This is sure interesting. If there's any truth to it, this would be heaping insult on top of injury considering the crappy deal the Zehr's workers were asked to swallow but 2 years ago. (I think it was a six year deal, right?)
Please keep us posted. Has anything been issued to the members about a meeting or about a management proposal to reopen negotiations.
Just a thought: Re-opening a collective agreement in mid-term can be a risky proposition for management. Re-opening a deal could mean that the union is in a position to bargain up from the current collective agreement (unless the union agrees going in that the negotiations will be restricted to management's agenda).
You may want to go straight to the horse's mouth on this. Write to your local president and ask if there is any truth to these rumours. If so, ask when the members will be fully informed of what the company is seeking and if members will be allowed to vote on whatever the union intends to do. You may also want to ask your local if "reopening the contract" means that the union will be in a position to negotiate improvements to the current collective agreement and what steps will be taken to get members' input on proposals for improvements.
Local 1977
Does anyone know What will happen soon?
All kind of meeting are scheduled in Ontario for Loblaws,Zehrs and Fortino stores.
Rumour has it that the acompany wants to open up our contract to reduce wages sand new scheduling for 7 days instead of six.This way we are to work Sundays too not just voluntarily.
Not too good.
Loblaws is going head to head with Wal-mart. The company is going to do it with or without the unions. If they don't get what they want, things will happen to make their store format happen regardless.
Members are just starting to find out about this situation.
So, have the unions (or any particular union) agreed to help Loblaws go head to head with WalMart? Is there any information that you can point us to about this?
Three locals are affected:
1000A
1977
175
It appears at least one local and possibly all of them may be recommending the plan. What the plan is for Loblaw Co. with respect to Loblaws, Zehrs and Fortinos future is, I am not sure. Two other banners may be the focus of their future growth.
We do not know much,next week a meeting will be for the stewards,hopefully will know more that time.
Management regularly working in the store,that is an issue too,they were supposed to create full time positions matching the working managers,never happened.
"""Important Membership Meetings are scheduled to begin Monday, June 23, 2003, regarding Zehrs, Loblaws, Fortinos -> Real Canadian Super Stores: Mandate Discussion and Vote. """
That's all we have on our website.
http://www.ufcwlocal1977.on.ca/
I will keep you informed....
This is a very disturbing development. If the executives at Loblaw's, Zehr's and Fortinos believe that the only way to compete with Walmart is on the backs of their workers (who have already given the corporate guys generous concessions over the past decade), they might as well get out of the market right now. What will they do when everyone is earning minimum wage and getting nothing more than the minimum standards required by law? They will still not have a competitive advantage over Walmart.
I don't think the companies fear Walmart as much as they profess. They have been hugely profitable for years now despite their pleas for concessions at one round of bargaining after another (pleas that the union entertained).
In my humble opinion the hugely profitable subsidiaries of the George Weston Group are taking advantage of yet another opportunity to extract concessions from the UFCW by conjuring up the Walmart devil yet again (they've been chanting "Walmart is coming, Walmart is coming" at the union pretty regularly over the past few years and it's worked well for them).
If the Presidents of the 3 locals agree to these concessions, all that will happen is that the companies will make even more money. It will also set off a race for the bottom in the rest of the grocery industry in Ontario. What do you think A&P, Sobey's and the rest are going to do if Loblaws gets big concessions from the UFCW? They'll be leaning on their unions and demanding similar breaks - if not more - so that they can remain competitive. Say good-bye to the unionized segment of the retail industry.
Who's going to want to pay union dues when they're earning minimum wage and getting nothing more than the staff at Walmart?
The three presidents have the option of telling the corporate guys to take their proposal and stick it. Will they dare? I doubt it. If they've already agreed that it's necessary, nothing can stop them from going ahead except the members.
The members should think long and hard about how they want to vote on this issue.
quote:
Who's going to want to pay union dues when they're earning minimum wage and getting nothing more than the staff at Walmart?
Will they have a choice?
Could the big walmart scare be the final roundup? Workers/members as far as the eye can see and all working for minimum ... weston wins some, union wins some, walmart lives to scare another day ... who loses?
