lets hope that "Buzz" Hargrove looks into it and does the right thing.

quote:


If you people dont have respect of your officals how do you think your union will do in maple grove?


I have great respect for the CAW officials i've met (I haven't met Tom personaly) so I think they'll do a great job at Maplegrove.

quote:


Oh by the way how do you guys are enjoying the raise,the better vacations and the better benifits??


I'm enjoying them just fine thanks, although after seeing the A&P (CAW) contract I think I would enjoy those much better!

quote:


If you people the company will open the contract and give us more you are out of your minds.


First of all we won't be "opening the contract" it will be a new contract and HELL YA! the company WILL negotiate.

quote:


LCE just spent a fortune on Maple grove and if you think they are about to give us more you are just as messed up as Tom Collins


The 100 million they spent on Maplegrove came from the wage & benifit clawbacks that ALL the National Grocers Warehouse employees gave the company in 1994-1995. (Pay back time)

Just so you know, the A&P contract isn't perfect (no contract is) but 9 out of 10 points are better than the Maplegrove contract. If the CAW can get this kind of contract with A&P (who are #3 retail, wholesale in Canada) what kind of collective agreement will they get with Loblaws.

So "scotty-lester" why don't you tell us here at "MFD" what makes the UFCW so great that we should give you our vote at Maplegrove!

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

  • posted by <Pliskin>
  • Fri, Jan 25, 2002 10:40pm

Yes "scotty-lester .... please do tell us. I am an employee at Maple Grove who has been told over and over by UFCW supporters... in person and by news letters mailed to my home.. that the CAW cannot negotiate a good contract in the food industry. Now i see a contract negotiated by CAW that appears well above the Maple Grove contract. Tell me why I should vote UFCW.

  • posted by Troll
  • Sat, Jan 26, 2002 11:51am

Doug O'halloran, UFCW Local 401 President may have a point worth thinking about when he reportedly said:

quote:


The Edmonton Journal, April 19, 1997, Final Edition, p.H1.

...The only militant unions left today are those like the Canadian Auto Workers which have highly trained workers who completely control their market, O'Halloran says....


  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Jan 26, 2002 7:22pm

I smell FEAR.

That page is drippin' in sweat.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Jan 26, 2002 7:33pm

I don't get it. These 1000a guys are saying that the Maplegrove employees have a locked in agreement until 2006:

quote:


Now that the economy is in recession, National Grocers would love to renegotiate the lucrative contract negotiated by UFCW Local 1000A in 1998, when the economy was very strong. "The economic outlook has changed since the original Maplegrove contract was negotiated", they would say.

FACT: The UFCW Local 1000A Maplegrove contract expires in 2006, five years from now. Until then, this excellent collective agreement cannot be changed unless both parties agree to do so. Obviously, UFCW Local 1000A would never agree to scrap this solid contract and renegotiate it during a recession. We've got a great deal and we're sticking with it.


Then on another page they try to sell the idea that sticking with them will get Maplegrove employees a raise in 2004 when they beat the snot out of NG at Erin Mills.

One minute they are peeing themselves because NG is so strong and so mean that it may lock out any employee who doesn't do what it demands, and in the next, they are telling you that they are going to let Erin Mills members do the dirty work and in the greatest of solidarity all brothers and sisters will share only the good because Erin Mills employees will suffer the consequences.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 7:50am

weiser, now you see what were up against at "MapleGrave" (no thats not a typo). Lots of double/talk from the union and their goons on the floor. On the one hand they say that it's a bad time for negotiate (for the CAW) but it's always a good time for the UFCW. They also say that the CAW can never get a good contract(because the company is too powerfull) and will take pay cuts and impliment 2 teir pay at Maplegrove, but the UFCW can get them a great contract. The list goes on and on about things the UFCW can do that the CAW (or any other union for that matter) can't do for the Maplegrove workers.
I think the workers are starting to see the UFCW for what they really are after handing out the A&P(CAW) collective agreement for all to see. I can't wait to hear the answers the UFCW gives the membership when they start questioning the union stewards about how much of what they say is true (or not).
Scotty-Lester, why don't you toss the "book of lies" and read what it says on the back of your "Members in Action" card, I Quote " Respond to rumours with facts". It's time you started to take that to heart isn't it? The one I like the best is this one, Quote "Provide an example of Union Solidarity by putting the interests of the bargaining unit as a whole ahead of personal interests" Oh come on now! this whole Maplegrove issue is about a select few (the original 1000a members) putting their personal interest ahead of the bargaining unit as a whole. Scotty-Lester and the rest of your goons should take your "Members in Action" cards off if you have no intension living by whats written on them. Don't just "Talk the Talk" you have to "Walk the Walk" too!

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 7:57am

quote:


Members in Action" card


What is a 'members in action' card?

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 8:33am

hey siggy, the card is similar to a "ski Pass" or a "Bus Pass" that you clip on your coat. They union was giving touques, T-shirts, buttons and these "Members in Action" cards to anyone who signs a union card for the UFCW. Ok, now picture someone wearing all that at work...... you getting the picture yet, LOL!
Hey if you want i'll scan the one I found and send it to you.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 8:38am

quote:


now picture someone wearing all that at work......


Dog tags? Makes target practise easier too?

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 8:44am

Who's the guy in the costume?

Oh, I get it, it's the 1000a supporter.

Would you catch Corporon wearing a touque, T-shirt (oops, don't come that large) and covered in cards and buttons?

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 8:51am

Each additional item represents another brainwashing session by the "machine". Hey thats funny, Brain "washing" "Machine", damn, now is that a coincidence..... or what!

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 8:59am

I had a chance to look on the inside of one of the UFCW touques and discovered some kind of cream on the inside, I send it out and had it analyzed. It turns out that the cream was some sort of secret (government) "Brainwashing cream" that the UFCW uses on unsuspecting members. Now this is "TOP SECRET" so don't let it out , ok.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 9:23am

Is this a daycare center or a warehouse? Everytime they do something ufcwgood they get a trinket? And they wear them?

machinehead: "Can I have all the people with buttons and togues stand by the wall and all the people who just have tags follow me!"

These scenerios are playing themselves out in many ufcw locals. It's the 'multiple tier syndrome'. What it does is set member against member, weakening the entire structure and making it particularly susceptible to 'brain washingmachine' disease.

Whatever would make one member work against another member who is fighting for fair and equal treatment? Apparently the answer is a tag and a toque!

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by Please Kill Me
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 1:02pm

The root cause of this evil is Loblaws ("low blows" who have created this union controversy to divide the work force while Maple Grove (aka "Maple Grave" is in its "start-up" period. Issues like employee training, engineered work standards, product alignment, upgrades and downgrades, overtime, recycling have all been pushed to the side to deal with the union issue. I can't help thinking Loblaws orchestrated all of this.

None of this would have happened if (i) the company had allowed true dovetailing of seniority on "Day One" or (ii) the company would have allowed the CAW to represent the employees at Maple Grove. Anyone who defends the UFCW is defending these unethical business practices: forcing employees to work without proper training, allowing employees to be disciplined for not attaining work standards, willfully intending to injure employees by forcing them to attain unreasonable work standards, allowing employees to work in an unsafe work environment where the product alignment is abysmal and assemblers are forced to lift heavy product above their shoulders and over their heads, ignoring seniority rights regarding upgrades, downgrades and overtime in the workplace by allowing the company to "re-write" the rules whenever they see fit, zero recycling of wet waste from produce which could be composted and zero recycling of cardboard. At the moment, I am embarrassed to be working for Loblaws and I am ashamed to be a UFCW member.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Please Kill Me ]

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Please Kill Me ]

  • posted by Please Kill Me
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 1:08pm

Blind man breakin' out of a trance
Puts both his hands in the pockets of chance
Hopin' to find one circumstance
Of dignity

Bob Dylan

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 2:46pm

P.K.M. I have to say I find your login disturbing. There is not a job, company or a machine worthy of that kind of passion.

  • posted by <<
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 3:04pm

O.K guys I get your point lets get to the vote so we can be one in our work place...
Sincerly
Scott Lester

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 3:24pm

quote:


lets get to the vote


Hey Maplegrove .. when does the representation vote to take place?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 3:47pm

quote:


Originally posted by siggy:
P.K.M. I have to say I find your login disturbing. There is not a job, company or a machine worthy of that kind of passion.


I don't know. I think that PKM is expressing the way s/he feels about what's going on. His/her depth of feeling about this is probably more than we've heard so far but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The biz-unions have made the whole work experience a "business transaction" and told workers they aren't supposed to feel anything about it. They are just supposed to do what they're told - by the company and by the union - at the appropriate time. I think there is a whole dimension about work - the human dimension, our feelings about work and what happens there - that has been repressed for decades. It's quite possible that with the all of us challenging the conventional wisdom of the companies and their union partners, the repression is coming to an end and workers are going to express a lot of stuff that has been repressed for a long time.

PKM's words may be disturbing but there is a sort of poetic quality about them. Just like in any musical or literary genre that challenges the established order. Like Bob Dylan did.

"Gentlemen, he said,
I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes,
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning, either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards."

  • posted by Richard
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 4:01pm

Has 1000a been able to say definitively that they have no side deals or agreements with NG that would affect Maplegrove employees' effectiveness at bargaining?

I know the "Partnering Agreement" the UFCW signed with Loblaws (Provigo) severely impacted any clout they had at the bargaining table. I know that UFCW Local 777 already had a four-year extention signed and sealed six months into the first agreement. The UFCW members didn't know about those deals. Has 1000a been able to guarantee that no deals like this:

quote:


9. The final agreement concerning these arrangements was incorporated into a written document described as a "Partnering Agreement", which was signed by representatives of Provigo and the UFCW on August 15, 1997. That agreement contains the following provisions which are important in the present case:

In consideration of the commitments contained herein the following is agreed to:

1. When new Provigo stores open or are to be opened, Provigo agrees that it will voluntarily enter into a voluntary recognition agreement with the Partner Union. Such agreement will recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees of Provigo at that store and street address in a bargaining unit that will be an "all employee" bargaining unit save and except:

(i) Loeb or Provigo - one Director, one Assistant Director, six Department Managers, office employees, one inventory controller and management trainees;

(ii) Maxi stores - one Director, one Assistant Director, six Department Managers, office employees, one inventory controller and management trainees;

(iii) Maxi & Co. stores - one Director, two Assistant Directors, nine Department Managers, office employees, two inventory controllers and management trainees;

(iv) New banners - consistent with the above.

2. The term "new Provigo stores" as used in this Agreement means stores which are not in existence as of the date hereof but which will be newly constructed and opened for business after the date of this Agreement.

3. In the case of existing Provigo stores that are not presently certified or accredited and for non Provigo stores that will be acquired by Provigo in the future and that are not certified or accredited, the decision of whether or not to join a Union and have it represent them as their bargaining agent is strictly up to the employees of those stores. Provigo undertakes to communicate the message of free choice to employees and management and to inform the management teams of such stores of Provigo's position on this issue. In the event that any of these stores is faced with a Union organizing campaign or application for certification or accreditation by the Partner Union, Provigo undertakes that a clear message of free choice will be communicated to the employees of that store stating, without any ambiguity, that employees are free to join the Union if they wish.

If the Partner Union becomes accredited, the parties will negotiate and enter into a first Collective Agreement based upon the principles agreed to in this Partnering Agreement.

4. (i)The parties hereto agree that there is to be only one certification and accreditation and one Collective Agreement per sitelfacility and that the recognition clause shall refer to that site/facility by name and street address.

(ii) The parties also agree that the expiry dates must be staggered so that not more than, one store in any region or sector is vulnerable to strike action at any time.

(iii) The Union agrees that each of Provigo's stores is a separate Employer from any other related or associated stores, whether carried on by or through more than one corporation, individual, firm, syndicate. association or franchise, or any combination thereof, under common control or direction, and the Union agrees that it will not, at any time, make an application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board pursuant to Section 1(4) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, as amended from time to time, nor will it seek to combine the bargaining unit of one store with any other bargaining unit of Provigo.

10. Prior to the signing of this agreement, the UFCW and Provigo had begun negotiations for standard or model collective agreements for each of the Maxi & Co., Maxi and Loeb stores to be opened. These agreements were finalized by November 1997. Blanks were left in each of these collective agreements for implementation dates, wages, employee benefits and other provisions which were to be separately negotiated for each new store after it opened.


or this:Secret Contract exist?

Ask for a written statement or ask that all signed documents between the employer and the union be revealed before any vote. Ask for a signed agreement that anything not produced before the vote is null and void.

No one should be bound by a deal they knew nothing about.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 4:05pm

quote:


I think that PKM is expressing the way s/he feels about what's going on


Exactly! and that's pretty disturbing. If a company, job or machine can evoke such passion, it would have to be a pretty messed up environment!

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 9:01pm

quote:


Exactly! and that's pretty disturbing. If a company, job or machine can evoke such passion, it would have to be a pretty messed up environment!


siggy, you have no idea what we're going through over here in "Maple Grave". It just gets worse as time goes on. I was very disturbed today and yesterday to have workers come to me and ask if I had heard some of the rumours they've heard. These workers said they heard about P/T employees being told that if they voted for or supported the CAW and the UFCW won the recognition vote, that they would never get F/T at Maplegrove. I think i'll have to have a chat with senior management tomorrow to get this nipped in the bud! There are lot of other things being said but this crosses the line and is harassment. If I find out who started this you can bet he'll be fired! This is just the tip of the iceburg, I talked to a few of my friends and a superviser that is sympathetic to our cause tonight and the shit that they told me they've heard would curl your hair. The depths that some people will go to, just to get a vote never ceases to amase me. I think i'll have another glass of wine and contemplate tomorrow......

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Jan 27, 2002 9:37pm

quote:


you have no idea what we're going through over here in "Maple Grave


Absolutely right! But thanks to the internet we are getting an up close account. I do have some experience working in an environment poisoned by a two-tiered agreement. It is extremely difficult to stand by and watch it's destructive nature. The bottom tier struggles while the top tier is kept in check, afraid to rock the boat lest it tips.

  • posted by Please Kill Me
  • Mon, Jan 28, 2002 6:30am

quote:


Originally posted by DeMoN:I think i'll have to have a chat with senior management tomorrow to get this nipped in the bud! [/QB]


Good luck DeMoN. It wouldn't surprise me if senior management started this rumour. The major cost of doing business is labour, and we all know the company supports 1000A. You might have better luck going to "Inhuman Resources", but I doubt it. They all know who signs their pay cheque. It is really sad when the only option open to employees is going to the labour board, but what else can you do? Power to the people! Members for democracy!

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Jan 28, 2002 9:13am

I agree with Richard, the question, are there any side deals?, must be answered. 1000a seems to be spewing negativity and fear in a weak attempt to sway support.

The old "VOTE FOR THE UFCW BECAUSE THE OTHER GUYS ARE BAD" doesn't say that the UFCW is good. I wonder how many 1000a members knew that 1000a had signed a deal to keep another union from representing them? If 1000a didn't advertise that deal, are there other deals that the members don't know about?

quote:


Originally posted by Richard:
Has 1000a been able to say definitively that they have no side deals or agreements with NG that would affect Maplegrove employees' effectiveness at bargaining?

I know the "Partnering Agreement" the UFCW signed with Loblaws (Provigo) severely impacted any clout they had at the bargaining table. I know that UFCW Local 777 already had a four-year extention signed and sealed six months into the first agreement. The UFCW members didn't know about those deals. Has 1000a been able to guarantee that no deals like this: [QUOTE]9. The final agreement concerning these arrangements was incorporated into a written document described as a "Partnering Agreement", which was signed by representatives of Provigo and the UFCW on August 15, 1997. That agreement contains the following provisions which are important in the present case:

In consideration of the commitments contained herein the following is agreed to:

1. When new Provigo stores open or are to be opened, Provigo agrees that it will voluntarily enter into a voluntary recognition agreement with the Partner Union. Such agreement will recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees of Provigo at that store and street address in a bargaining unit that will be an "all employee" bargaining unit save and except:

(i) Loeb or Provigo - one Director, one Assistant Director, six Department Managers, office employees, one inventory controller and management trainees;

(ii) Maxi stores - one Director, one Assistant Director, six Department Managers, office employees, one inventory controller and management trainees;

(iii) Maxi & Co. stores - one Director, two Assistant Directors, nine Department Managers, office employees, two inventory controllers and management trainees;

(iv) New banners - consistent with the above.

2. The term "new Provigo stores" as used in this Agreement means stores which are not in existence as of the date hereof but which will be newly constructed and opened for business after the date of this Agreement.

3. In the case of existing Provigo stores that are not presently certified or accredited and for non Provigo stores that will be acquired by Provigo in the future and that are not certified or accredited, the decision of whether or not to join a Union and have it represent them as their bargaining agent is strictly up to the employees of those stores. Provigo undertakes to communicate the message of free choice to employees and management and to inform the management teams of such stores of Provigo's position on this issue. In the event that any of these stores is faced with a Union organizing campaign or application for certification or accreditation by the Partner Union, Provigo undertakes that a clear message of free choice will be communicated to the employees of that store stating, without any ambiguity, that employees are free to join the Union if they wish.

If the Partner Union becomes accredited, the parties will negotiate and enter into a first Collective Agreement based upon the principles agreed to in this Partnering Agreement.

4. (i)The parties hereto agree that there is to be only one certification and accreditation and one Collective Agreement per sitelfacility and that the recognition clause shall refer to that site/facility by name and street address.

(ii) The parties also agree that the expiry dates must be staggered so that not more than, one store in any region or sector is vulnerable to strike action at any time.

(iii) The Union agrees that each of Provigo's stores is a separate Employer from any other related or associated stores, whether carried on by or through more than one corporation, individual, firm, syndicate. association or franchise, or any combination thereof, under common control or direction, and the Union agrees that it will not, at any time, make an application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board pursuant to Section 1(4) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, as amended from time to time, nor will it seek to combine the bargaining unit of one store with any other bargaining unit of Provigo.

10. Prior to the signing of this agreement, the UFCW and Provigo had begun negotiations for standard or model collective agreements for each of the Maxi & Co., Maxi and Loeb stores to be opened. These agreements were finalized by November 1997. Blanks were left in each of these collective agreements for implementation dates, wages, employee benefits and other provisions which were to be separately negotiated for each new store after it opened.


or this:Secret Contract exist?

Ask for a written statement or ask that all signed documents between the employer and the union be revealed before any vote. Ask for a signed agreement that anything not produced before the vote is null and void.

No one should be bound by a deal they knew nothing about.[/QUOTE]

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Mon, Jan 28, 2002 10:16am

quote:


These workers said they heard about P/T employees being told that if they voted for or supported the CAW and the UFCW won the recognition vote, that they would never get F/T at Maplegrove.