As far as having a choice, they will. As these agreements enter their "open periods", the workers will have the ability to decertify or to change unions. I believe the Loblaws and Zehr's agreements will be in the open period either this year or next year. Fortino's just settled a new agreement this year, so their staff will have a longer wait, but the open period will roll around eventually.
There are a lot of reasons to refrain from decertifying but when hope of a decent wage, job security and fair treatment decline, the reasons take on less and less importance. My hope would be that if the workers reach a point when all hope is gone that they will look for another union but I sure don't rule out the possibility of straight decertification. Why? Because with the house-o-labour's no-raiding rules, it's doubtful that they will find a union that's willing to take them.
Could this be the final round-up for unionized workers in Ontario's grocery trade? Damn right it could be. I noticed soitis commented that two "other banners" could be the focus of the retailers' future growth. Could these be two other non-union banners? Or maybe two other voluntarily recognized banners with rock-bottom contracts?
It looks to me like the retailers in Canada's grocery industry have been laying the foundation for an industry without unions for a whole lotta years now. Their plans may be coming to fruition.
The only glimmer of light that may be on the horizon is that, with no mainstream unions willing to take them on, these workers may form their own union(s). It would be an imposing challenge for them but at the rate things are going, there may be nowhere to go but up. A lot hinges on how the members respond to whatever it is that is going to be put to them by the UFCW presidents.
This is much worse than you can imagine. The contracts will not be 'opened up'.
"Company refuses to offer the agreement if Union requires a formal membership ratification vote. Worried about legal complications of negative vote".
Each Local will seek a "mandate" for the President to finalize the proposed settlement.
Start a decertification drive. It's clear the union doesn't want to go to bat for you.
The fact that they're ready and willing to roll over and accept the company's demands without question is proof positive (like we need any more) of their complete impotence as a "union".
What would be the legal complications of a negative ratification vote? Here's where this local could make history, you know ... inform the membership instead of spewing rhetoric. Give the membership some cold hard facts ufcw 1977, if you have 'em, ... sheesh look who I'm talking to. 
Message just became public. Was on the 6:00 pm news. Probably will start to be in the paper soon.
People are angry. They feel betrayed by the company.
quote:
This is much worse than you can imagine. The contracts will not be 'opened up'.
"Company refuses to offer the agreement if Union requires a formal membership ratification vote. Worried about legal complications of negative vote".
Each Local will seek a "mandate" for the President to finalize the proposed settlement.
In the USA, any changes that are viewed as a takeaway MUST be voted on by the membership, in a mid-term reopener. Is Canadian law different?
quote:
Each Local will seek a "mandate" for the President to finalize the proposed settlement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the USA, any changes that are viewed as a takeaway MUST be voted on by the membership, in a mid-term reopener. Is Canadian law different?
It must be a legal requirement.
If the local requires a mandate to make a call that appeases the employers, without the members actually knowing whether or not it has take-aways, wouldn't the mandate override the members right to vote on it.
In Ontario, the Labour Relations Act says that a collective agreement must be ratified by a secret ballot vote of the members covered by the agreement. A majority of the members voting, decides whether the agreement will be accepted or rejected.
My understanding is that the same requirement exists for changes to contracts that are made in mid-stream. The Act doesn't address this issue specifically, but I've never heard of mid-stream concessions being agreed to without ratification by the members. What would be the point of requiring ratification of contract settlements, if the terms of the contract can be changed later on without approval of the members?
It's not uncommon for unions to seek a mandate from their members when entering into negotiations but there is always a ratification vote at the end, once negotiations are concluded.
I'm wondering what the Ministry of Labour would have to say about this? Members affected by this proposed whack-in-the-pocket-book might want to call the Minister's Office 416-326-7600 and finding out first hand.
Members may also want to ask UFCW Canada Director, Michael Fraser, just what he was talking about in 2001 when he said this.
Loblaw to fend off Wal-Mart 'invasion' with cheap labour
quote:
Loblaw to fend off Wal-Mart 'invasion' with cheap labour
Financial Post - Friday June 20, 2003
By Hollie Shaw
Workers rehired outside union
The threat of an "invasion" from rival Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could prompt unionized Loblaw Cos. Ltd. employees to work for lower wages if they are laid off and re-hired by the country's largest supermarket chain.