Hey I thought 1000a was the model of true unionism and brotherhood, this sounds like childish vendictiveness. Rather than taking this to management take this to the members. Nothing more clearly illustrates why they should choose the CAW than this "rumour" regardless if management started it or the UFCW supporters. I wouldn't want a union who will only support me if I support them, what the hell is that?

UFCW; We are a very democratic union and to prove that if you know what's good for you you'll vote that we are a very democratic union or you won't have a job in our plant".

There really isn't much of a choice here at all is there?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Jan 28, 2002 12:56pm

Why not do this the civilized way? If there is going to be a representation vote, why don't the workers invite the two unions to something like an "all candidates" meeting? Representatives from both unions can tell the workers what their union has to offer (their track record, their philosophy on member-representation, even their "vision" of what the workplace and what unions should be like). They could then answer questions (any and all questions) from the floor.

This might put an end to the rumours and the whispers about "gee, what do you think is going to happen if...."

They could hold the event on neutral ground (like a hotel meeting room or a union hall not connected to the either union) and even have a neutral moderator to keep things from getting out of hand.

This way, workers would have an opportunity to have all their questions answered and will be able make an informed decision when it comes time to have the vote.

I know this sounds really radical, but why not?

  • posted by <Pliskin>
  • Mon, Jan 28, 2002 1:24pm

I think the UFCW is a little too gutless to accept that sort of challenge. They thrive on hiding the truth and using scare tactics on the uninformed for member support. They wouldn't stand a chance in a head to head debate with the CAW. Its a great idea, and I think if it were to happen, the CAW would win the vote by a land slide. And I believe for that reason the UFCW would never agree to such a thing.

  • posted by <lark>
  • Mon, Jan 28, 2002 1:24pm

Radical?.... I think 'civilized' would be a better description of this approach.

Not acceptable to union reps who really don't like answering questions. Much better and easier to try and ram through a vote to their liking by pissing off everyone and having only certain voters show up.

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Jan 28, 2002 1:31pm

I think a debate would be great. They could have a independent moderator well versed in labour law, so that she or he could question the stances taken by either side from a legal perspective. Unfortunately finding a lawyer that hasn't worked for either a George Weston company, the CAW or the UFCW is pretty hard to do.

I still challenge the UFCW to put in writing that there are no signed "deals," other than the CA that has been circulated, with the empoyer, or if there are, to put them on the table so all workers can see them.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Jan 28, 2002 1:32pm

Hey, you could ask them (both unions) and see what they say. If one or the other refuses, well you can draw your own conclusions from that. You'd be breaking new ground if it actually happened.

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Mon, Jan 28, 2002 3:03pm

I doubt the UFCW would ever go for the debate idea. As far as they're concerned, they've already won the workplace through voluntary recognition.

We've discussed at length the reasons why vol. rec. may be unethical, but the fact is, the UFCW still does it all the time and thinks of vol. rec. as just another "organizing" tool.

The burden is on the CAW to prove its support by getting at least 40% of the bargaining unit to sign cards. The CAW could always challenge the UFCW to a debate, but I doubt that the UFCW would take them up on the offer unless the CAW got the 40% first. Still, it would probably make for good leaflet material.

Of course, one other problem is that the CAW may not want a debate either. As we've already seen from the "no-raiding pact," the UFCW probably has some dirt that the CAW doesn't really want the members to hear about. I still think your best bet is to go with an independent union, be it an affiliate of the IWW, the UE, or something else entirely.

But whatever you decide, I wish you the best of luck in your struggle.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Mon, Jan 28, 2002 9:02pm

quote:


As we've already seen from the "no-raiding pact," the UFCW probably has some dirt that the CAW doesn't really want the members to hear about.


Well that's really what's wrong with the union movement today isn't it? Everybody has dirt on everybody else. No ideas, no vision, no direction, just dirt on the other guy. It's less what's good about me and more 'bout what's wrong with the other guy. It's really sad. "how to get rid of the MFD" really shows what steps need to be taken by all of us. We have to try to leave behind all the neg. thinking and focus instead on the positive things that can come only through personal empowerment and ethical leadership accountability.

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Jan 29, 2002 8:17am

Dirt and what else? If you'll recall on another thread there was mention that good old UFCW Canadian Director Mike Fraser (Uncle Cliff's nephew) was credited as the unlikely middleman who brought the CAW and SEIU back to fraternal bliss.

I'm sure it took a lot more than, "Shame on you two! Now stop this fighting--right now! If you kids don't stop this, immediately, there'll be no desert for a week! DO YOU BOTH UNDERSTAND?"

  • posted by <Scott>
  • Tue, Jan 29, 2002 3:00pm

Again lets just get to the vote.....
Scotty Lester

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Tue, Jan 29, 2002 4:17pm

Scotty Lester:

Has a vote been scheduled? When?

Will the unions hold a debate before the vote, like what was suggested above? When?

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Jan 29, 2002 6:32pm

"Scotty Lester" Whats the rush? We have till August to have the vote, and we would like to undo all the lies that the UFCW has been telling the Maplegrove workers (I think you know what i'm talking about). When the CAW is ready you'll get your vote!

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

  • posted by <Lark>
  • Tue, Jan 29, 2002 8:29pm

DeMoN good of you to admit The CAW can't win the vote, needing more time is always a sign of a campaign going badly

  • posted by siggy
  • Tue, Jan 29, 2002 8:42pm

quote:


The CAW can't win the vote,


Why?

quote:


needing more time is always a sign of a campaign going badly


How so? Is the CAW responsible for prolonging the campaign? August is a long time to wait! Who is responsible for setting dates and procedures in this machine battle? Who does call the shots?

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Jan 29, 2002 8:57pm

"Lark" when the campaign "starts", you'll know it.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Jan 29, 2002 9:00pm

siggy, the CAW holds all the cards when it comes to applying for the "representation vote" and they have till August to apply.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Jan 29, 2002 9:20pm

siggy, you have to remember that the Kitchener, Fortinos and London warehouses are still open and Scheduled to move into Maplegrove over the next 2-6 weeks. I think it would make sense to wait till they are in the warehouse before starting anything....

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Jan 29, 2002 9:24pm

That makes perfect sense.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 4:37am

I think having the vote later is better. That way there is more time for workers to discuss and debate the issues, get information and make up their minds.

  • posted by <Lark>
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 5:30am

quote:


Originally posted by <Lark>:
DeMoN good of you to admit The CAW can't win the vote, needing more time is always a sign of a campaign going badly


Hey DeMon, I didn't post this message, looks like one of the jackasses you're up against likes to hide behind someone else's name. How clever! I guess this gives me the incentive to register now.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 9:39am

It's obvious the more time pass's them more support shifts to the CAW. Deprograming all the disinformation the UFCW has fed workers at that plant will take time. Patience is far more than just a virtue, it's vital to success in situations like this. The CAW doesn't need to wait until August, but it's wise to use as much of that time as they need to not just win the vote, but smash the UFCW. All good things come to those who wait. The UFCW is going to learn the hard way you reap what you sew. I can't wait.

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 9:55am

The vote could go either way. What's important is that as many people who will be affected get a chance to vote, and that all those who vote will get full disclosure and information so that they can make a reasoned choice.

I think now is the time for the UFCW to declare publicly that there are no secret deals or "partnering" type agreements sitting in some company or union file cabinet. All documentation should be revealed prior to a vote.

If the UFCW CA is the only document that currently affects Maplegrove or soon-to-be Maplegrove employees then the UFCW should have no trouble putting that fact in writing. If they won't put it in writing, I'd wonder why.

You'll notice that even the trolls won't come on-line and deny the existence of secret documents. Is the no-raid the only one, or are there others?

Perhaps "Infoserve" or Kevin can give a public statement on whether additional documents exist. Over to you Mike.... Kevin...?

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 1:25pm

I like the idea of reposting of all jobs at
Maplegrove! I am not the only unselfish long
time 1000a member who will help and try to
pass this motion! We collectively will bring
JUSTICE TO MAPLEGROVE one way or another!

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 5:47pm

Thanks for your support John, your not alone at Maplegrove. There are other UFCW 1000a members that feel the same about the injustices at Maplegrove and you'll soon have a chance to do something about it! I hope to see you at the open meetings the CAW has planned for next week.

The Truth is out there!

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 6:37pm

Thanks brother DeMoN! I anxiously await meeting with my fellow goats.I mean that in a
respectable way!The sheep are the ones that
need to hear the TRUTH! I think this meeting is long over-due!As a 15yr ufcw member I am
absolutley graetful to have new EDUCATED bros.Roger S. CHEF and a whole bunch of you
guys (I don`t know your names) have to collectively combat this commie of a biz-
union.The ufcw damage to the working mans
standard of living has to be brought to the
forefront.We all know the collapse of Erin Mills barg.comm. in 94 affected all future
leverage of our smaller whouses. The mis-
information from 1000a is appalling.And
damned I stay quiet and watch! If we was all
sheep we would all still be in shackles.
A message to all 1000a supporters DONT MISTAKE NICENESS FOR WEAKNESS us CAW supporters have not even barely started
our collective exploitation of this bloody
disgrace of a union.UFCW education definately
lacks the education coming out of an ALL-CANADIAN union in the CAW.The proof will
be apparent JUSTICE AT MAPLEGROVE JUSTICE
THROUGH SINCERITY Johnny E

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 8:30pm

When are these meetings taking place - where when what time?

Nice rant J.E...speak up though to other 1000a members that don't seem to want to talk to us CAW workers at Maplegrove

P/T were told today to pick up their standards or they won't get full-time...where is the union representation????
answer: NONE!
must work whenever they tell you to
must not be absent for any reason
must vote ufcw
must kiss ass daily or hourly
must hurt your back
must do your job without proper training
must listen to Brian Reid,GOD himself

I think most ufcw are shitting themselves

  • posted by <" I have an opinion">
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 9:04pm

Well isn't this whole web site interesting.....You call this site "MFD [members for democracy]" a site that boasts it's self as a group of people of interest to disclose real truth. I myself have lost a lot of respect for this site since I have posted my first comments. Why do you ask?.....well it appears this is not a site of true democracy but a site with it's sole purpose of defaming the "UFCW" as a whole. IF I AM WRONG PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME ON WERE YOU HAVE DONE THE SAME TO OTHER UNIONS........This site should call it's self A SELF SERVING "I HATE THE UFCW" web site. I have posted many articles about the CAW and it's own flaws. What have you so called "MFD" members done? Well you have twisted and manipulated everything to try and confuse the real issue in order to try and slam the "UFCW".....The real question is wether the "UFCW" or the "CAW" has done what is needed to look after the best interest of "WORKING PEOPLE" as a whole while at the same time dealing with an unfortunate situation of a "COMPANY" who made the decision to "CLOSE WAREHOUSES".....and a UNION trying to make the best out of a bad situation to help those affected workers.

May I remind those readers that the same situation has just arrived with the A&P warehouse closer. The same union and the same company [A&P and CAW] ...but yet the CAW would not let their own members come into their warehouse with full seniority. They [CAW] with knowledge from the company [ meaning knowledge of future warehouse closings] negotiated a clause that would allow affect "CLOSING WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES".....an opportunity to come to the warehouse with back dated employee seniority to January 2000. [The CAW sold out their own members]...Thus meaning that the existing members would not be affected and the other "CAW" members would lose their seniority and potential rates of increased

If this is a true Members For Democracy site like you boast......then there should be truly two sides of the story with facts not just opinions. So to the "WEB MASTER" I challenge you to find real facts for you members and "CUT" the crap.

Once again I will state for the record this is not a "MEMBERS FOR DEMOCRACY SITE" rather it is a site of how to
discredit the UFCW with out real remarks about CAW............that is my opinon!!!!

  • posted by <"I have an opinion">
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 9:18pm

Ok.....To John Erikson......Make up your mind buddy.......one minute you tell the UFCW that you support them cause "YOU" say that "YOU " have a lot to lose being if not for the "UFCW" ........Then "YOU" say that you can't wait for the CAW.......well your CAW brothers have exposed you as a "RAT" and don't trust you......pick a side buddy and stick to it......To "DEMON" we all know who you are................your little conniving posts have not fooled anyone......we know who you are and in time will expose you................that is "MY OPINION"

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 9:27pm

Hey, "I've got an uninformed opinion" if you'll check through the threads, you will see where the UFCW has received credit for good work, and you'll see where they've been lambasted for crappy behaviour.

You'll see the Teamsters take their lumps, the CAW get chastised, and the UA spanked big time. You'll see the CSN and AUPE put on pedestals, and you'll see the CLC raked over the coals.

Any moron could see that this site deals with a spectrum of issues and a variety of unions.

Ric my man, get on with your life and take an anger managment course. There's more to life than getting a job with the union.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by <"I have an opinion">
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 9:40pm

Dear "WEISER" my child

Pick another name buddy cause "WEISER" is not very suiting given that you are not weise at all...........who is "RIC" by the way???.....U must be looking for a job with the CAW........fat chance at that.......there are about 49 employees from Kitchener that want the same one "1" position that is available.....that again is my opinion......

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 9:44pm

quote:


Originally posted by <"I have an opinion">:
......we know who you are and in time will expose you................that is "MY OPINION"


You're not making sense, pal. Who gives a damn who DeMoN is. If it's a sunny day and DeMoN says, "hey everybody, it's sunny today," do we say, "oh, DeMoN is a nasty man, therefore, it's not sunny."

Fact is fact. A fact is a valid from a bad guy as it is from a good guy. Facts are merely facts. Their validity has nothing to do with the personality or any trait of the person who delivers the fact.

You can't refute the facts, so you attack the man. That's not logic; it's fallacy.

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 9:45pm

Nice to have you back, "I have an opinion". I see your question is directed at the webmaster and I don't want to get in the way with his response, but I really have to take issue with this crap. You wrote:

quote:


well it appears this is not a site of true democracy but a site with it's sole purpose of defaming the "UFCW" as a whole. IF I AM WRONG PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME ON WERE YOU HAVE DONE THE SAME TO OTHER UNIONS


What we have "done" to the Teamsters:
Teamsters Local 938

What we have "done" to the UA:

The Smash and Grab

For whose benefit

And while this site hasn't published any full length articles about the CAW, yet, we did reprint this copy of the CAW/UFCW no-raiding pact. You'll remember the UFCW was passing this around as a bit of anti-CAW propaganda. The problem was it made the UFCW look just as bad.

Personally I don't much like the CAW. While they talk the talk of a radical union, I think that their behavior entrenches them firmly into the same biz-union power structure that keeps working people down. I've suggested that if Maplegrove workers really wanted to make a change, they should start their own independent union, and maybe affiliate with a genuinely radical workers' movement like the Industrial Workers of the World.

BUT THAT'S NOT MY CHOICE TO MAKE!

The beauty of this site is that it gives a forum for members to connect with each other, discuss the issues, and make up their own minds, rather than just following the directions their union leaders give them. And that's exactly what some maple grove workers have been doing here on this bulletin board. Many have made a strong case for why they think the CAW would be the best choice. Others, including you, have asserted that the UFCW is the way to go.

The problem with the UFCW defenders position, is that rather than giving consistent, strong evidence to back up your points, you've spent most of your time simply spewing venom at this site, the webmaster, the CAW and your own coworkers. This kind of tactic may work in a union meeting, but it doesn't work on the internet. Here we have the time and the ability to calmly point out the flaws in your argument, and patiently wait for you to either respond, or go away.

I would love to hear an actual response from you regarding any of the charges levelled against the UFCW. Or even just what you think of business unionism in general. Instead, you simply trash the website. Well I am sorry, but yelling at us isn't going to make us go away. And I can tell from the increasing panic I see in the posts from the UFCW supporters that we are having an effect at Maplegrove. You better figure out how to respond to this effect, and quickly, or the UFCW is going to be history.

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]

  • posted by <"I have an opinion">
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 10:01pm

Sorry to upset you my child..."WEISER" it is just my opinion. Seems you get upset when my opinion is full of facts and not anti UFCW propaganda. I apologize to the fact that i am not in the same time zone of the 1800's like your self. Please forgive me for accepting that i am living in the year 2002. I will in future try an stoop to your level next time. Again please accept this as a formal apology............."I have an opinion"

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 10:06pm

Hey "opinion head"

If we had the same rights as other ufcw members there wouldn't be much of a topic

UFCW IS GREAT! there I said it, feel better?

Should the people not have a choice?

who's job are you concerned about mine or yours...If your doing your job you need not worry...but...

  • posted by sleK
  • Wed, Jan 30, 2002 10:15pm

quote:


If this is a true Members For Democracy site like you boast......then there should be truly two sides of the story....


I present to you, "I have an opinion", the opportunity to put "your opinion" online.
http://www.ufcw.net/submit/

quote:


Designed to give workers a voice, MFD welcomes and encourages Union members to write thoughtful and accurate articles for publishing online. In the interests of balanced reporting, MFD also invites, and will "endeavor" to publish, factual submissions on the subject matter of MFD reports from authorized Union representatives.


Are you up to the task IHAO? Or are you going to continue to spew your useless and annoying vitriol? I, for one, am getting tired of your crap.

Keep it up and you'll lose your ability to share what little you do know.

EDIT: ubb

[ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: slek ]

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Jan 31, 2002 4:43am

Goodness, IHAO, you are getting testier and testier by the day. As so many of our forum participants have already told you:

We do not just criticize the UFCW. We are critical of many different unions and especially of the philosophy and practices of what we refer to as biz-unions or biz-partner unions. (I don't think anyone mentioned HERE or the Labourers - we have also been critical of them. And CUPE - we've criticized them also.) So far, none of their representatives have come to this site whining about it.

The UFCW, its supporters and representatives have every opportunity to participate in the discussions that take place on this site and to submit for publication any "contra" views or information they wish. None have done so except for the participation of persons like yourself in our forum.

And a few other things....

I remind you that much of the heated discussion that has taken place in this thread has been prompted by you and other UFCW supporters. You have chosen to come here (we presume with the blessing of union officials) and to engage us in discussion. You have made various statements, many of them quite inflammatory. Some of your supporters have made wild accusations about this web site or alternatively have made vile, offensive comments accusing our participants of, among other things, beastiality. And now you have the nerve to whine about the reaction your statements have received? Grow up.

I gather from your references to "defamation" that you are involved in discussions with the UFCW's legal representatives. If that is the case, your participation on this site (and that of other UFCW representatives) is something you ought to discuss with them. You may not have noticed, but the threat of SLAPP lawsuits doesn't deter us much at all. We have a right to freedom of expression as do you. You cannot tell us that you are free to exercise yours but the same rights do not apply to the rest of us.

Tell us why you think the UFCW is beyond criticism? Why is it that we can go on line and criticize the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of the United States, the head of the United Nations and so on, but we cannot criticize Kevin Corporon and the United Food and Commerical Workers union? What makes them so special? What places them above criticism? How can an organization that bills itself as the "Voice of Working America" engage in the suppression of expression?