Union leaders in Ontario recently struck a tentative deal with the grocery giant after Loblaw announced it would close a number of traditional grocery outlets to make way for larger hybrid superstores that will compete with Wal-Mart.
"We think of this as making the very best of a bad situation," said Brian Williamson, president of United Food and Commercial Workers local 1977, which represents 8,000 Loblaw workers at 47 Zehrs stores.
"If we don't find a solution to the problem, then our people would be affected in a far more harmful way. It's about making sure that anyone that happens to be affected is protected as best as they can."
Loblaw told employees that it will close a number of its Zehrs stores in the area and erect much larger general merchandise superstores under the banner Zehrs Real Canadian Superstore.
The proposal, which the grocer is presenting to union locals throughout the province, would allow employees laid off from a closing location to take early retirement or severance packages or take a so-called "buydown" -- a re-hire at the new large store for a lower wage, Mr. Williamson said.
"[Loblaw] is convinced, and I believe them, that based on what has happened in the U.S. retail food market that Wal-Mart will come up here with Supercenters, which have had a devastating effect whenever they come into a conventional food market."
Wal-Mart employees are not unionized, which helps the world's biggest retailer to keep its labour costs lower than that of other competitors, union leaders say.
Within five years of entering the U.S. grocery business in the 1990s, Wal-Mart became the largest food retailer in the country.
The news comes as Wal-Mart is set to hit the province this fall with its Sam's Club warehouse stores. The membership-only warehouse clubs boast a wider selection of fresh food than traditional Wal-Mart outlets.
Although the retailer has not announced plans to open its Supercenter format stores in Canada, industry observers believe it is just a matter of time before the hybrid Wal-Mart grocery stores make a Canadian debut.
Loblaw did not comment yesterday on its negotiations with union members, but president John Lederer made reference to the impact of non-unionized rivals at the company's annual meeting in April.
"The marketplace is now home to more global and non-unionized competitors," Mr. Lederer told shareholders. "The definition of a level playing field is changing. So are the elements required to remain competitive."
Mr. Williamson said that union stewards from his local unanimously endorsed the Loblaw proposal earlier this week and the union will now be asking its entire Zehrs membership for a mandate to finalize the agreement.
In a statement to members, the local said that Zehrs Real Canadian Superstore will help the company "aggressively compete against the expected invasion of large-format Wal-Mart stores into Ontario."
Loblaw operates 57 Real Canadian Superstore outlets -- warehouse-sized emporiums that carry a wide selection of general merchandise in addition to food -- in Western Canada, but the banner has yet to be introduced in the east.
Canada's largest supermarket chain has also opened a handful of supersized outlets in Ontario which feature a wide array of general merchandise such as kids' clothes and housewares and services including fitness and daycare centres, photo labs, dry cleaners and gas bars.
"Wal-Mart Supercenter is a scary thought for Loblaw, and all the new Wal-Marts have expansion potential at their sites, so it's possible they could throw grocery in there," said retail consultant Richard Talbot.
Loblaw spent $1.1-billion last year to upgrade and open new stores and warehouses. Its foray into general merchandise is viewed as a strategy to fend off competition from Wal-Mart and draw sales away from traditional department and retail specialty stores.
The union writes:
"Wal-Mart labour costs are lower. Rates go up to $9.65 after TEN years ($10 in Toronto). Most "associates" quit within two years. Workers pay for most of their own benefits, when eligible. Unpaid overtime a daily reality at Wal-Mart".
With such poor work compensation, how can it be so hard to get a union in these stores?
Anyone who shops at Wal-Mart to save a few cents is supporting the collapse of the retail worker.
quote:
With such poor work compensation, how can it be so hard to get a union in these stores?
Anyone who shops at Wal-Mart to save a few cents is supporting the collapse of the retail worker.
Any Union that tries to give employers the kind of contracts that can "compete" is supporting the collapse of the retail worker. Walmart is a machine, they are a systems driven company, workers are replaceable and meaningless to them. Unions have to be the difference, and they won't be by going backwards. The answer is to make walmart workers want what Union workers have, cause God knows, Union workers don't want what walmart workers have.