You may want to reflect on the fact that it is UFCW litigation that has generated a lot of the material that you find on this site. Lawsuits create paper trails and public records. Tell Corporon to consider carefully if wants to go there.

Come to think of it, tell Corporon to log on and speak to the issues raised in this thread. Or alternatively, he could submit an article or opinon piece stating his and the UFCW's position on the comments, information and opinions expressed on this site.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Jan 31, 2002 6:30am

United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Perhaps our friend, IHAO, could tell us because I can't find it anywhere, where in these two very important sources is there an exemption for thought, opinon, information or expression about UFCW Local 1000a? I have looked high and low but can't find it? Is there a special exemption somewhere? Did the authors of the Canadian Charter or the Universal Declaration intend to include the words "except when you're criticizing Kevin Corporon and UFCW Local 1000a" but forgot?

[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Jan 31, 2002 7:13am

quote:


IHAO said;who is "RIC" by the way???.....


Thanks for taking the bait, troll.

That's the point I was trying to make when you threatened DeMoN with:

quote:


Originally posted by <"I have an opinion">:
......we know who you are and in time will expose you................that is "MY OPINION"


The answer is we don't really give a hoot who you are or who DeMoN is. You both use "handles" and that's expected. Hey, just about everyone here uses a hanle, so get over it. This site is about dialog and information. This site is not about personalities.

If you have opinions, that's fine. If they are about personalities, keep them to yourself. If they are about facts documented on these pages, share them.

If not, you'll get voted off the island.

We don't care if you are Ric, Reno, Fraser, or Corporon. All we ask for is logic.

  • posted by <MapleGroveAssembler>
  • Thu, Jan 31, 2002 7:45am

quote:


Originally posted by remote viewer:

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

((c) freedom of peaceful assembly


Well .... at least the UFCW is making sure I have that fundamental freedom.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Jan 31, 2002 8:12am

Now that's funny!

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Thu, Jan 31, 2002 8:31am

quote:


Originally posted by <"I have an opinion">:
May I remind those readers that the same situation has just arrived with the A&P warehouse closer.


There is a totally different situation at A&P than the one at Maplegrove. A&P was an existing warehouse with an existing collective agreement that covered the membership in that building. Maplegrove was a new,empty building with no existing employees and "no" collective agreement that was ratified by Maplegrove employees (hence the need for a Representation Vote).
Next time compare "apples to apples" people might take you seriously if you do.

quote:


Originally posted by <"I have an opinion">:
To "DEMON" we all know who you are................your little conniving posts have not fooled anyone......we know who you are and in time will expose you................that is "MY OPINION"


I've been using this "Internet Alias" for the past ten years, but if it will make you feel "empowered" to "expose" me, feel free to do so (I have nothing to hide).

[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: DeMoN ]

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Thu, Jan 31, 2002 12:32pm

quote:


Originally posted by <"I have an opinion">:
Sorry to upset you my child..."WEISER" it is just my opinion. Seems you get upset when my opinion is full of facts and not anti UFCW propaganda. I apologize to the fact that i am not in the same time zone of the 1800's like your self. Please forgive me for accepting that i am living in the year 2002. I will in future try an stoop to your level next time. Again please accept this as a formal apology............."I have an opinion"


Who's on first?

Slek, I think his posts are more than welcome. This is precisely what the UFCW is all about isn't it? This is an example of what our members are up against and what Maple Grove workers are instore for. I think we need these post on our site to help us better illustrate the kind of people who've hijacked our union. This guy doesn't even make sence.

Again, because it appears you missed it, I personally think your all better off forming your own independent union. I don't think that's going to happen though and the CAW is the better choice of the two. At least that's my opinion.

Furthermore, yes I for one believe the UFCW is a virus that's infected the labour movement and if left alone will one day kill it. But that doesn't mean I have any great respect for other CLC member unions either. I just don't have any first hand facts to share with people so I don't say anything. That's up to the members of those unions to come forward.

Lastly, everyone please remember why people like IHAO are really here..."to poison the well." To degenerate the conversation to such a low that everyday people won't want to log on. I doubt this workplace is any different than any other. 20% of the people support the UFCW, 20% support the CAW. Each are firmly entrenched and won't change their minds.

What's up for grabs is the support of the 60% of workers at that plant who don't know who to believe and who to vote for. By poisoning the well the UFCW's 20% hope to stiffle the voice of the CAW 20% by keeping the undecided off this site. If the UFCW controls the flow of information they may just control the vote. Our job here is to keep the lines of information open. So Don't feed the trolls, let him rant and dig the UFCWs grave in the process.

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Thu, Jan 31, 2002 5:06pm

Can anybody from the CAW come forward and
explain this Rat accusation against John-
CAW4MAPLEGROVE-Erickson????

  • posted by <scotty-lester>
  • Thu, Jan 31, 2002 5:54pm

hey Demon....
what lies have we be saying???
i dont understand
please tell me....and then I can tell you your caw's lies

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Thu, Jan 31, 2002 6:59pm

Scotty Lester I would like to know your history in the company example as in myself
p\t march87-june87 erin mills dairy
f\t june87-june99 erin mills produce
june99-july01 pinebush gm\bond
july01-current maplegrove perishable

I have never been disciplined but i have
seen lots of others treated like shit.
To my amazement I can not beleive they
can honestly defend and support the UFCW
In most debates members felt no solidarity
with UFCW1000a. Scotty our options before were slim to none. Today we have an opportuinity to change that and that will
come soon to a vote. You get educated and
understand that ufcw is way way more negative
than the CAW being from St.Thomas I thought
you would be a little wiser than those spineless T.O. people I call sheep

  • posted by Richard
  • Fri, Feb 1, 2002 6:49am

You should expect to see fewer attempts by trolls to defend the UFCW over the next while. Rumour has it that these threads are causing too much trouble. Every time a troll tries to deflect or defend, the thread starts pumping with damaging and embarassing facts. Apparently the trolls have been told to back off. I may be wrong, but that's the rumour that I have.

This site makes machine heads:

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Fri, Feb 1, 2002 9:34am

Demon; How committed is the CAW to your cause [retorical question] That no raid agreement keeps sticking in my craw. I would recomend that while you actively proceed with the CAW certification vote you also prepair to form your own union as well. I wouldn't want to see you at the midnight hour with a CAW that say's "hey, the CLC say's that no raid agreement is just that and we can't proceed. You'll have to stay in the UFCW." Don't wait until the last min to scramble for cover. If the vote goes UFCW I worry about your employment future. The UFCW seems to have this big coincidence of reformers or people trying to bring in other unions being fired by the employer. Strange isn't it? I suggest you cover yourself just in case.

  • posted by Troll
  • Fri, Feb 1, 2002 3:13pm

There used to be a UFCW International VP who spouted pretty labour words, about being answerable to the electorate. While he was spouting the politically correct labour talk, he seemed to be doing the dirty to his members. Hand me the cheque book.

Did his words match his deeds? Maybe "IGAO" could tell us what his opinion is about this dude.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Fri, Feb 1, 2002 9:01pm

Thanks for the concern Scott but I think the CAW is in this till the very end. The "no Raid" agreement the UFCW and RW/CAW signed will have no affect on the outcome at Maplegrove. Both parties have already broken the aggrement since it was signed. The CAW took Coke-a-cola Bottling and Minute Maid, and the UFCW took a warehouse from the CAW, so any arguments have already seen their day in court. I'll try to get more details for you next week and post them for all to see.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sat, Feb 2, 2002 5:28pm

I'm sure you know your situation best. I guess I'm just not as trusting. One word of advice David used to say to me and I hope you and other CAW supporters can use this advice to your advantage is "stick to the high ground".

UFCW supporters are not going to be afraid to get into the mud slinging. We've already seen that here and I'm sure your getting it at the warehouse. UFCW officials have to be carefull of what they say but their minions can say any damn thing they want. The best thing you can do is not get drawn into it.

In reading some of the posts on this thread I worry that people will become polarized in that work place and we all know a divided work force is precisely what the employer wants. By restricting the mud slingling and threats to just a few misguided people you'll make coming together far easier once the dust settles after the vote. Dry facts without emotion is how to win the day. And showing the people you work with that you'll still back co-workers like IGAO even though they threaten you illustrates better than anything what group has the well being of membership as a whole at heart, and which group has self interest at heart. I hope that doesn't come accross as preachy. As on outsider I'm just not emotionally charged about the situation so it's easy for me to remain focused on bigger issue [a better workplace] and not get sucked into petty infighting.

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Sat, Feb 2, 2002 10:15pm

Scott the workers at Maplegrove were subjected to anti-CAW literature. So the CAW
supporters are being REACTIONARY!!!Just before we go any further most SHEEP were created by company and it is my experience
with the UFCW(fifteen years) that they like
to have lots of SHEEP.With the Mgrove union
contact letters they sound off and create more sheep the company must be loving this!!! When the CAW gets into MAPLEGROVE it will be
time to turn sheep into goats!! I for one thru education and experience know the CAW
is far better at representing the workers best interests. I sure hope we can bargain for an education fund so all members at MGROVE can understand TRUE UNIONISM at its
best.Scott have you ever read Buzz Hargroves
-Labour Of Love-?? Again even the most vicous
of ufcw supportees will be trangressed into
full CAW REPRESENTATION I can promise that.
I could see in the future that eventually
all union men will want to drive the CAW bus.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Feb 3, 2002 6:21am

Unfettered capitalism, we see, as we experience its shortcomings, is clearly not working. If you take into account the welfare of the entire nation, capitalism has been an abject failure. How do we fix it? How do we come up with viable alternatives? Where are the new thinkers? Where is the leadership on the left? We in the CAW are looking for broad public debate on this fundamental issue. Our challenge over the next few years is to build a forum to allow this debate to take place. Buzz Hargrove, Labour of Love

Although I have been critical of Hargrove on various issues, this is what I like about him. I don't see any other mainstream labour leader talking about this kind of broad public debate on our collective future.

....build a forum? I think we have.

[ 02-03-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Feb 3, 2002 7:04am

Hey guys I need some help putting a fact sheet together. What I need are all the CAW and UFCW contracts that have a 2 tier pay.

Got to run, going out for a birthday breakfast mine!

Thanks for all the help

  • posted by <Pliskin>
  • Sun, Feb 3, 2002 7:52am

Demon,
Happy birthday brother!

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Feb 3, 2002 8:19am

Happy birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday dear DeMoN.
Happy Birthday to you!
And many more!!

[ 02-03-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Feb 3, 2002 8:35am

Yummmy.......!

Nothing like the "Country Boy breakfast Special" and all you can drink coffee. I can't wait for dessert tonight Ya, Baby!

Thanks for singing happy birthday (even though you were off key) hahaha!

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Sun, Feb 3, 2002 2:16pm

Happy bday bro D!! Talking to the workers at the Zehrs gro. store in St.Thomas they
have a three tier thats right THREE-TIER pay
scale thru the UFCW negotiators!!!! A senior
employee told me with the first contract offer the bargaining comm. did NOT recommend
acceptance a short while later the commitee
brought back the same initial offer and the
ZEHRS BARGAINING COMMITEE told their members
to accept thye same deal!! I'll tell y'all
that alot of people are watching and routing
for a CAW RESCUE not as loyal UFCW'S put it
as a RAID!!! Spent the aft. with some senior
Erin Mills men and they say the UFCW is as
SPINELESS AS EVER Again thank goodness the
CAW is there for US.

  • posted by Troll
  • Sun, Feb 3, 2002 5:04pm

Asking for all the UFCW contracts with two (or three) tier is an impossible task. Asking for ones without might be easier.

New UFCW plants and warehouses usually don't have them. It's when too many people start getting near the top rates and the turnover isn't big enough that multi tiered contracts arrive. Here's and example of new and old:

quote:


Workers at new Schneider's hog plant reach five-year deal
WINNIPEG, Mar 05, 2000 (The Canadian Press via COMTEX) -- Workers at a Schneider hog plant voted Sunday for a five-year contract that will keep their wages above a new pay scale set for employees who will work at the firm's new $125 million plant.

The hog processor's 125 employees voted 62 per cent in favour of the contract.

Employees also won job security.

However, the contract will not allow wage increases for the contract's duration.

"(The wage freeze) was one reason why the vote was fairly close," said Don Keith, spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers, local 832.

Schneider employees will continue to earn pay rates averaging $15-$16 per hour range. Jobs for the new plant will start at $10, and range up to $15.70 per hour after one year. The new plant is expected to employ about 1,100 people.

When Maple Leaf opened its hog plant in Brandon, Man., it slashed wages by 40 per cent to a starting wage of under $9 per hour.

It's expected when staff reach the top of their pay scales, the average Maple Leaf wage will be about $11 per hour.

When staff reach the top pay scale at Schneider, the average wage will be about
$12-$13, the UFCW said.

Workers turned down the Schneider offer three weeks ago but accepted it Sunday after some changes, such as improvements in overtime and removal of a weekend shift. (Winnipeg Free Press)


[ 02-03-2002: Message edited by: Troll ]

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Feb 3, 2002 7:35pm

Happy birthday DeMoN.

Don't forget the Swiss Chalet Ontario agreement. It has a 3 tier scale.

  • posted by Sam
  • Sun, Feb 3, 2002 8:00pm

Hi. I am amazed to see this site! It is nice to see I am not the only one who is not happy about the business dealings of Cliff the $%^& and the UFCW. Self serving bunch of %^&*%^'s.
I work in the service sector (GTA) and have had a belly full of the UFCW for over 12 years now. I like to think our members are biding their time until things get bad enough and we leave.
I don't have much to contribute but I'll be hangin' around this board to learn all I can about the deals that the UFCW ^%^%^s with employers.
I remember Cliff ranting like a mad man about H. Finnamore but only ever heard one side of the story. I sure am glad I found this site.
edit =

[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Feb 3, 2002 8:13pm

And the Overwaitea/Save-on Foods in British Columbia has a two tier, acquired in '97.

The Manitoba Safeway agreement '98-2001 is two tier.

To allow for company "restructuring" , they have bought_out_hours.
The bought_hours are divied 80% for trainees and 20% for regular.
The wage scale for trainees is much lower than the regular wage scale = two-tier.

edit = Hi Sam! Welcome aboard!

[ 02-03-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Feb 4, 2002 8:53am

Troll's post quoted:

quote:


Employees also won job security.


Job security is a lot more than seniority. If an employer can make your life so miserable that you quit, is that job security?

If your workplace is so cold wet and high-speed dangerous that you have to quit, is that job security?

If your wage rate is pitifully low for your first two or three years that you can't support a family, so you have to quit to find a decent-paying job, is that job security?

Two-tier, low-wage, high-progression hour, dangerous jobs don't provide any job security whatsoever.

A strong union is job security.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Feb 4, 2002 10:04am

I have the times for the meetings this week with the CAW.

Tuesday Feb.5th 2002 - 12 noon- 6:00 p.m.
Wednesday Feb.6th 2002 - 3:00 p.m.- 9:00 p.m.
Thursday feb.7th 2002 - 12 noon- 6:00 p.m.

CAW Cambridge Office
887 Lang Drive Unit 11
519-653-2871

Hwy 401 to Hwy 24/Hespeler Rd. South
Take 24/Hespeler Rd. South to Lang Drive
Turn right at Lang Drive and the CAW office is on the right hand side.

I urge ALL Maplegrove employees to come and hear what the CAW has to say so we can all make an informed decision regarding our future. I have Tuesday and Wednesday off so I hope to spend a bit of time at the meetings and get a chance to put names to some of the faces I see at work.

Thanks for the info on 2 tier pay, keep it coming so I have lots of ammo

Oh, and thanks to all the well wishers on my Birthday. I got my wish.... Nudge-Nudge, Wink-Wink!

  • posted by <Scotty-Lester>
  • Mon, Feb 4, 2002 2:56pm

John E you made me think about something you said and your right. Being from St Thomas I do support the CAW there because it is an Automotive town!!!!!
We are in the Grocery industry not cars!!!
A good friend of mine from St Thomas tried to get the CAW in Sterling and was un-successful ( I think you know him Richard L.)
and he had my 100% backing on his issues. I agree with Unions but Im not turning my back on my Union
UFCW at Maplegrove!!!!!

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Feb 4, 2002 4:15pm

People who are afraid make me laugh

The UFCW crew is scraping the bottom of the old barrel with their stupid reasons to keep the CAW out.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Mon, Feb 4, 2002 4:57pm

I don't know if I'm willing to go that far. The two industries are different but lets not kid ourselves either. This isn't like going to the barbershop to have open heart surgery. It's a warehouse. I've been a warehouse manager and let me tell you it really doesn't matter what your stock is, you still have to opperate it under the same basic principles.

Given that, the difference between the two industries concerning fair and safe working conditions and equatable treatment for all employees are non existant. What people need is a democratic framework within the union itself so that the direction comes from the power source, those people directly effected who work everyday on the shop floor. The union as an organization is supposed to be the workers flunkie. A puppet that say's what the workers want it say and does what the workers want it to do. With that in mind what difference does it make if the CAW started out being a car workers union? What's really important is can workers trust it to represent their interests above even the CAW's. Clearly we've seen the UFCW just isn't up to that task.

One other thing. I'm really tired of UFCW hacks and toadies filling people's heads with this kind of non sence about "this is grocery not cars". The UFCW represents approx. 3500 health care workers in B.C. alone. If the CAW having cut it's teeth as a union in the automotive industry is the biggest reason MG workers should stay in the UFCW then when is the UFCW going to turn over all their health care workers to CUPE or the nurse's union? This is yet another example of UFCW staffers talking out of both sides of their mouth. Everything is ok as long as it's them doing it, but far be it for anyone else to do the same. "B.C.ians need a true opposition voice or the Liberals will do anything they want" but hey, "we need solidarity in the union so nobody should ever critise the union or it's leaders because that's anti-union" or my favorite "I support free speach but I think what people can and cannot say on the internet should be censored" Spare me.

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Mon, Feb 4, 2002 5:39pm

It seems pretty quiet from the Ufcw supporters!! I guess they figure all has been
said!! Scotty it would not be turning your back on your union to check out our alternatives!! You owe it to yourself to come and get some questions answered at the CAW
meetings for all affected Mgrove employees!!
Maybe you could bring questions from workers
who are close to you!!! No matter what happens in the future I am glad that you are
MY BROTHER!! And for sure we all deserve
improvements in OUR WORKPLACE!!!