These guys secretly sit down with the company, cut a Wal-Mart deal and then call for a vote when most regular members will be away on vacation. Good move assholes!
I appologize for the language, but this is the stupidist thing I've ever heard. The only way to fight Wal-Mart is to create a Wal-Mart.
This is tantamount to "If we can't organize a Wal-Mart, we'll turn our existing bargaining units into Wal-Mart-like stores, and then we'll say we represent stores just like Wal-Mart."
In BC, 1518 did a cheapo deal with Overwaitea, supposedly to stop the closing of Vancouver Island stores. (Like Overwaitea was really going to leave a lucrative market area.) Now 1518 is trying to rally the troops because Overwaitea wants the deal in the contract. They are talking as if they had nothing to do with the deal that was hatched in 2000.
I feel a fit comming on. I'll be back.
I wonder if this is a way to get the extra change employers kicked into CCWIPP to keep it afloat back?
The Real Canadian Superstores are comming, no matter what. The UFCW has always given Superstores cheapo cut-rate contracts.
I wonder how close the talks matched the ones mentioned in Smith's affidavit?
Does anyone know how Local 1000A is breaking this to its members? They are bigger than 1977. Do the members even know??? When you check 1000A's website it does not seem to be up and running.
What is happening to the Loblaws banner people.
Would love to hear from you.
No doubt the news in this morning's papers threw their plan into a bit of a spin. They are probably scrambling to put out the fire as you are reading this.
Looks good on them for the stocks dropping $1.35 per share yesterday..... What do the precious stock holders think now?
If the $9.65 wage is so low, and hard to keep good staff, then how do they expect to keep their staff at $10/hour and provide the customer service that they have always expect from their staff?
Zehr's cares????????
And what if we say no? They still have an obligation to fulfill 120 more new jobs in our contract, that's about 4 more stores anyways.....
Unless they just add those jobs to existing stores, then our Union will fight to keep those jobs? Yeah right!!!
If the president didn't have to come to us with the proposal, then why did he???? Is he just going to go through with it no matter what we say? After all he has to protect his $120 g's salary. That we pay him. Good raise considering we got next to nothing, and if it were up to him it would have been less.
We shouldn't let 'scare tactics' affect our decision. After all we still have 3 more years in the contract...... How will they back us then?
It is interesting the change in the workplace. Members who were loyal to Loblaw Co. banners, are now trashing the company with friends and neighbors. People who would only shop at Zehrs, or Loblaws (while elsewhere) are openly saying if money is the bottom line (the way this company is treating us) then we will shop where it is cheapest (no matter who it is).
Good work Loblaw Co. officials.
You are destroying a loyal dedicated staff.
As long as you with your 'stock options' and the shareholders get the money, why should anyone else care.
I don't doubt that workers are angry with the company for demanding concessions and on top of that, for demanding concessions so that they can compete with a competitor who hasn't even arrived on the scene yet. It would would seem to me that the best way to express their disgust with the corporation and its tactics would be to vote "no".
And this is a company that's doing exceptionally well too:
quote:
FINANCIAL CCNDITION
FINANCIAL RATIOS In 2002, the Company maintained a consistent financial position as measured by its strong financial ratios, balance sheet and cash flow. This position is expected to continue in 2003. For the 14th consecutive year, the Company's net debt to equity ratio was better than the Company's internal guideline of a less than 1:1 ratio. The 2002 ratio of .71:1 compared to the 2001 ratio of .76:1. In 2002, shareholders' equity increased $555 million, or 16%, to $4.1 billion. The 2003 net debt to equity ratio is expected to improve slightly as retained earnings growth is expected to exceed debt financing requirements. Interest coverage ratio improved to 8.1 times compared to 7.2 times in 2001 mainly due to improved earnings.
The Company's 2002 return on average total assets was 13.7% compared to 13.4% in 2001. The return on average total assets continues to increase after accounting for the significant capital investment activity over the last few years. The Company's 2002 return on average shareholders' equity was 18.9% compared to the 2001 return of 16.8%. A portion of the improvement was due to the discontinuance of goodwill amortization in accordance with the new accounting standard. The five year average return on shareholders' equity was 16.0%.