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Tue, Feb 5, 2002 9:36am

Hey scotty-lester, CAW Local 414 members have overwhelmingly ratified a new three-year agreement providing wage, pension and benefit gains at 43 Dominion and A&P stores in Ontario.
http://www.caw.ca/news/contactnewsletter/showissue.asp#2530

It's seems the the CAW is "NOT" just for the automotive industry! In fact only 38% of their membership is from the "Automotive & Parts Industry" and the rest is from a large and diverse cross section of workers totaling over 250,000 mostly "Full-Time" members. The reason I stress "Full-Time" is because the CAW doesn't agree with the trend of full-time work being replaced by low paying part-time jobs that is being propagated by some unions, the UFCW being one of the worst offenders. The membership at the now closed Kitchener warehouse could have had the same F/T and P/T wages that you like to brag about at Maplegrove but we took a stance that we would not "sell out" past negotiations that limited P/T warehouse hours and kept P/T drivers out completely. This created more F/T work at Kitchener instead of low wage P/T jobs.

quote:


Being from St Thomas I do support the CAW there because it is an Automotive town!!!!!
We are in the Grocery industry not cars!!!


Scotty-Lester we could always change the name to C.anadian A.llied W.orkers so it would fit into your narrow minded view of Unions. Read Scott McPhersons message above and think about what you said......

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Tue, Feb 5, 2002 10:50am

UFCW also represents A&P Dominion workers (I believe they're local 175). Perhaps it would be instructive to get and post copies of both collective agreements and compare. It would be interesting to see how the two unions stack up against each other in terms of wage rates, benefits, job security, FT/PT and the length of the agreement.

Theoretically since they're both bargaining against the same employer in the same province (Ontario), one would expect the two unions to have similar contracts. Maybe the CAW workers would get a few dollars more since most of their members are in Toronto and have a higher cost of living.

But lets see, shall we? Anyone out there have copies of either agreement?

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Tue, Feb 5, 2002 11:28am

As always Glob very good idea. One thing I hope people keep in mind...usually the last CBA negotiated is the better of the two so if the CAW contract is better that's to be expected.

UFCW supporters continue to point to the CBA in Kitchner. Why I object to that is because that contract was negotiated in '95 while MG's is brand new. But my argument works both ways here. If the UFCW CBA is a couple of years old then the CAW contract should have taken into account inflation during that time and should reflect that with substantial improvements. If those improvements are minnor than I'd question why. Keep in mind also that the UFCW is infamous for their 1 1/4% wage increases per year.

  • posted by <"In My Opinion">
  • Wed, Feb 6, 2002 7:08pm

There has been a war waged between the supporting "UFCW vs. CAW"employees at Maplegrove Distribution Center. Why is this? Well the fact is the CAW has engaged in a campaign of raiding another bonafide Bargaining Unit of the UFCW. The workers at Maplegrove "all" work together and have a Collective Agreement negotiated by the UFCW. This has resulted and continues to result in the division of "Working People".

What does this mean?

It means that at the end of the day the "Workers" will be the ones that lose. Why? The answer is very clear. As a cartoon I seen awhile ago stated "UNITED WE BARGAIN / DIVIDED WE BEG" This cartoon is very true especially in this situation at Maple Grove.

The employer is very aware of what is happening at Maple Grove and are watching very closely as to what is happening there.

The only "LOSERS" in this "WAR" will be the employees as a result of this division. Unions have always been a fight about the "CORPORATE/GOVERNMENT" world and it's attacks on working people. All is lost on what Labour is all about here at Maplegrove.

I can and have attacked the CAW on it's practices and ethics just as much as you the posters have done to the UFCW. Where does this lead. Well it leads to division which "CORPORATE AND GOVERNMENT" thrive on to "DIVIDE AND CONQUER" the labour movement.

One cannot blame the UFCW for negotiating in 1998 a recognition clause in their agreement for any "NEW" distribution centers. Why would they do that? The same reason why "ALL" unions negotiate recognition clauses including "CAW". It is designed to protect the "Working People". If one even suggests that this is not a good thing has to believe that "UNIONS" should not exist. Which "In my Opinion" is "CARZY". Organizing Laws in Ontario are unbelievable and workers are no longer protected against employer intimidation and termination. Recognition clauses are a way for workers to gain the protection of a Union with out the "DRASTIC" emotional challenge to become Unionized. Even "JOHN ARMOND" who is the CAW Organizer and the CAW could deny this fact.

The fact is all us Workers at Maplegrove have the protection of a Union and the "UFCW" has in fact done all it could possibly do to protect the "WORKING" people. Let us not forget that we the members of the "UFCW" had a vote and, it was our "VOTE" that protected the affected workers from the "Closing" [that the company decided to do] to those distribution centers. It was "US" who make up the "UFCW" along with our "LEADERSHIP" that helped out all the working people. It was us the members who directed the "LEADERSHIP" on what "WE" the members were prepared to give up in order for the "OTHER" union members to come with their "FULL SENIORITY".

I ask this question....where was your union in protecting "YOU" their members?? Why did they not negotiate a "Recognition Clause" to protect your rights. They did for other members re: "Coca-Cola" to name one as there are many others. This is a continuously growing company, one can not use the argument they didn't know.

To this end I suggest. Cut the division it is only hurting "us the working people" for years to come. NG is winning the war not "US".

THIS IS "In My Opinion"

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Feb 6, 2002 7:45pm

IHAO, they are making UFCW Low-wage Stew over your way. Here's the recipe incase you haven't seen it made.

Mix together:
1 cup company (must be friendly)
1 cup union (biz brand is best)
2 cups members
2 tier contract (optional)

Cover well and place in a cold warehouse for the winter.
Take out in early spring, sprinkle generously with rhetoric and enjoy!

  • posted by weiser
  • Wed, Feb 6, 2002 7:57pm

Thank you "IHAO" for simply stating an opinion. That's a good thing.

Unfortunatly your opinion is based on the worn old platform biz unions use to justify everything from corruption to imprisoning workers. "Don't say anything, do anything or rock the boat because the employer will take advantage of us."

It's my opinion that if you rock the boat, the sailors develop fine sea legs. To expose and root out corruption keeps a union healthy and strong, so it can take on even the strongest of employers. By speaking loudly and acting forcefully, employers take workers' demands seriously and they treat their workers with respect.

FCW needs U more than U need FCW. It's time to rock the boat!

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Wed, Feb 6, 2002 9:46pm

"In My Opinion"

quote:


Well the fact is the CAW has engaged in a campaign of raiding another bonafide Bargaining Unit of the UFCW.


It's not a raid, get over it!

quote:


It means that at the end of the day the "Workers" will be the ones that lose. Why? The answer is very clear. As a cartoon I seen awhile ago stated "UNITED WE BARGAIN / DIVIDED WE BEG" This cartoon is very true especially in this situation at Maple Grove.


The real reason we "could " loose is because you're turning the members into "scared sheep" with all you "fear mongering". They're so afraid of losing their jobs now that they'll never stand behind the union.

quote:


One cannot blame the UFCW for negotiating in 1998 a recognition clause in their agreement for any "NEW" distribution centers.


No but we can blame them for abusing that clause!

quote:


Organizing Laws in Ontario are unbelievable and workers are no longer protected against employer intimidation and termination.


In fact workers in Ontario have considerable protection to organize unions, read the "Ontario Labour Relations Act" before you print utter nonsense. http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/95l01_e.htm

quote:


Even "JOHN ARMOND" who is the CAW Organizer and the CAW could deny this fact.


At least get the spelling right, it's (John Aman).

quote:


The fact is all us Workers at Maplegrove have the protection of a Union and the "UFCW" has in fact done all it could possibly do to protect the "WORKING" people.


But who will protect us from the UFCW?

quote:


Let us not forget that we the members of the "UFCW" had a vote and, it was our "VOTE" that protected the affected workers from the "Closing" [that the company decided to do] to those distribution centers.


Protected us from what? Loblaws would have offered us jobs no matter what you "Voted". The only thing you "Voted" on was how you were going to screw us over!

quote:


It was us the members who directed the "LEADERSHIP" on what "WE" the members were prepared to give up in order for the "OTHER" union members to come with their "FULL SENIORITY".


(1) I doubt that you ever directed the "LEADERSHIP".
(2) You never gave up anything (we did).
(3) "FULL SENIORITY" As long as you got FIRST choice of jobs, get downgraded LAST, have PROTECTED jobs and give us NO seniority for "Global Postings" then I think you should change that to "VERY LIMITED SENIORITY".

quote:


I ask this question....where was your union in protecting "YOU" their members??


Thay are still working to protect us, they just don't do it in "BED" with the company!

quote:


Why did they not negotiate a "Recognition Clause" to protect your rights. They did for other members re: "Coca-Cola" to name one as there are many others.


The CAW does not jump at the "Recognition Clause" CARROT and I believe that the UFCW had the "Recognition Clause" at Coca-Cola and the CAW challenged it and WON the Representation Vote.

quote:


To this end I suggest. Cut the division it is only hurting "us the working people" for years to come. NG is winning the war not "US".


NG "could" win this war if you continue to turn members into "MEMBERSHEEP".

quote:


THIS IS "In My Opinion"


Well we know it isn't fact!

  • posted by <EETMP>
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 1:53pm

"Everyone's Entitled to MY Opinion"

Why????? Because I worked in Kitchener for the full extent of the contract and am now a full fledged UFCW supporter, for the good of the people.

It is evident that corruption is rampant in BOTH unions and as long as we have a leader who is not under outside contract, for their own business interests, the people will succeed. This can only be done under an over-educated person that is now in place in Maplegrove.

The only way to quell the waves and begin the true fight, which is against the company, is for those people to come together and unite and express their TRUE feelings through media. I call on all those who haven't expressed AN OPINION to use your democratic right and speak the TRUTH.

Proud to be union.. EETMP

  • posted by siggy
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 2:28pm

Everyone at Maplegrove has the time, the tools and the ability to make an informed decision. You have an option few of us get.

Whether it be CAW or UFCW, it is your choice, base your decision on fact and don't let personalities get in the way of objective information.

If either side comes at you with anything less than facts, that can easily be confirmed, tell them to get the hell away.

  • posted by <EETMP>
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 3:00pm

It is because of my appreciation of the different personalities involved and the first hand knowledge of the corruption, that I side with the UFCW. The best bargaining position and a union which stands up for the rights of the worker is best for the people. The longer this file is a "hot topic", the more people will learn.

I am open to questions regarding any and all issues because education is my goal and that is why "Everyone is Entitled to MY Opinion".

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 3:53pm

quote:


Originally posted by <EETMP>:
"Everyone's Entitled to MY Opinion"

It is evident that corruption is rampant in BOTH unions and as long as we have a leader who is not under outside contract, for their own business interests, the people will succeed.


You imply that corruption is rampant within the CAW. I'm not suggesting that they're perfect, but I'm not aware that corruption is rampant in their ranks. Can you tell us on what basis you make this statement? What is happening or has happened within the CAW that leads you to this conclusion?

Assuming that corruption is rampant in both unions, what makes one more desirable than the other. Since a corrupt union is an ineffective union, why would you assume that either will be a good bet for the workers? If both are corrupt, why not look for an alternative?

  • posted by 1000a sucks
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 4:25pm

Look out 1000a, I think I hear 1000b starting up.

How would one even begin that process?

What are the pros/cons of starting up your own local "(1000b)" within the structure of 1000a, is it possible? what is the likelihood of UFCW ever allowing this to happen? How would we gain support of the workers without feeling the pressure of the "UFCW machine heads" even more than we do now?

  • posted by Dougle
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 5:07pm

A union....any union is only as strong os it's members. If CAW or UFCW takes or keeps Maplegrove are things between is members going to be different? NO! Brothers and sisters weither we like it or not we are stuck together unless U've got something better.Mud slinging doesn't solve anything Pro CAW members want to repost all jobs then do it. If U feel that U are intitled to the jobs that U weren't allowed to post for then change it. demand a meeting....put a motion on the floor to have it ammended!!You are all UFCW members so excercise your rights. why not explore all your options before jumping ship. If you feel that U have enough people to switch to CAW then why not put a reposting vote on the floor??? United we stand divided we fall. By being split it give the company the upper hand. They will play one against the other to get what they want. The UFCW has no other option but to listen to us. One voice is soft and lost...united voice is the strongest. UFCW is against the ropes why not use that to your advantage. They must give the majority what they want or the other option is eagerly waiting at the door. don't ask demand remind them who they work for. Don't take no for an answer.

  • posted by Shadow
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 5:30pm

"They must give the majority what they want or the other option is eagerly waiting at the door. don't ask demand remind them who they work for. Don't take no for an answer."

What happened at Local 1518 when the majority decided to tell the UFCW what it wanted and reminded the leaders of who they work for? Siggy? Scott? Maybe this would be a good time to tell that story. Just so nobody is real disappointed in the end.

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: Shadow ]

  • posted by siggy
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 5:53pm

quote:


What happened at Local 1518 when the majority decided to tell the UFCW what it wanted and reminded the leaders of who they work for?


Which time?

  • posted by Shadow
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 6:40pm

Shame on me, I should be more specific. I made it sound like there was only one example. Pick whichever example of democracy in action you want. The great election would be a perfect example of what happens when the members tell the big boys how they'd like things to be.

  • posted by siggy
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 6:50pm

Let me tell you all a story
'bout a man named Fred.
A poor union member,
barely kept his family fed.
And then one day he was
voting at the poll.
And low 'n behold
His democracy they stole!

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 7:46pm

I've been reading Shadow and quite frankly I think I'd be wasting my time. United we stand

Where was that kind of thinking when the UFCW filed it's lawsuit agianst a part time worker at superstore? Where was that kind of thinking when the UFCW turned a blind eye when Superstore management [owned by the same parent company as Maple Grove] searched Williams personal locker for union reform litature and told him if he was ever seen talking to other employees about union reform or passing out union reform material on company property he'd be fired?

United we stand....Do any of you know what that means? I'd say it means united against a common enemy on the field of battle. It doesn't mean during piece time we all snuggle up by the fire and kiss. MG has an existing contract, unless your all a bunch of company rats trying to get each other fired I don't see how a debate over what union you want to bargain your next contract is going to weaken you.

United we stand

Like most people I have 4 fingers and a thumb on each hand. The fact that they are seperate from each other allows me to perform many different kinds of neccessary funtions from day to day that allow me to succeed and survive.

However, despite the fact that by themselves they can be fairly harmless, when I feel threatened those same fingers and thumb close together and form a fist which is far from harmless.

United we stand

Sure I could walk around all day with my hands clenched in a fist and always be ready for a fight. But if I did that how much do you think I'd get done? You can't do much with two closed fists. Just like you don't achieve much if a group agrees with each other just to avoid looking like their not ready for a fight somebody else. "Only fools seek the council of agreement" The UFCW is weak and corrupt because nobody is willing to shine a light on the evil doers and question their conduct. Debate doesn't make you weaker, and infighting won't either unless you try and seek an aliance with the employer. Kind of like a "partnering agreement" if you will.

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: Scott Mcpherson ]

  • posted by siggy
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 8:58pm

quote:


The great election


It's a long story, maybe the short version for now.
An election for a ufcw local executive was held in Nov of '99. A very popular reform slate challenged for positions, I believe this had only happened once before to the same incumbents, but the similarities in events are uncanny and frightening. (that's another story). There were alot of questions about election irregularities, but that didn't stop the ballots from being flown out of the province never to be seen again. The favoured sons are still in power.

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 10:52pm

OK you C.A.W supporter's I have a very importain question for you.
Why the hell when we all agree that this the tension at Maple grove is getting out of hand Why John Aman and his leader Tom Collins does not get to the labour board and submit the application?
1) C.A.W does not have 40% of the cards?
(they might)
2) They know they can't win at Maple Grove?
( I dought it because most of them have been brained washed)
3) They like the B.S at the Wharehouse
( Most likely )

I urge you "Auto Workers" to get off your ass and get this vote over with ( If you can) it is a very unconforable work place in which nobody at this point can fix.........
Once the Union that gets the most votes wins lets get together as 1
DeMon I think its time you signed one of my cards......

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Thu, Feb 7, 2002 10:54pm

quote:


Originally posted by <EETMP>:
It is because of my appreciation of the different personalities involved and the first hand knowledge of the corruption, that I side with the UFCW. The best bargaining position and a union which stands up for the rights of the worker is best for the people. The longer this file is a "hot topic", the more people will learn.
ROCK ON BROTHER
I am open to questions regarding any and all issues because education is my goal and that is why "Everyone is Entitled to MY Opinion".


  • posted by DeMoN
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 6:34am

"<EETMP>"

quote:


"Everyone is Entitled to MY Opinion"


Wrong! You are entitled "to" an opinion, it's our option to listen to it. Only someone with a "HUGE" ego would write something like that.

Since there is only "one" employee from Kitchener that openly supports the UFCW I know exactly who you are and what you stand for.

quote:


It is because of my appreciation of the different personalities involved and the first hand knowledge of the corruption, that I side with the UFCW.


I guess knowing all about corruption (first hand) is the reason you chose the union you would be most comfortable with.

quote:


The best bargaining position and a union which stands up for the rights of the worker is best for the people.


What would you know or care about the "Rights of the Worker" all you have know "self interest".

quote:


It is evident that corruption is rampant in BOTH unions


Put up! or shut up!

quote:


as long as we have a leader who is not under outside contract, for their own business interests, the people will succeed. This can only be done under an over-educated person that is now in place in Maplegrove.


"Delusions of Grandeur"
God help us all if you think that you're the next "Messiah" for Maple grove. I can't imagine a worse scenario than that!

quote:


I call on all those who haven't expressed AN OPINION to use your democratic right and speak the TRUTH.


I hope you enjoyed that little bit of truth!

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 6:36am

Okay, Scott_Lester, what's your opinion as to why the UFCW is suing one of its members for putting the UFCW International Constitution on the Web for all to see.

Wouldn't it be best if all present and potential UFCW members could study the UFCW International Constitution to see what the UFCW says about how a union should be run and the democratic processes it employs?

Why can't anyone get their hands of even a photocopied version of the International Constitution?

Does the UFCW print anywhere near the same number of Constitutions and Bylaws as there are UFCW members, and do they keep printing so that new members who join between conventions can get a copy?

Why does a UFCW member have to have his or her dues money spent on printing the damned Constitution and only to be told that they can't have one?

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 6:43am

O.K Weiser......
I belong to 1000a, Could you please tell me what local you are talking about and i will look in to it.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 7:11am

Scott here's the info.

UFCW Local 777 member Bill Gammert is being sued by the UFCW International union.

Here is the thread to read. http://www.ufcw.net/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&amp;f=4&amp;t=000099

  • posted by <Bob's Your Uncle>
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 8:09am

Anyone wishing to return unwanted mail to the UFCW 1000A here is their address:

UFCW Local 1000a
61 International Blvd Suite 204
Etobicoke ON M9W 6K4

And remember, Bob's Your Uncle!

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 8:16am

And for your information "Scott_Lester" the UFCW runs Walmartyrs.com and other sites. The UFCW runs a site that professes to expose Wal-Mart's activites. It's not a very nice site but the UFCW must think it's okay to publish negative opinions about people and corporations that they don't like.

Now William's site isn't all that nice to the UFCW but you'd think that the UFCW would say, "hey, we don't like the guy, but he's entitled to his opinion of us--good or bad." However, they are offended that nice things aren't being said, so they sue. And what does the UFCW International join the suit on? William had the audacity to expose the International Constitution. This is what they had to say: The Voice of Working America Sues to Shut Its Members Up

Scott_Lester, for some odd reason you seem to think that the UFCW 1000a is some separate entity from the US-based International. Think again. The International could walk in tommorow and wipe out any and all elected officials and place a man of their choosing in to run 1000a or to merge it with another local. Get it straight Scott_Lester, The International calls the shots.

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 9:09am

Next Article
AUDHome--> Union Democracy Review--> Articles

From the February/March 2001 issue of UDR
In Canada: Auto Workers and Carpenters defy U.S. internationals

In July, the Canadian Auto Workers union was suspended from the Canadian Labor Congress in a dispute over congress rules which, like the AFL-CIO no-raiding pact, forbid one affiliated union from taking members from another. In defiance of the congress, the Canadian Auto Workers welcomed into its ranks 30,000 members of eight Ontario locals of the Service Employees International Union. According to Buzz Hargrove, CAW president, 11,000 of the SEIU members voted to disaffiliate in workplace balloting; and 95% of the votes supported the CAW in a government collective bargaining election.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 9:13am

CAW to apply for vote at Toyota
Report by Ron DeRuyter
Record
Published: 26/06/01

CAMBRIDGE (Ontario) &#8211; The Canadian Auto Workers will apply this week for a union vote at the Toyota plant in Cambridge. After working on an organizing campaign for more than 18 months, the union will file an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board on Thursday or Friday, said Hemi Mitic, assistant to Buzz Hargrove, president of the auto workers union. The board will conduct a secret ballot vote in the plant if at least 40 per cent of the workers who would be part of the bargaining unit have signed union membership cards.

If the vote is held, the Canadian Auto Workers will become the employees' bargaining agent if more than 50 per cent of the eligible workers vote in favour of the union. "We are hoping we are in a 40 per cent position, but we are not 100 per cent sure," said Mitic. "They have done some hiring in the last little while so it is a bit unclear what the final number of employees is." Toyota employs 2,700 people in Cambridge, including about 2,000 production workers.

After campaigning intensively for several months, it's time for employees to decide whether or not they want to be represented by a union, said Mitic. "I think it is fair to say there are some people who would prefer to have no union and some who would prefer to have the union," he said. "We are hoping everyone will support a democratic process which allows people to make a decision on whether they want to have the union. Let the majority decide."

If the labour board conducts a vote, it likely will be held late next week or early the following week. The Canadian Auto Workers, Canada's largest private-sector union with 245,000 members, has made several attempts to organize Toyota since the Fountain Street plant opened in 1988. The union says interest in joining the union has increased because of concerns about workload and uncertainty related to model changes.

Toyota, which provides wages and benefits on par with those Canadian Auto Workers members receive from other automakers, will begin production of the Matrix compact car next year and the Lexus RX300 sport utility vehicle in 2003. The plant currently makes the Corolla and the Solara.

right next door to maple grove well boys how did this turn out????

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 9:26am

I belive they are non-union to this day. What's your point?

Toyota keeps unions out; they don't invite unions in. It's sort of an old fashioned concept that the UFCW glee club might not understand.

Toyota doesn't do the "partnering" thing, neither does CAW.

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 9:27am

quote:


Originally posted by <Bob's Your Uncle>:
Anyone wishing to return unwanted mail to the UFCW 1000A here is their address:

UFCW Local 1000a
61 International Blvd Suite 204
Etobicoke ON M9W 6K4

And remember, Bob's Your Uncle!


to return any unwanted C.A.W mail[B]

205 Placer Court
Toronto, ON
M2H 3H9

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 9:56am

"Scott_ufcw_Lester"

I see your blowing smoke out of your ass again to hide the real issues. That infomation is old news and doesn't relate to the discusion here. We all know the CAW was in the C.L.C. bad books for a short while. Can you figure out why it was someone from the UFCW that patched things up. Do you think they had anything to fear from a CAW that wasn't bound by the C.L.C.s "No Raid" clause. Without the CAW in the C.L.C. the other unions were shaking in their boots (especially the UFCW). I'm lost as to why you posted the Toyota article. Was it to say the CAW sucks at organizing or did you run out of dirt to throw. One thing is for sure, they will try to organize Toyota again.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 10:04am

Scott I noticed you didn't answer the question or even try. You side stepped to complain about the CAW. I'm not sure what you were trying to even say with the above article. Sounds like a good job by the CAW arganizing team. How is it relevant?

Another thing...Washington calls the shots, period. There is no discussion. They always talk about local autonomy but it's meaningless. UFCW Cannda is run solely by Cliff Evans. Maybe you buy the Bull about him being retired but don't hold your breath. Corporon is there because Cliff is ok with it and Keven damn well knows it. Cliff is incharge because Willian Wynn {a convicted thief} put him there for his loyalty.

You know I don't mind a person who doesn't understand this but is open to learn the truth, but I can't stand a clown who not only doesn't know but thinks he does and doesn't want to listen to reality. UFCW Canada is a puppet, it's time to grow up and face the bitter reality of life. This so called union is run by a handfull of men and K.C. damn sure isn't one of them. He does what he's told.

You think what happens to a guy in B.C. isn't relevant to you?

In Germany in 1939 the Natzi's came for the communists,
and I did not speak up because I was not a communist.
then they came for the Jews,
but I did not speak up because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I did not speak up because I was a protestant.
And then they came for me,
but there was no one left to speak up.

When we as a society ignor the denial of anothers right to liberty and free speach we seriously run the risk that our own rights may be put in jeopardy.

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 10:44am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DeMoN:
[QB]"Scott_ufcw_Lester"

I see your blowing smoke out of your ass again to hide the real issues. That infomation is old news and doesn't relate to the discusion here.

Old news come on DeMoN mostly everything you and "John Aman and Tom Collin" supporters throw at us is "OLD NEWS" quit blowing smoke out of your ass if you guys had the support you guys wanted you would have applied by now!

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 1:30pm

Thanks Mr.Macpherson for your latest reply to
Lester He needs to be educated outside the UFCW scope>You can expect a lengthy reply
from myself shortly it is thru sincerity that
I will also tell the truth.
There is no doubt about it the CAW's
constitution makes the ufcw's constitution
look like a bad bad document from a time way
way back where the workers(MEMBERS)SUFFERED!!

  • posted by <lark>
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 4:38pm

Why don't both unions put forth their best proposals for representing the employees, ie, if we are your bargaining agent we will..... . Put it in writing and stand behind what they say. If they don't then they should resign their position as bargaining agent.

A pretty simple concept, let the workers decide. Let's keep this clear, the union is paid by the employees to represent them best as possible. In many ways (and especially in today's economic environment) it is a simple business relationship. When it comes to bargaining, the employer is only looking at it from a business perspective. Period.

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 5:07pm

To John E....
I think its time we go out next Friday night to Burty Bobs have a few beers ( 12-14 ) and laugh our ass off about this crap at work.
UFCW can party with CAW...

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 5:11pm

No matter who wins the vote, the important task right afterwards is ensuring your union does what's in your best interest, and then turning your attention to making sure that NG treats you with dignity and respect and pays you real well.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 6:05pm

Another thing I've heard UFCW hacks bemoan is what "true unionism" 1000a demonstrated when they accepted CAW and Teamster members into their union. Wake up!

MG is a new warehouse designed to replace serveral smaller ones. That fact these warehouse's were different unions is irrelevant. You all work for the same employer. I think CAW workers have grounds for a grievance here. Company senority should have determined who got what at Maple Grove and only employees for those warehouse's closing down should be working there.

That would have been true unionism. What Corporon did was take a voluntary rec. deal in trade for "future considerations". Then screwed non UFCW people out of their rightful company senority hoping they'd get mad and quit giving 1000a the chance at a windfall of initiation dues from new members.

Maybe you can fool a fool blinded by their new senority and job perks Corporon but it's hard to fool me, I'm smarter than you are. Your local and your "union" is a joke and disgrace and you don't deserve to be the position to represent anybody. That's too much social responsibility for the self serving.

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 6:43pm

quote:


Originally posted by Scott Mcpherson:
Another thing I've heard UFCW hacks bemoan is what "true unionism" 1000a demonstrated when they accepted CAW and Teamster members into their union. Wake up!

fellow Scott Why dont you come to Ontario and visit Maple Grove yourself and hear both sides of the story......Or do you just want to comment from the other side of Canada???

MG is a new warehouse designed to replace serveral smaller ones. That fact these warehouse's were different unions is irrelevant.


First of all its NG and as of 2 years ago changed to L.C.E,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,U.F.C.W got the rights to be the Union in there . Fact of life get over it or get on with a vote[/B


That would have been true unionism. What Corporon did was take a voluntary rec. deal in trade for "future considerations".

][B]Is it not true that C.A.W get the same agreement when it comes to Ford, GM,Dodge etc...


Then screwed non UFCW people out of their rightful company senority hoping they'd get mad and quit giving 1000a the chance at a windfall of initiation dues from new members.


U.F,C.W members voted on how to let these other people come in to Maple Grove
Maybe you can fool a fool blinded by their new senority and job perks Corporon but it's hard to fool me, I'm smarter than you are. Your local and your "union" is a joke and disgrace and you don't deserve to be the position to represent anybody. That's too much social responsibility for the self serving.


WHY ARE YOU SO BITTER TOWARDS THE PRESIDENT OF MY UNION ......WHEN YOU ARE WEST OF HERE WAY WEST

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 7:43pm

The CAW National President is as close to a
household name as any CANADIAN from coast to
coast to coast.Don't knock Mcpherson he is a
desparately needed VOICE for the OPPRESSED
definately in the KNOW of corruption in this
DISGRACE of a union.
BUZZ is BOUND by collective agreement!!!
Mr.Hargrove makes roughly the same $$$$$
as Mr.CORPORAN but UNDERSTAND BUZZ reps.
and is ACCOUNTABLE to 10x the members!!!
Do you guys have such tunnel vision to
not even know what the hell is up here guarrantied you pro 1000a men will eventually
WAKE UP My personal story is coming stay
tuned. DeMoN can't wait to meet!next wk.?
Yes Mr.Lester you and me can RESPECT e/other!! Let IT OUT PLEASE MR.Mcpherson
great information on this site
EDUCATION IS KEY
p.s. come on fellas try harder with your
spelling READ BOOKS!!!!

  • posted by HJFinnamore
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 8:37pm

Just FYI "UFCW pom-pom crew" It's an Ontario LRB decision.

quote:


It is in this light that the involvement of Frank Kelly, Business Representative for [UFCW] Local 206, must be considered, I am of the view that Frank Kelly's advice to the applicant and to Mr. Shanly as to how to oust [Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Internationa Union] Local 75 has had an effect on the voluntariness of the signatures on the petition document. I as satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the vast majority of the employees of the hotel were aware of hotel management's preference to have [UFCW] Local 206 represent then in their employment relations with the hotel, and that the employees were aware of a relationship between the UFCW and hotel management, in the sense that the former was "an investor" of some nature in the hotel. In this regard, I have concluded that it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the "UFCW" in its organizational form as an International Union or as Local 206, has effective control over Kelloryn via Propcos 14 and 16, as it was overwhelmingly perceived by employees that the UFCW did have a significant investment in the hotel, and therefore some Influence with management. In my view, the employees of the hotel would likely have viewed it to be in their best interests and in the best interests of the hotel and its long term viability (and, therefore, their job security) to have as their bargaining agent Local 206 of the UFCW. This would first require the ousting of Local 75 as their bargaining agent.

40. Here, a representative of the perceived "investor" with a special relationship with the employer urged and facilitated the genesis and circulation of the petition document. In these circumstances, I conclude that the origination of the petition, and its circulation, was tainted by the perception of employer involvement. I emphasize here that I have not in any way concluded that the UFCW is an "employer" at this hotel. I conclude only that because of the perception of the UFCW's financial interest in the hotel, which the vast majority of employees shared, Frank Kelly's involvement in the origination and circulation of the petition would likely have been perceived by the employees to represent the desire of Management. The voluntariness of the signatures on the petition document is, accordingly, questionable.

41. At the Conclusion of argument of this case, counsel were asked to make submissions on the issue of whether the separate identities of Local 206 and the International should have any effect on the voluntariness of the signatures. Having had an opportunity to consider their arguments, and having reflected on the issue, I am of the view that the distinction is one without a difference. It is clear from the evidence of the employees who did testify that "the UFCU" the "International" and "Local 206" were to them interchangeable entities, and that no distinction was ever made between them. In those circumstances, the concerns I note above remain and, in my view, nothing can rise or fall on the distinction between the International union and a local union affiliated with the International.


[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: HJFinnamore ]

  • posted by Doctor Maplegrove
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 9:36pm

Listen Mr.JohnyCAWmaplegrove.
You are the last person to start critizing people for their spelling. Way befor you get their you should try grade four grammer. All of a sudden you have a computer with spell check you are articulate. Guy all you have ever said has been said before. YA YA YA
Titanic is just about sunk, the goodship she hasn't even rised her sails yet.
U F C W

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 9:56pm

I dont want to get personal no harm intended
If I offend you let me know who you are!!
Please REFER to article from MR.F
I would guess you are lower seniority
than myself or let alone Mr.F
You give me a fire that I will never give-up
born to a proud CAW man 1967 Windsor
John G. Erickson
INVESTIGATE YOUR UFCW UNION YOU SMF

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 10:08pm

O.K John E
this is my point of view
After the the Terroist attacks On the U.S there has been a recession, Loblaws i think spent like 70 million dollars on MapleGrove. I really don't believe the company will want to write a new contract and give us more or even equal to what we get now,
If the C.A.W gets in then there probally eventually be a strike.
If a strike occurs then who the hell will feed my kids and the kids of my union Brothers and Sisters.
We have a good contract right now lets wait till it expires and go from there..

Born to a proud Ford "C.A.W" worker in St Thomas
Scott R.J Lester
GO U.F.C.W

  • posted by TheSportsWiz
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 10:30pm

THE LAST WORD

Weiser, DeMoN, Siggy ...

The three of you either GET A FREAKIN' LIFE or GET A HOTEL ROOM !!! I just took everything the three of you have done to improve the situation at Maple Grove and placed it on the head of a pin, with room to spare.

JOHN ERICKSON ... dude please give your head a shake, do us all a favour and refrain from writing that lengthy message you promised was forthcoming. One union feels you are a turn coat, the other union is wondering if, or rather when you would turn on them. Damn, one day you're here, next day you're there. You need to go your local music store and buy a Notorious B.I.G. CD and listen to the "10 Crack Commandments". It goes like this, somebody give me a hip-hop beat ... "Number 5 neva get high on ya own supply"

ALSO, you can all rest assured that any former Union "official" who comes onto this type of website to "expose" union corruption is sure to have a closet door in his house he doesn't want opened (oh those skeletons).

Here is a reminder to everyone INCLUDING MYSELF and some RANDOM thoughts. Don't criticize me for these thoughts, but rather think about them and make comments, suggestions to illicit more thought and more action.

1. Look at your paycheque ... see who pays your bills?
2. Show up for work
3. Put in an honest days work
4. Stand united and stand up for YOUR rights
5. Stop whining all day long about how unjustly you are being treated just because you like to whine
6. Document incidents that demand to be documented. Where? When? Supervisor's name? Witnesses? What was said? It is this kind of clear, HONEST, concise documentation that helps your union steward and/or rep win grievances at the early stages. A pattern develops and you will find you experience fewer and fewer problems.
7.Proper documentation can lead to satisfying members requests say over 80% of the time. Lack of it leads to DISsatisfaction over 80% of the time.
8. Hold yourself AND your brother working next to you accountable for ensuring you maintain a safe workplace.
9.Workers screw each more then companies screw workers, its always been that way and will always be that way. ONLY we change that.

That's it for now I guess. Oh ya ... my three favourite Rossas ... Maria, Testa, and Cramma ... LMAO

  • posted by sleK
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 10:32pm

quote:


If the C.A.W gets in then there probally eventually be a strike.


Pure conjecture.

quote:


If a strike occurs then who the hell will feed my kids and the kids of my union Brothers and Sisters.


Heaven forbid that you may have to utilize the strongest tool that unity grants a united membership That has to be the weakest argument against the CAW I have heard yet.

Who's going to feed your grandchildren when they have ZERO rights because you were too spineless to stand up for them?

:shakes head:

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 10:37pm

Ok then Slek
what is stike pay these days?
A six pack of Mac and cheese and a pack of kool-aid?
right on brother give me a card so I dont know what I will get.
Right now I have good pay which is gauranteed for quite a while.
Do the math buddy

  • posted by fedupwithufcw
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 10:41pm

Pom pom crew I miss you wieser. Holy crap who the heck are you guys. I seen less sucking up at the maternity ward. United Fraud and Corruption workers unite! NOT. Go UFCW Oh yeh exactly, GO AWAY! 'better Buzz than duds' I say. You can't soar with the eagles when your flying with these UFCW turkeys join the CAW for God sake.

  • posted by sleK
  • Fri, Feb 8, 2002 10:44pm

quote:


what is stike pay these days?


I couldn't tell you. Why don't you ask the UFCW? Then ask them why "stike" pay is so low? Then ask them where all the money you give them goes?

quote:


A six pack of Mac and cheese and a pack of kool-aid?


People have survived on less. But, of course, it's always "me me me" with you ufcw clowns.

What you don't seem to understand is that a lot of people have had to give up a hell of a lot more than you ever will - so you could enjoy the rights, the pay, and the working conditions you enjoy today.

Selflessness is completely lost on you. And that's a sad fact.

  • posted by Richard
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 7:01am

I don't know how to link (or if you even can) to the above post, but it's damned important. What's the deal here? This is outrageous. And where did it come from?

From what I can see, it says that the UFCW financed a hotel, told the employees it owned the hotel and then tried to raid the employees from the Hotel Workers? What the F....?

Tell me more!

quote:


Originally posted by HJFinnamore:
Just FYI "UFCW pom-pom crew" It's an Ontario LRB decision.

Just FYI "UFCW pom-pom crew" It's an Ontario LRB decision.

quote:
It is in this light that the involvement of Frank Kelly, Business Representative for [UFCW] Local 206, must be considered, I am of the view that Frank Kelly's advice to the applicant and to Mr. Shanly as to how to oust [Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Internationa Union] Local 75 has had an effect on the voluntariness of the signatures on the petition document. I as satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the vast majority of the employees of the hotel were aware of hotel management's preference to have [UFCW] Local 206 represent then in their employment relations with the hotel, and that the employees were aware of a relationship between the UFCW and hotel management, in the sense that the former was "an investor" of some nature in the hotel. In this regard, I have concluded that it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the "UFCW" in its organizational form as an International Union or as Local 206, has effective control over Kelloryn via Propcos 14 and 16, as it was overwhelmingly perceived by employees that the UFCW did have a significant investment in the hotel, and therefore some Influence with management. In my view, the employees of the hotel would likely have viewed it to be in their best interests and in the best interests of the hotel and its long term viability (and, therefore, their job security) to have as their bargaining agent Local 206 of the UFCW. This would first require the ousting of Local 75 as their bargaining agent.

40. Here, a representative of the perceived "investor" with a special relationship with the employer urged and facilitated the genesis and circulation of the petition document. In these circumstances, I conclude that the origination of the petition, and its circulation, was tainted by the perception of employer involvement. I emphasize here that I have not in any way concluded that the UFCW is an "employer" at this hotel. I conclude only that because of the perception of the UFCW's financial interest in the hotel, which the vast majority of employees shared, Frank Kelly's involvement in the origination and circulation of the petition would likely have been perceived by the employees to represent the desire of Management. The voluntariness of the signatures on the petition document is, accordingly, questionable.

41. At the Conclusion of argument of this case, counsel were asked to make submissions on the issue of whether the separate identities of Local 206 and the International should have any effect on the voluntariness of the signatures. Having had an opportunity to consider their arguments, and having reflected on the issue, I am of the view that the distinction is one without a difference. It is clear from the evidence of the employees who did testify that "the UFCU" the "International" and "Local 206" were to them interchangeable entities, and that no distinction was ever made between them. In those circumstances, the concerns I note above remain and, in my view, nothing can rise or fall on the distinction between the International union and a local union affiliated with the International.


[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Richard ]

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 8:11am

There must have been a "Clown Convention" here last night. I'm sorry I missed it....

This was originaly posted by "Dougle" on the 1000a thread. http://www.ufcw.net/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&amp;f=3&amp;t=000053&amp;p=3

quote:


Today I aproached a Union rep, not to be named, And put forth the idea of having a meeting and settling the matter of job postings. I explained my self telling him that it may solve the problem of division within the warehouse. I also explained to him that the pro CAW members only want what they feel is right. I also explained that some feel that Maplegrove has a two tier Union, one for the "original UFCW" and one for the other members. I asked to put it to the floor so that brothers and sisters could vote and put this to rest and carry on with life, by taking it to the company the real enemy. As a result, not shocking, I was laughed at and was told that if I wanted to repost all the jobs, to vote for CAW.
This rep missed the point, there is more then two solutions to this problem. 1. vote CAW, 2. Vote UFCW, 3. repost, etc..etc..
UFCW brass if you are listening... why not compromise with your members to find a solution to our problems instead of beating it into us. Why not take the CAW trump card "...try to repost all jobs..." and beat them before they even come knocking. Reposting may not be the answer perhaps another answer may be to ammend the "Other members" get down graded before "Original UFCW" etc...etc... I believe that we are willing to compromise are U?


I see you got as far as I did when I called the UFCW4Maplegrove Hotline and asked the same question. I talked to Rick (forgot the last name) and was told we would "never" get to vote on that issue (reposting jobs).

Both "Dougle" and "John-CAW4MAPLEGROVE-Erickson" are original 1000a members trying to make changes (for the better) at Maplegrove and both are meeting resistance from the same people! The same people that want everyone to unite and work together, yet they are completely unwilling to compromise their position on the issues causing most of the problems at Maplegrove. Scott_ufcw_Lester what have you done lately (as a union steward at Maplegrove) to try and address these issues? Or are you going to keep riding that "gravytrain" right through the station......

John-CAW4MAPLEGROVE-Erickson and Dougle please don't give up the fight because of the words of a few "very uninformed" individuals. What you are doing shows your strength of character, what they are doing shows just how "LOW" people and organizations are willing to go to fullfill their selfish needs.

"TheSportsWiz" it's very apparent that the only weapon you have in your arsenal (of choice) is the "Personal Attack" and the "Unverifiable Quote". I'm embarassed to have to call you a "union brother". Someone in your position should be trying to inform the membership on why the UFCW is such a good choice for Maplegrove or why the CAW is a bad choice. Instead you attack your own members for having an opinion that isn't the same as your own. I think you should reconsider your career choice and consider something that doesn't require you to have any P.R. skills or an open mind.

"Scott_ufcw_Lester" I doubt "TheSportsWiz" will answer the Question so how about you answering it.

quote:


Someone in your position should be trying to inform the membership on why the UFCW is such a good choice for Maplegrove or why the CAW is a bad choice.


Give it your best shot!

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 8:45am

I will add some questions that I posted in the "Local 1000a" thread. I have the sense that SportWiz fancies himself as some kind of PR guru (hope he's not the expensive kind), so I would be especially interested in his responses:

What are your views about union-management partnering agreements?

Is voluntary recognition a good thing or a bad thing for members?

Should unions ever make secret deals with management?

Is it right for a union to sue members who criticize it?

Is it right for unions to appoint (rather than elect) their Presidents or other executives?

Should union officials go to parties with management or accept gifts from management?

Are union elections run in a fair manner or do incumbents have an overwhelming advantage? Is this a good thing?

From the OLRB decision excerp that Richard posted:

Should unions invest members' money in enterprises like hotels without extensive consultation with the members themselves beforehand?

Isn't what the UFCW did in the case of this hotel a "raid"? They were taking over a HERE bargaining unit and the OLRB ultimately sided with HERE on the issue.

Isn't this "raiding" stuff just a lot of hypocrisy?

Do unions like the UFCW have an underlying belief that having bargaining rights is similar to "owning" the members?

Come on SportWiz et al... We're waiting. But no sexual innuendo please. You should know better.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 10:35am

Don't expect Sports_Wiz to come out from under his bridge until a new page starts. He be shy of anwering questions.

With an appology to the author for a slight alteration, I think the quotation says a lot of the current exchange:

quote:


"I don't agree with those who think that the conflict is simply between two [unions], namely [the CAW] and [the UFCW]. . . To me, the key conflict is between irrational blind faith and rational, logical minds."

-Taslima Nasrin


Irrational blind faith has nothing to back it up except "they told me so."

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 12:08pm

quote:


fellow Scott Why dont you come to Ontario and visit Maple Grove yourself and hear both sides of the story......Or do you just want to comment from the other side of Canada???


You've been hanging around UFCW staffers to long. We all can't just jump on a plane and charge it to the members. I start a new job this week so travel is out of the question.

However, if you want to meet me give Buzz a call and let him know you'd perfer my company as apposed to Ammans. I'd be all to happy to head out your way and organize that warehouse for the CAW. I've seen first hand how this so called "union" opperates when they think nobody is looking. Your a fool and that's really to bad. I could spend one week in Maple Grove and have 65% of that vote for the CAW and I can't tell you how badly I'd like to prove it. My abilities to talk to people and lead don't come accross on this web site. Be very careful what you ask for, and grow up.

  • posted by <erickson>
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 12:54pm

Unfortunately s Mcpherson I wish we could get you tohelp in person Aman is good but he is restricted from mgrove property I am willing to donate $500.00 for your trip here!!! Maybe you are on to something here!! We owe it to Canadian workers to expose the ufcw for what it really is again aman is good and thank goodness he is there for us. Again this is not a raid but a RESCUE erty!

  • posted by siggy
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 1:11pm

It might be relevant to point to a couple of things that stink in a contract, any contract.
1. When the contract is opened.

2. When a contract is opened because the employer wants to give the members more than the union negotiated in the first place.

Off hand, I can think of two recent examples where ufcw contracts have been opened. The agreements were opened to increase members take home without even a tussle from the big bad employer, the employer was on side both times.
If one looks at all the information, it looks more like the agreements were opened at the request of the employer, but I digress.

Ufcw 1518 opened its agreement in November of 2001 to allow lifting of the hours restriction of Junior clerks, re-shuffle new store and new banner (s)language and cancel all outstanding grievances, LRB Aplications and Arbitrations to that date.

There are other examples in the 1518 agreement, where it appears to be an open ended document, open at the employers end. Meat department language, pharmacy language and specialty department language all have addends that members never see/hear any details.

Another recent example is the Maple Leaf meat-packing plant in
Brandon Manitoba. This agreement was opened
to increase wages, to give some incentive to the employees. The company was having problems keeping workers. It was opened so workers would be more inclined to show up for their shift. Plain and simple!

Can anyone point to any CAW agreements that have been opened, where employers are so eager to up the ante in an already done deal?

UFCW contracts are getting to be like an old envelope, really hard to make stick!

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 2:29pm

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 3:43pm

Quote from DeMoN
. Scott_ufcw_Lester what have you done lately (as a union steward at Maplegrove) to try and address these issues? Or are you going to keep riding that "gravytrain" right through the station...... O.K DeMoN I understand what you are talking about but I have been do Stewert issues. curently I have been trying to Get Charles back to work, Ive been fightin B.S disiplines they have been pulling lately and I have been trying to keep people on the UFCW side
As for the gravy train I really dont know what you are talking about. If you are refering to the way I get loud at work well I apolige if it has offended you.
I know the tension at work is getting out of hand and hopefully it will be "back on track" soon.
If you feel my tatics at work are starting to piss people off then come talk to me about it and maybe again we can find a confortable middle!!!Your friend
Scott

  • posted by Troll
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 3:59pm

Scott_Lester, you won a couple of points with me for your last statement. No points for the UFCW, but point for you as a human being.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 3:59pm

Scotty Lester, for the first time I hear a sincerity in your words.
The way it sounds is familiar, although I am sure, not to the same degree as your workplace, I have seen this happen.

All this work you are doing and the frustration of the whole damn mess. Have you ever asked yourself what part of the work you are doing is work that should fall on your reps shoulders. Sounds to me like someone has left you out to dry. Just an observation.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 5:05pm

Pretty amazing what happens when workers talk directly with each other instead of through the official organs. Just an observation. Keep on talking.

  • posted by TheSportsWiz
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 8:30pm

THE LAST WORD

First of all I would like to apologize to anyone who felt slighted or offended by any comments I made. While you may feel they were personal they were not meant to be. They were simply, in my opinion, intended to be light hearted comments with a some humour.

I feel that we, as workers all want the same thing. We want to work, we want to get paid for doing said work, we want a safe workplace, we want our union to both take care of our short-term concerns and our long-term concerns.

Having said that, it is clear that "former" CAW members do not wish to even give the UFCW an opportunity to represent them. I say "former" because you ARE currently UFCW members, that is a fact. I have a question for you wanna-be CAW members. Be honest. The ONLY issue is the initial job selection process. Do you truly believe that IF all the jobs in the warehouse were re-posted that the CAW would walk away? Not a chance.

This area of this website isn't about anything but bashing. CAW bashes UFCW. UFCW bashes CAW. Honestly, anything good on here is lost in all the garbage don't you guys see that? It seems some people think that corruption is limited to ONE union. Other guys think corruption is limited to ANOTHER union. Some think corruption in one local of a union means other locals of that union are equally guilty.

Remember this also, unions are a business. They have revenues, expenses, budgets, goals, successes, and failures. That's a reality whether we like it or not. Having said that, the UFCW had negotiated rights to that building. Legally, it is theirs. Can you see Coca-Cola in a contract with Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment for rights to Air Canada Centre negotiating rights for any future sports arena built by that entity and then when that new sports arena is built giving up the rights to Pepsi because an arena Pepsi had rights to closed down in the area? No chance. Don't tell me its not the same thing. It is.

Whatever happens I wish you all the very best.

  • posted by TheSportsWiz
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 8:33pm

edit: Sorry sports wiz you can't have the

quote:


THE LAST WORD


twice !!!

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sat, Feb 9, 2002 10:26pm

"Scott_ufcw_Lester" When I asked you:

quote:


Scott_ufcw_Lester what have you done lately (as a union steward at Maplegrove) to try and address these issues? Or are you going to keep riding that "gravytrain" right through the station......


I was referring to the issues on the floor that are causing all the tension. I don't want to slight the issues that you mentioned, they're important too (especially Charles) I miss the crazy Jamaican :

quote:


As for the gravy train I really dont know what you are talking about.


The "gravy train" is what the original 1000a members will be riding while 10,20 and 30 year seniority members are sweating it out "picking orders" on the weekend shift, hoping they survive long enough to collect their pension.

quote:


If you feel my tatics at work are starting to piss people off then come talk to me about it and maybe again we can find a confortable middle!!!


It's the tactics of the UFCW as a whole that are "pissing people off". You're destroying any credibility you have with the members from the closing warehouses (we aren't stupid) and you're creating sheep out of the new employees that have never been in a union before. What the UFCW and it's loyal members (either officialy or unofficialy) are saying in the warehouse and in this forum are appalling. Here are a few of the best ones.
(1) The company will "close this warehouse" if the CAW get in here.
(2) The company will go "Third Party" if the CAW gets in here.
(3) You will only get paid $16-$19 (Full Time)if the CAW gets in here.
(4) You will only get paid $8 (Part Time)if the CAW gets in here.
(5) The company will "lock" us out if the CAW gets in here.
(6)You will freeze your ass off, "on the picket line" if the CAW gets in here.
(7) It's a recession and the company will make us take a wage cut if the CAW gets in here.
(8) Th CAW will negotiate 2 tier wages and make the 1000a members take the lower wages.
(9) The CAW hates part time workers.
(10) The CAW negotiated the Kitchener contract and thats what we will get here.
(11) The CAW members just want to put the 1000a members at the bottom of the seniority list and put themselves at the top.
(12) Tha CAW is for "Auto workers" the UFCW is for "food workers".
(13) The CAW is "Raiding" this warehouse.
(14) The 1000a members protected the workers from the other warehouses.
(15) You're lucky we even gave you jobs in here.
(16) I have 2 years seniority, i've paid my dues, I deserve this job (Days,Mon.-Fri. prime)
(17) We were just protecting our jobs when we took your work!

I could go on for pages but I think you get the message.
If you truly cared about us we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the UFCW would have done what was best for the "brother" losing his work then there probably wouldn't be a vote......

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 2:11am

Demon that's one of your best posts...good work.

quote:


unions are a business. They have revenues, expenses, budgets, goals, successes, and failures. That's a reality whether we like it or not.


Wiz, if you and I can agree on nothing else please tell me there is a chance I can still reach you on this point. UNIONS ARE NOT A BUSINESS.

Yes fiscal responcibility is very important but the bottom line for the union as an organization should never, ever take precident over the will of the membership. And in the UFCW it always seems that way.

"at the end of the day" how many times have we all hear that? And no Wiz, it doesn't have to be a reality. We can change it if we have the will to do so. While reforming the UFCW is not a realistic option, forming a new and better union is and it's just a signature away if we as working people have the courage to do it.

I believe unionism is a state of mind, not a membership in an exclusive club one has to pay to get and stay in. I believe the best representatives of working people are themselves. I believe group collaboration and the free exchange of ideas is a better more effective alternative to our current top down Governing structure. I believe a union is family of workers... never a business. And we should always conduct ourselves accordingly.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 7:17am

quote:


I believe unionism is a state of mind


That's beautious Scott.

Union is also a sense of community.

Union = an organization which facilitates the particular needs of that community.

  • posted by HJFinnamore
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 8:00am

I think DeMoN said:

quote:


...and you're creating sheep out of the new employees that have never been in a union before.


I was in the discussions with loblaws for the opening of the Vancouver distribution centre. The distribution centre was recognized as the "heart" of the BC Supersotre retail system. If the heart stopped beating, the system might crash.

As a UFCW official, working under the direction of very senior officials, I worked with Loblaws personnel to create a system that was raid-proof and strike proof.

The warehouse complex was huge. One building had a 120,000 sq. ft. Superstore on its roof. Only unskilled, non-union people were to be hired. Much discussion went on about whether to use a unionized trucking company to do the hauling. Women were hired into warehouse jobs that paid big bucks to what they were ever used to. As many jobs as possible were to be part time to maximize "spin" of employees.

Areas were split into "cells" so that employees would be segregated and less likely to communicate. There was talk about moving the odd person from the warehouse into the stores and from the stores into the warehouse, so that the argument could be made that anyone who wanted to raid had to take the province because the units weren't separate and therefore inappropriate for collective bargaining.

When another union tried to organize the non-union supervisors, we immediately applied to the LRB for "certification" for all units. Up to that point all units except for the "seed" store were voluntarily recognized. The deal was made that if push came to shove that we would fight to have the supervisors rolled into our unit, so that another union wouldn't get a foot hold.

The hiring was carefully planned. No one, union or company, wanted people hired with a lot of union experience. No union experience was preferable. Keep the hours low and never give hope that the job may work into something that could support a family or buy a fancy car. Keep the view that the job is worthless and temporary. Few will fight for something that is worthless. Even fewer will fight for something that will be gone in a few months or upon graduation.

The employer and the union looked very closely at McDonalds hiring practices. They work extremely well for McDonalds, and they can work well for anyone who can work them as well.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 8:12am

Thanks "Scott Mcpherson" for the compliment, i'm sure the fact that, TheSportsWiz,Scott_ufcw_Lester and HOLLYWOOD turned down the "UFCW Rhetoric" and started an intelligent discussion made all the difference. The atmosphere in here is totally different and it's very much appreciated by all.

Now, back to business.....
"TheSportsWiz" you said,

quote:


it is clear that "former" CAW members do not wish to even give the UFCW an opportunity to represent them.


Maplegrove has been open since August, 15/2001 and you've had plenty of time to show us what you're made of. The "Union Stewards" on the floor have little or no Knowledge of a "Collective Agreement" thats essentially unchanged since "1994". When they try to interpret a section of the C.A. they argue over who's right and then the supervisor says his interpretation is right! The grievance procedure is for lack of a better word, "a joke". I know since I put in 2 grievances on Oct./2001 and I know others from Kitchener who did the same. Just trying to get a grievance filled was a nightmare, "can it wait till tomorrow", "we don't have any grievence forms", "I don't know how to fill one out", "whats a grievence form" and my favorite (drums rolling) "Is that one of those 1st stage, 2nd stage, 3rd stage things? Well we don't do that here, we have a good relationship with the company and don't need to fill out forms"! After numerous compaints about the grievance procedure we were told, the stewards were not allowed to fill out grievances and the information would be forwarded to "Brian Reid" or "Don Taylor" for them to fill out (can you say "Disempower"). The 2 grievences I put in (after weeks of badgering) and the other Kitchener members are still unanswered. I still don't have copies of the original grievances or of the company responce. This is typical of every grievance filed so far!

quote:


I have a question for you wanna-be CAW members. Be honest. The ONLY issue is the initial job selection process. Do you truly believe that IF all the jobs in the warehouse were re-posted that the CAW would walk away? Not a chance.


Thats a bit of a contradiction isn't it? On the one hand you say that the only issue we have is the initial job selection, but on the other hand you say that if those issues were gone the CAW would still be supported. Isn't that just an excuse to ignore the issues and keep following the same rocky road? Get your head out of the sand and face the issues!

quote:


Honestly, anything good on here is lost in all the garbage don't you guys see that?


One persons garbage could be another persons jewel. It's all a matter of opinion and you have yours.

quote:


Having said that, the UFCW had negotiated rights to that building. Legally, it is theirs.


Yes "legally" it is, untill that legality is challenged. Legally, the CAW (or any other union) can challenge the UFCW's "Auto Recognition" at Maplegrove. The CAW has proven that right in more than a few other similar cases (Coca-Cola Bottling comes to mind). It's sad that you only look at this as a "legal" issue and not a "Moral" one. If you were to go into the streets and poll 1000 people from all walks of life and explain the situation at Maplegrove, that the responce might be less than favourable to the UFCW.

quote:


Can you see Coca-Cola in a contract with Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment for rights to Air Canada Centre negotiating rights for any future sports arena built by that entity and then when that new sports arena is built giving up the rights to Pepsi because an arena Pepsi had rights to closed down in the area? No chance. Don't tell me its not the same thing. It is.


I'm not even going to dignify that statement with a responce. When you start equating, moral and human rights to a can of coke then you're a lost cause!

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 8:59am

"HJFinnamore" thanks for the info:

quote:


I was in the discussions with loblaws for the opening of the Vancouver distribution centre. The distribution centre was recognized as the "heart" of the BC Supersotre retail system. If the heart stopped beating, the system might crash.


You seem to have the inside scoop on how "Loblaws" and their "Partner Union" work TOGETHER to reach the same goal. I can see a lot of what you said happening in Maplegrove right now.

quote:


As many jobs as possible were to be part time to maximize "spin" of employees.
Areas were split into "cells" so that employees would be segregated and less likely to communicate.
The hiring was carefully planned. No one, union or company, wanted people hired with a lot of union experience. No union experience was preferable. Keep the hours low and never give hope that the job may work into something that could support a family or buy a fancy car. Keep the view that the job is worthless and temporary. Few will fight for something that is worthless. Even fewer will fight for something that will be gone in a few months or upon graduation.


Please tell us more.....

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 9:05am

A message to the sports-wiz You better UNDERSTAND U are a namless faceless agressor
unto to me U better make amends b4 I find out who you are a typed personal apology best be
coming for YOUR OWN WELL-BEING
JUSTICE for my new OPPRESSED bros&sis's
I JOHN ERICKSON will NEVER stop
FIGHTING FOR what I FEEL
THEY DESERVE
THAT IS MY TRUE SINCERITY

  • posted by HJFinnamore
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 10:38am

DeMoN, I'll fill you in a little later, but before I do, I want to comment on a guy named "Ric" who seems to think that I have something to hide. Here's just one of many e-mails I've received from him:

quote:


Oh my my my. Once upon a time a boy named Hughie got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, double dipping and so he changed colours and set out to be a hero. But alas, a leopard can't change his spots, you can't teach an old dog new tricks and all those other cliches ruled.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ric <????@????.ca>
To: Steve ????? <????@sympatico.ca>
Cc: workplace@telus.net <workplace@telus.net>
Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:11 PM
Subject: Kid Rock Here

Hughie,

In a wonderful intimate exchange of information between you on the left coast and Stevie on the right coast (you guys are bi coastal but let's leave that alone for now), you stated as can see below,
"... Ric is a pesky guy. He's been trying to get me to put a noose around my
neck for months, ..." Now Hughie, what noose is it you are referring to? What is it you are worried about? What angst have you within? Your statement suggests that you have done something wrong, illegal, illicit, undignified, unethical (you look in the mirror then pick one) and are concerned that I might get you to expose yourself. That was never my intention for I had nary a thought of thou being such a complicated being. However, thou doth exposed thyself it seems.

Hughie what evil hath you wrought upon your fellow man in your prior career that makes you so bitter so vengeful that thou would commit your total efforts to attacking the very organization that helped clothe you, feed you, and shelter you. Do you do this to justify your existence?

Otherwise have a pleasant day and if you decide to drop in to your local Starbucks I recommend the Vente Soy Latte. It is OUT-FREAKIN'-STANDING !


The reason why I even take the time to bring this crap to anybody's attention is because it's so common.

None of these guys has the guts or brains to defend anything mentioned in the following pages:First Interview or Second Interview or The Secret Contract or How Loblaws and the UFCW Created a "special" LocalWho actually signed the First 777 rag.

What really galls me is the stupid comment about the UFCW clothing, feeding and sheltering me. However, if you look and think about what Ric (he writes a lot like Sports_Wiz)says, you'll see what a sick relationship exists between many UFCW cheerleaders and the benevolent machine heads. They truly think that they do nothing and in return, the machine will take care of all your worldly needs.

I want all of you to think about the stupidity of what Ric said. I couldn't be bought by the machine heads. I did some stupid things while they rented me, and when I saw what was really up, I'm the one who blew the whistle. I'm the one who sued them. When I wouldn't "back off" I was fired. Yup, Fired. They accused me of all sorts of improprieties. They've stood up at union meetings and defamed me with lies. They've leafletted their members who were leaving to go with the CSN, telling them that I was a criminal. They tried the same shit with their Writ of Summons that they filed when they sued me to try and shut me up. (BTW, the buggers won't proceed with the damned suit. In fact they have totally ignored my 12 page demand for discovery of documents.)However, they did give me a real nice car, some odd jobs to do, and a steady income for four years after I was fired.

Think about it: You don't pay somebody money and give them all sorts of other stuff and have them work for you for another four years if you have "cause" to fire them. Think, real hard about it. Ric doesn't want to.

For some reason Ric and this clan think I'm standing up for the Power Souce now for the first time. Here's something more to think about: I sued the UFCW using my own money while still employed by them. I launched a number of law suits using my own money. The minute I asked about "where's the money gone and what was it used for," I was shipped to Alberta away from my wife and infant son. I was kept out of my home province for over to three months and then shipped to Nova Scotia. I was asked, "What will it take to make you back off?" and I said "nothing." I was flown to Montreal the next day and left to sit in the Hilton for a day, and then fired the following day.

My supposed crime? I walked out of my hotel room in Calgary (six weeks before my termination)parked my rental car at the airport and with my own money, I paid my airfare home to be with my wife and baby boy for the long weekend. I was not scheduled to work and my cell phone was on all weekend should anybody need me. I didn't receive one call, but there were plenty of "hang-ups" (clicks) on my hotel phone message box. Not once was I called. However, it was no secret that I had gone home. I actually phoned a UFCW rep to tell him I was delayed in Vancouver and I spoke with a Loblaws subsidiary president in the airport lounge on the way back to Calgary. He wasted no time in reporting to the UFCW that I was in Vancouver. BTW, I could be back in Calgary within two hours notice if need be.

I could have parked my car at any parking lot and stayed with a friend in Red Deer rather than using my hotel room for all they cared, but because they didn't give me permission to leave province, they decided six weeks later that I should leave.

Did they even ask me about it? Nope! Did they ask for an explanation? Nope! Did I do anything different than other's had done before? Perhaps, others sneak out of province, but others have never had the balls to sue for what's right for the Power Source.

So there now Ric. There's nothin' that I'm trying to hide. And even if I was, what the hell would it have to do with the facts that I provide?

[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: HJFinnamore ]

  • posted by cmon
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 11:42am

Sorry fellas, you won't catch me in the garbage slinging.

A couple of points of interest. Has anyone pulled out the current collective agreement at Maple Grove? Has anyone followed the current collective agreement at Maple Grove?
The current job selection sheets is in direct violation of the collective agreement. Where does it say a full rebid under the job posting language? If a position is available, it gets posted globally. Was that done or does the company have extreme flexibility? If none of the positions are applied for then the part timers have their opportunity, seniority and then the three point criterium. The collective agreemnet was not followed.

Secondly, for quite some time, myself and fellow employees were looking to file a grievance. Why we were unable to is that the current appointed stewards didn't have grievance forms. Why? One of the reasons why is step #1 in the collective agreemnet for grievance procedure. After the initial step #1 you work you way down the step and end right back up to discussing the grievance at hand. Therefore, no paper can be filed. Oooops, how did that clause get in there?

Lastly, CAW or UFCW supporter, we have to work along side of each other for quite some time. We aren't the issue, the company is. Solidarity and the strentgh of everyone is extremely powerful. United we stand and divided were toast.

Thanks for reading.

  • posted by cmon
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 11:48am

I forgot one very important piece. There will be a vote, your democratic right, and labour law correct, buty before we do, all that I personally ask is that we are all educated to the issues. We personally have to weigh the facts and overlook the mudslinging. It is everyone's future at Maple Grove. How can one possibly vote intelligently, no different than government elections, if we can't by pass the un-factual information about both the CAW and UFCW. Do your homework and don't worry about personal egos. United we stand and divided we fall. We can drop to our knees and accept the way things are handed to us or stand and be counted.

Thanks for reading.

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 11:50am

Regards to my Sports-Wiz brother Thanks for
easing the tension between us.Looking forward
to lunch and in-person communication on tues.
HOLLYWOOD please find me so we can talk in
person,no ill-toward!! Again cheers to Mr. sports-wiz

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 12:09pm

John E. I'm pleading with you not to go there. This forum is just starting to take the shape of usefull discussion please don't poison the well. Sportswiz's words are just that. I'm sure it's hard to brush off but that's going to happen form time to time on this forum. People say nasty stuff. For the good of the discussion and the good of your fellow workers I'm asking you to be the better man and brush this off and stick to the high ground? It's your choice but I think your a strong enough individual to walk away from it and still save face.

  • posted by Troll
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 12:11pm

Was there something wrong with John's post? I thought he sounded sincere.

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 12:12pm

Looks like your way ahead of me John. Thanks I knew you were a good man.

troll; 'U better make amends b4 I find out who you are'

It's not John, he had a right to be angry. It was me, I read that and I was just worried about how it could be taken and where it might lead that's all. John took care of it on his own so I wish I wouldn't have said anything.

[ 02-10-2002: Message edited by: Scott Mcpherson ]

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 3:08pm

The CAW puts more members through intensive
education programs in 1 month than all other
CLC members do in a whole year!
Education is our greatest asset!
When the SEIU dispute was on it is in my
opinion that BUZZ put his neck out for the
Canadian working persons RIGHT to DEMOCRACY
I think Buzz is sincere in the fight for the
betterment of all working Canadians!
I would like to see the stats on where ALL
CLC $$$$$ comes from!

  • posted by HJFinnamore
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 4:14pm

This is in answer to DeMoN's request that I expand on my earlier post on page 13 where I said:

quote:


... As many jobs as possible were to be part time to maximize "spin" of employees. Areas were split into "cells" so that employees would be segregated and less likely to communicate. The hiring was carefully planned. No one, union or company, wanted people hired with a lot of union experience. No union experience was preferable. Keep the hours low and never give hope that the job may work into something that could support a family or buy a fancy car. Keep the view that the job is worthless and temporary. Few will fight for something that is worthless. Even fewer will fight for something that will be gone in a few months or upon graduation....


A very senior Loblaws official told me "they're here for a good time, not a long time." In an arbitration I conducted, I had the same official on the stand and I was questioning him about the company wanting to have employees quit. I mentioned that it was advantageous to have the spin at the "bottom" but he corrected me and said "no, we want the spin at the top because the expense was greater for top rated employees."

I was told that the company wanted to create an employee profile that was conducive to spin. There was talk about using retirees wherever possible because they just wanted suplimental income (they never did implement that one), or students serious about a career doing something other than warehousing or retail work. I was told that they didn't even want the supervisors hanging around for too long. They get burned out pretty fast, you know.

If someone were asked what they wanted to do with his or her life, and if he or she said I want to work here forever, I was led to understand that they probably wouldn't be offered employment. I drove by the Vancouver warehouse a few months ago and saw a sign promising to pay something like a $1 thousand dollars bonus to anyone who would accept part-time employment in the warehouse. In my mind it was an indicator of how desparate they were to keep from having to offer full-time jobs.

In discussions about how to keep the warehouse raid-proof, the company designed a "cell" system to segregate employee groups. Posting between cells was prohibited and seniority was by cell. As well, with so many part-timers, the shifts were staggered so that some workers would never even lay eyes on each other. We figured that such a system would stifle communication and interaction between cells and this make it harder for any other union to raid the warehouse. As the union, our idea was to move some people periodically from the warehouse to the stores and from the stores to the warehouse. That would also make it harder to say the warehouse was a stand-alone operation. Even though the company was enthusiastic about the idea, I don't think it was ever implemented.

There were some people hired who had minimal union experience, but they were few and far between. Most of the people who were hired came from relatively low-paying employment, so they were happy with the pay and they had no idea that other grocery warehouses were making much more.

I did say to the Loblaws official, "the only reason you have this union here is to keep a real union out," and he said words to the effect, "so what's your point?"

The big difference between what NG is doing and what I was involved in is that the company contracted out all of its distribution. They kept it contracted out until all CAs were dead and any claim to successorship had died.

The surprising thing is that UFCW Local 2000 had the company's warehouses before. The contract was premium in every way. It was replaced by a rag when the company took over its own distribution again. And now Local 777 has merged with Local 2000 to form the very new Local 247 (that's "Twenty-Four-Seven" just like the warehouse operation. How witty!).

The warehouse employees, as I understood it, have been told that they can now bargain separately from the retail stores. They probably can, but they can't strike independently because they are part of a 6000-member bargaining unit made up of part timers. Unless the UFCW goes to the Labour Board and is able to out argue the company that the warehouse should get it's own certification, they are stuck being the tail trying to wag the dog.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not berating Loblaws. They run a tight ship and make enormous profits. They know how to run a business profitably. Their managers do what they are trained to do. You know exactly where they are coming from and where they are going. They have performed brilliantly. And you've seen others post here that they don't want to deal with the CAW. If I were them, I wouldn't want to either. Things are fine just as they are&#8212;thank you very much.

[ 02-10-2002: Message edited by: HJFinnamore ]

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 4:45pm

Welcome London 4 CAW !! A couple questions I
have for you 1:Are you ready for your new
workplace?
2:Are many of the London guys moving to the Cambridge area???

3: Did you know we are fighting for a polling station in your London warehouse for the vote
4 id anyone get in trouble for the CAW encouragement on a produce load I received last week.I think one of your new brothers
encouraged digital photographs of the load!
Warn your bros we have a RAT clause in our
Mgrove agreement! Again welcome aboard your
neighbour in St.Thomas Johnny ERICKSON

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 5:47pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John-CAW4MAPLEGROVE-Erickson:

3: Did you know we are fighting for a polling station in your London warehouse for the vote

I was in London doing some Organizing about a month ago. We want the london People to vote as well as Fortinos in Hamilton and anyone else who is coming over.

I seen first hand what these workers are concerned with and we can Provide it.

John are you trying to say that we don't want these people to vote or are you trying to make it look that way?

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 6:28pm

Sorry Mr.Lester what I meant is we want to
make it as convenient as possible for them to
vote! What is the # of fortino guys coming
over??? I hear they are coming then I hear they are not! What do you think of the 65%
raise for our officials?? Bad timing for
a raise after a contradictory contract!!
What I mean is the St.Thomas Zehrs people
are not too happy!! Last week or the week
before 8 part-timers had 0 hours for the wk.
I was also told they have a three tier pay
scale! About going on stike at Mgrove I doubt
it!!Locked out will not happen!
Why do you think the company is so adamant on
dealing with the ufcw?
How much does reid & taylor make??
Did you know the girl on the phone at the
union office makes more than our slugging
members!! Do you really think the members can
fight for betterment under ufcw?
Do you ever feel bad for for senior guys
from Chatham or Kitchener getting downgraded
1st. Will you help us change that?
Will you push for a full re-post of all jobs!
I feel we should have done it different right
from the beginning!Scott did you know Pinebush created a new shift when we posted
out/ 4/10hr. shifts consecutive days??
Some guys felt betrayed when we questioned this and reid tells us nope you guys signed for Mgrove you're gone!! Six part-timers just
onto full-time got the preferred shift over
us long-time members! I think we had legitimate beef/cause the shift never existed
before!!Union rules hurting their own members by way of RESTRICTIONS! NO FLEX I think we was WRONGED!!!One last Q is Corporan worth
his salary???

  • posted by JUST THE FACTS
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 6:51pm

This is from a CAW Infomation Bulletin dated January 17, 2002:

Quote:

"Our members are familiar on how our programs operate and are not scared to speak out if they disagree. We don't hide!"

Then why do ex-CAW members who wish to become UFCW members and remain UFCW members state they are afraid of current CAW members finding out that they are pro UFCW. Don't ask for names as you know these people demand confidentiality.

Quote:

"National Grocers will not be in any position to try and ask for any concessions in future bargaining. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that after they close a number of locations, they rely and need all of you more than ever."

This is ludicrous. National Grocers (LCE) has four other warehouses to do the work if the need arises.

Quote:

"John Aman
National Representative
CAW - Canada"

When and where was he ELECTED to his position?

YOU ASKED US TO BRING IT ON. IT'S BEEN BRUNG. AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.

  • posted by JUST THE FACTS
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 7:06pm

January 11, 2002 by Cheryl Stepan TORSTAR NEWS SERVICE

Quote:

"The closure of the Hamilton stores leaves nine Barn locations and affects 480 employees. Brummer said there might be work for some, but most would have to re-apply."

Is the CAW going to acknowlege the seniority of those workers moving to their warehouses? Here is the answer which is NO.

As per the CAW Collective Agreement:

"3.02 Employees of the G.A. Love Distribution Centre who were full-time as of the date of acquisition shall be credited with a permanent seniority date of January 15, 2000 and with their full service date with G.A Love shall be utilized for the purpose of vacation and benefits."

That agreement means some people lost 16 years' seniority.

BRINGING IT.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 7:16pm

Oh Sports_Wiz, stop it!

The CAW says you will be strong, and you argue how weak you are. "Help, help, we will be crushed if we resist NG!"

You can't supply fact, so you just had to throw a dig in at John Aman. Who gives a rats ass where he came from. Who the hell elected Corporon when he first got the Prez's job? There now, we're even!

Your message is loud and clear, "NG is too powerful to fight, so roll over and save your lives."

And don't be such a chicken shit, Sports_Wiz. we don't expect you to use your real name, but don't go usin' Just the Facts to try and confuse.

  • posted by JUST THE FACTS
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 7:33pm

LOCKED-OUT CASINO WORKERS DISAPPOINTED WITH UNION

Vancouver Sun, February 05, 2002 by David Hogben

After seven months on the picket line, workers locked out of their jobs at Royal Diamond Casino in Vancouver have turned their frustrations on the union that cut off their picket pay.

"We wouldn't have joined a union. We talked about that today," Courtney Morris, 26, said after a protest at the Canadian Auto Workers offices in New Westminister.

Only about 15 workers turned out for the protest Monday, but Morris said dissatisfaction with the union is widespread.

[WHERE ARE THOSE FEARLESS AUTO WORKERS? WHY DON'T THEY STAND TOGETHER?]

Even CAW national representative Kevin Hancock acknowledges he was surprised when the CAW's Toronto headquarters made a decision not to give the locked-out casino workers any more benefits beyond what they received from July 15 to Feb. 1.

Another member, dealer Jodi Murphy, 29, said .. "many union members were shocked to hear the CAW reneged on the picket pay"

[CAW SEEMS TO HAVE ABANDONED THEIR MEMBERS. WHERE IS THE SELF-PROCLAIMED KING OF THE CAW, SCOTT MACPERSON IN ALL THIS? WHY DOESN'T HE DO THERE IN HIS OWN BACKYARD WHAT HE CLAIMS HE COULD DO IF HE CAME TO MAPLE GROVE?]

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 7:37pm

QUOTE FROM JOHN E
What I mean is the St.Thomas Zehrs people
are not too happy!!

I believe thats local 1977.........I have a member of my family thats working there let me call him on Monday and I will have a response to it
If you want to know who it is i will talk to you in person tomorrow

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 7:39pm

Let's start a bad PR thread, and we can have a contest to see how many articles we can find on the CAW and the UFCW. Sports_Wiz, rest assured, you'll lose.

  • posted by Shadow
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 7:49pm

Hey if you're talking to somebody from Local 1977, ask how they're feeling about the 65% pay hikes Pres Brian Williamson and the exec gave themselves last year. Have the members gotten over it yet? That's another bunch that should really learn to learn to "accept" things.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Sun, Feb 10, 2002 10:40pm

"JUST THE FACTS" My god, would you even recognize the facts if you tripped over them?

quote:


Quote:

"National Grocers will not be in any position to try and ask for any concessions in future bargaining. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that after they close a number of locations, they rely and need all of you more than ever."

This is ludicrous. National Grocers (LCE) has four other warehouses to do the work if the need arises.


I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, I suggest getting a new source.

The only number you got right is how many warehouses could do "SOME" of the work in case of a work stoppage at Maple Grove. As for them actually being able to do even a "SMALL" percentage of that work is just more "smoke and mirrors" on your part.

(1) Sudbury is too small and too far away to do any of the work!

(2) Peterburough is too small to do more than a few stores and doesn't carry the products exclusive to Loblaws or Fortinos.

(3) ottawa is too far to do more than a handfull of the closer stores (even the closest store is a 4-5 hour drive)

(4) Erin Mills is at capacity and would like to send more stores to MapleGrove!

I would say they could (at most) do 25-35 stores using the other warehouses but that still leaves well over 100 unserviced stores.
Hmmm.... not so great for business!

quote:


Quote:

"The closure of the Hamilton stores leaves nine Barn locations and affects 480 employees. Brummer said there might be work for some, but most would have to re-apply."


What you forgot to say was that most of the workers were from UFCW represented stores!

This right from UFCW Local 175's website:

quote:


A&P Closes Three Barn Stores - Jan 18th, 2002
On Thursday January 10, A&P announced to approximately 340 Local 175 members that they would be closing 3 of the original Barn Market grocery stores in Hamilton.
In light of single store seniority Local 175 negotiated an enhanced severance package for both full and part-time members who will be affected by the closings. The severance package will be three times greater than what is required under the Employment Standards Act (ESA), with no minimum requirements. For example under the provisions of the ESA, persons who lose their jobs must have a minimum of 5 years service in order to be paid one-week severance for every year worked up to a maximum of 26 weeks. Barn store workers severance will also not be capped at 26 weeks. Through our negotiations A&P has also committed to providing preferential hiring upon need at other A&P banners (i.e., A&P, Food Basics, Dominion)

At The Rymal Road location, which is scheduled for a conversion to a Food Basics store, the Local Union has negotiated 5 full-time opportunities by seniority to be carried into the new Food Basics location. All remaining employees would be entitled to opportunities at the new Food Basics store and still be entitled to a severance package of 1.5 times their years of service.

"In addition to negotiating a severance package for the members, Local 175 will be setting up an Employment Adjustment Committee ensuring those members are aware of all the resources and programs are available to them. We will continue to work for them ensuring that other employment opportunities will be available for them." said Local 175 President Wayne Hanley.


Are those the "FACTS" you were talking about?

quote:


Is the CAW going to acknowlege the seniority of those workers moving to their warehouses? Here is the answer which is NO.

As per the CAW Collective Agreement:

"3.02 Employees of the G.A. Love Distribution Centre who were full-time as of the date of acquisition shall be credited with a permanent seniority date of January 15, 2000 and with their full service date with G.A Love shall be utilized for the purpose of vacation and benefits."

That agreement means some people lost 16 years' seniority.


The first mistake you made, was to Quote "section 3.02" which isn't from the G.A. Love Collective Agreement but from the A&P Toronto Warehouse, CAW Local 414 Collective Agreement.

The second mistake was trying to compare the A&P situation with Maple Grove. Maple Grove was a new warehouse being filled with workers from 5 closing warehouses.

G.A. Love workers were allowed to enter an existing CAW warehouse and carry 2 years seniority with them.

If "NON" 1000a members that came to Maple Grove try to post into an "existing" 1000a warehouse we carry seniority back to Aug. 1/2001 (the date we became UFCW 1000a members)

I would say the A&P CAW members were very generous to workers coming into an existing warehouse, compared to the UFCW giving Maple Grove workers "NO" seniority in existing 1000a warehouses!

Please get the "FACTS" right next time you "THINK" you know something!

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 12:09am

After I read this article it sounds like the C.A.W likes to raid other Unions and then claim "Its Not A Raid" Call it what it is A RAID!!!!!

Sharleen Stewart, the newly-appointed SEIU international vice president, said that "the current raid by the CAW has touched off one of the greatest crises in modern Canadian labor history." Stewart accuses the CAW of "planned and deliberate destruction of inter-union solidarity" and "cannibalizing already organized workers instead of trying to reach Ontario's hundreds of thousands of unorganized workers."

Other unions have joined in rejecting the CAW's actions. Fears abound of raiding wars, of the risk that the labor movement is incapable of acting collectively--in short, of a debilitating rift that can no longer be bridged.

The CAW maintains, however, that the split has been present for years. It says that there is a fundamental disagreement as to a direction and strategy for labor.

What is at stake here this is not just the issue of raiding, the CAW claims. In supporting the dissident SEIU locals, the CAW says it is also upholding the right of Canadian workers to self-determination and national autonomy.

Hargrove says he is shocked that the Canadian unions in the CLC have not chosen to send a united message to international unions that Canadian workers must have the right to leave an international union and join a Canadian union. He points out that 70 percent of Canadian unionized workers belonged to international unions ten years ago. Now only 30 percent do.

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 12:10am

To read the whole article please go to http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2000/0800/0800.html

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 12:11am

Heres the heading its sounds right to me....

Auto Workers Sanctioned Over Raiding Charges
Split Threatens Canadian Labor

by Marsha Niemeijer

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 12:45am

Just when I thought people were starting to leave the crap behind and talk about the issues.

Just the facts... you don't know what your even talking about. Your actually bringing up Aman not being elected [and I don't if he was or not] Ivan Limpright here in 1518 was just appointed sec-tres. He's never been elected to that $136,000 a year office and he and I talked about his "appointment" at Rickys Rest. here in Cloverdale back in late '97 when he was still my business agent. Big surprise.

I doubt anybody in the UFCW ever gets "elected" into their positions strait away unless they actually manage to beat an emcumbent. The rest have their positions handed to them. You fools think this site does nothing but trash the UFCW? we barely scratch the surface. It would take too much time and energy to bring up everything these guys do. The list of dirty deeds is endless pal. And that really is the facts.

You should get back to the discussion at hand and stay away from the mud slinging. Your out gunned and your almost out of bullets while we're still armed to the teeth.

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 6:29am

"HJFinnamore" thanks for the insight into what really goes on behind closed doors! It can be disheartening to see the extent of the collusion between Loblaws and their choice of "parner union",but it makes my resolve to get the UFCW out of Maple Grove that much stronger!

Thanks for your time and effort

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 6:34am

hey Scott_ufcw_Lester!

quote:


I was in London doing some Organizing about a month ago. We want the london People to vote as well as Fortinos in Hamilton and anyone else who is coming over.


I'm surprised that the UFCW would want London or Fortinos to have a vote, knowing that well over 90% of their members want the UFCW out as much as we do!

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 9:51am

quote:


Originally posted by DeMoN:

I'm surprised that the UFCW would want London or Fortinos to have a vote, knowing that well over 90% of their members want the UFCW out as much as we do![/QB]


Who the hell did you get your numbers from?.........someone is giving you B.S or its hopefull wishing! I have been out in the feild . HAVE YOU? too see this first hand

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 10:22am

Scott_ufcw_Lester, I know my numbers are right..... You can believe anything you want!

  • posted by cmon
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 3:13pm

I'm still waiting for an answer on my post dated Suday Feb 10. Why doesn't the UFCW file grievances or why doesn't the UFCW stewards carry grievance forms and why doesn't the ufcw or the company follow yet alone carry the Maple Grove collective agreement.

Thanks for any response.
Keep up the educational conversations Mr. Erickson

  • posted by John Erickson
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 3:44pm

Buzz is for real!
I must be brain-washed or just out to lunch!
Buzz for Prime Minister of CANADA
Lunch on you Sports-Wiz tuespm See You There!

  • posted by <"In My Opinion">
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 6:46pm

Demon,

Buddy ....get a Life.......and by the way "IT IS A RAID".....that is why "Teamsters in not on board with this action by CAW".

Quote:
The only number you got right is how many warehouses could do "SOME" of the work in case of a work stoppage at Maple Grove. As for them actually being able to do even a "SMALL" percentage of that work is just more "smoke and mirrors" on your part.
(1) Sudbury is too small and too far away to do any of the work!
(2) Peterburough is too small to do more than a few stores and doesn't carry the products exclusive to Loblaws or Fortinos.
(3) ottawa is too far to do more than a handfull of the closer stores (even the closest store is a 4-5 hour drive)
(4) Erin Mills is at capacity and would like to send more stores to MapleGrove!
I would say they could (at most) do 25-35 stores using the other warehouses but that still leaves well over 100 unserviced stores. Hmmm.... not so great for business!

This is a Company that will challenge "ANY" union if it is faced with one. May I remind you of 1994. Which I believe KITCHENER accepted a (2) tier wage scale and a rake over the coals in language as well. My guess is you were on the tier 1 scale and sold out "potential" brothers to save your own ass.

" Don't bother saying that it wasn't the CAW who negotiated that agreement, as the same staff that negotiated that agreement are currently employed by CAW" read the CAW web site or call them.

NG has enough Warehouses to operate with out a problem and "YOUR" facts are as per usual half truth.

1. Erin Mills
2. Servayor's
3. Cambridge GM
4. Sudbury
5. Fortino's
6. Sudbury
7. Ottawa
8. Peterburough

Let us not forget that there are other empty warehouses that could become operational if needed. Let me guess you would probably become employed at one of those if asked and count your lucky stars that you have a pay cheque while leaving your brothers and sisters on the picket line.

Don't think that the company is not aware of what is happening and has a plan if needed. This is not fear monger but a "REALITY". It is a fact of labour.

Quote:

I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, I suggest getting a new source.

I suggest you do the same buddy!

Quote:
What you forgot to say was that most of the workers were from UFCW represented stores!

What is your point about this. The issue at hand is what had happened to the warehouse workers
Can you read yet? Just to help you here is a Quote so you can read it over again and get the point.
I think it is self explanatory to see the help that UFCW had done in favor of the affected employees compared to the CAW.

Quote:

Is the CAW going to acknowlege the seniority of those workers moving to their warehouses? Here is the answer which is NO. As per the CAW Collective Agreement: "3.02 Employees of the G.A. Love Distribution Centre who were full-time as of the date of acquisition shall be credited with a permanent seniority date of January 15, 2000 and with their full service date with G.A Love shall be utilized for the purpose of vacation and benefits." That agreement means some people lost 16 years' seniority.

What was not mentioned was that the CAW negotiated only a "1 week" per year of service severance for it's members.

Seems to me like most of the CAW closure agreements that they forget about the members because they are no longer going to pay dues so the "Who Cares" applies.

I think it is self explanatory to see the help that UFCW had done in favor of the affected employees compared to the CAW.

Quote:

"In addition to negotiating a severance package for the members, Local 175 will be setting up an Employment Adjustment Committee ensuring those members are aware of all the resources and programs are available to them. We will continue to work for them ensuring that other employment opportunities will be available for them." said Local 175 President Wayne Hanley.

Hmmmmmm......Guess it is apparent that UCFW has the "Does Care" application compared to CAW.

Quote:

The first mistake you made, was to Quote "section 3.02" which isn't from the G.A. Love Collective Agreement but from the A&P Toronto Warehouse, CAW Local 414 Collective Agreement.
The second mistake was trying to compare the A&P situation with Maple Grove. Maple Grove was a new warehouse being filled with workers from 5 closing warehouses.
G.A. Love workers were allowed to enter an existing CAW warehouse and carry 2 years seniority with them.
If "NON" 1000a members that came to Maple Grove try to post into an "existing" 1000a warehouse we carry seniority back to Aug. 1/2001 (the date we became UFCW 1000a members)
I would say the A&P CAW members were very generous to workers coming into an existing warehouse, compared to the UFCW giving Maple Grove workers "NO" seniority in existing 1000a warehouses!
Please get the "FACTS" right next time you "THINK" you know something!

I will respond to each sentence/response with a number. For you Demon the 1st being "the first mistake"sentence, the 2nd being the second mistake sentence etc.......I hope you can fallow....The purpose is, so that the readers know that you are not a credible and educated person as you try to appear with your twisted half truth's.

1.Good catch if the "3.02" is from the A&P warehouse. It shows that you can read when you want to.

2. Again you are not as smart as you want to be. Maple Grove was not being filled with 5 closing warehouses. It was being filled with existing UFCW members and originally new hires as the company see fit. Meaning the company could have selected the "BEST" workers from other warehouses and discarded those they didn't want "You could have been in the crowd of those they didn't want". It was the "UFCW" who negotiated to protect your job and seniority and allow you to post into "MAPLE GROVE" using your CAW seniority. IF it wasn't for the UFCW and it's members "WHO VOTED" you would have come to Maple Grove with "NOTHING".

3. G.A. Love workers were aloud to enter into the "A&P distribution warehouse only" with back dated seniority to January 15, 2000 as that is the date when "NO EXISTING CAW MEMBERS" would be affected. One point to make is, the CAW was aware during that negotiations that the company was contemplating closing GA Love so they "CAW" negotiated to protect the A&P warehouse while leaving GA LOVE to "hang".

4. Well uneducated "DEMON" you have "FULL" seniority in Maple Grove since you arrived. Waaa waaa.....U didn't have first pick at the Job and you get downgraded first. You didn't have a right to post for it in the first place. If it wasn't for "UFCW" you might not even have a job with Maple Grove. What part of this do you not understand? When the "COMPANY" decided to "CLOSE" your warehouse you were effectively out of a job. Just like anyone else who deals with a Closure. Your so called union didn't even help "YOU" or "G.A. LOVE". Who helped out "YOU"? The answer is clear the UFCW did so, stop your winning.

5. Sorry buddy democracy rules, the members of UFCW "VOTED" to not allow you to have more seniority outside of MAPLE GROVE of AUG 1, 2001. But hey you would never have that if the MG became CAW anyway's.

6. I fail to see how this is true read "SUPRA".

7. Demon.......please get "YOUR" facts straight the next time "YOU THINK" that you know something.

This is again "In My Opinion"

  • posted by <London 4 CAW>
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 7:04pm

The majority of the guys in London are not happy with the ufcw. The ufcw never once talked to the guys in London about what we wanted since we found out the London DC was one of several DC's being transferred to Maplegrove. This was not right, we should have had a say in our contract at Maplegrove. Now it seems that the ufcw wants to talk to us every week with meetings at the Airport Hotel or by sending us ufcw propaganda in the mail. Sorry guys its to late! From the beginning the ufcw has wronged the people who's jobs where being transferred the to the Maplegrove facility. No group should have had preferential treatment at a new DC, especially a group who's jobs where not being effected. The ufcw made us second class citizens. Those guys who voted to give themselves most of the good jobs at Maplegrove should put themselves in the shoes of the guys who where told they where being transferred. In London we have many people that where assemblers for ten years or more before they could get a job as fork lift operators or receiver\loaders. I'm curious to know how many of those 122 guys that came from non closing DC's had put in that much time and earned those positions before going to Maplegrove. Since the ufcw screwed us, CAW gets our support and our vote. The ufcw can't even follow there own contract, I am referring to the Letter of understanding#3- The employer will determine the number of full time employees required in the new facility. Once this has been determined the employees whose work is being relocated shall have the first opportunity on a voluntary basis to transfer by seniority provided they posses the necessary qualifications and ability to perform the work. Let's right the wrong.

  • posted by Scott_ufcw_Lester
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 8:11pm

On a Sad note.......
there was part-timer from prouce afternoons that was killed in a car accident late last week.
Since both our Unions are actively in Maple Grove The C.A.W and the U.F.C.W should send flowers.
I will find out the address of the funeral home and I will give it to ever wants it.
Good Night Brothers and Sisters
Scott

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 8:50pm

"In My Opinion" or "Scott_ufcw_Lester" can you tell me how many of the closing "Barn Store" workers were UFCW and how many were CAW?

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 8:57pm

"In My Opinion" or "Scott_ufcw_Lester" can you tell me how many of the closing "Barn Store" workers were UFCW and how many were CAW?

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 9:00pm

"In My Opinion" or "Scott_ufcw_Lester" can you tell me how many of the closing "Barn Store" workers were UFCW and how many were CAW?

  • posted by DeMoN
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 9:01pm

"In My Opinion" or "Scott_ufcw_Lester" can you tell me how many of the closing "Barn Store" workers were UFCW and how many were CAW?

  • posted by sleK
  • Mon, Feb 11, 2002 9:04pm

test

© 2017 Members for Democracy