Here are some of the reasons why Wal-Mart Supercenters are years away--if they arrive at all:
quote:
NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA
Excerpt from: EVIL EMPIRES OF THE CANADIAN GROCERY INDUSTRY APRIL 27 2001 By Perry Caicco
WAL-MART AND THE CANADIAN GROCERY MARKET
No Supercenters
We believe that the highly successful U.S. Wal-Mart Supercenter operation will not be seen in the Canadian market for at least six or seven years, and probably not ever. The reasons are as follows:
• The existing Wal-Mart Canada discount stores are on fire, growing comp-store sales (sales at stores open from 12 to 18 months) at an estimated 8% to 10% clip, and are still not close to being maximized. Productivity in the Canadian stores, at Cdn$350 per sq. ft., is only slightly behind the U.S. discount stores at US$370 per sq. ft., but should easily surpass it.
• The company has plans for at least another 60 to 70 Canadian discount stores over the next five years. Although its share of the Canadian discount market is higher than its share of the U.S. discount market, the Canadian discount market is undeveloped relative to the U.S. and growing at a much faster pace.
• The U.S. Supercenters used pure pricing power to steal grocery share from higher-priced small-town conventional store operators with run-down physical plant. Canada has much lower food prices than the U.S. to begin with, a strong complement of low-priced discount or 'box' stores and plenty of fresh, modern assets even in the most rural of markets. Very simply, there are few sources of share growth vulnerable enough for Supercenters to feed from.
• With the single exception of Real Canadian Superstore (RCSS) in Western Canada, there have been no successful 'supercenter' formats in this country.
Loblaw's SuperCentre and Provigo's Maxi & Co. were unmitigated failures. Admittedly, they were poorly operated, but nevertheless the Eastern Canadian consumer developed no taste for an extended ‘one-stop-shop' environment. In Eastern Canada Loblaw has developed the better hybrid model in their 85,000 sq. ft. Loblaw format, combining food, drug and 'consumable/high-turn' general merchandise. The Western Canada RCSS format was entrenched before discount mass merchants were prevalent in that region and have evolved into powerful centres.
Always in Food
Wal-Mart Canada has sold groceries and related grocery-store products such as health-and. beauty-aids since their purchase of Woolco in 1994. Their typical assortment has consisted of 500 to 1,000 high-volume dry grocery products including a modest complement of refrigerated and frozen cases. By our estimation, the typical Wal-Mart grocery section - including volume HBA - produces between $8 and $9 million in sales per store annually.
In 1997, Wal-Mart experimented with an expanded grocery assortment in eight selected stores. The original idea behind this 'pantry' offering was to drive additional traffic through aggressive grocery pricing, which it could then lever into the higher-margin general merchandise. It didn't work. What did happen is that store traffic grew no faster than in non pantry stores, but customers in pantry stores added a few low-margin items to their baskets.
This doesn't mean that Loblaws isn't about to open new banners and different formats. They said as much in their last annual report.
What's significant here is that Wal-Mart is being used as a red herring to scare concessions out of Loblaw workers. What's obscene is that the UFCW is going along with the plan.
Costco is a bigger threat, but it's still small potatoes compared to Loblaw.
I am surprised that UFCW International has approved the concessions that the three local prez's have tentatively agreed to (I'm assuming that the International's approval would be required for something like this). It's a pretty frank admission that the "war on walmart" has been lost. If you're allowing locals to take concessions so you can help employers compete with walmart (rather than organizing walmart workers), that's as good as hoisting up the white flag.
I wonder if the International will discontinue it's anti-walmart websites and its ongoing efforts to organize this retailer? They should, given the events in Canada. I'll bet walmart officials feel even more comfortable entering the Canadian market, knowing that the UFCW has no serious plans to organize their stores.
I am also surprised that the International would approve these concessions because the logic behind them is identical to the rationale behind the UFCW's disastrous concession bargaining strategy in the meat packing industry in the 1980's. For those who haven't heard the story: Back in the 80's, UFCW International President Bill Wynn - a guy that the corporate boys described as "practical" and "reasonable" - got sucked into bargaining concessions with the big meat packing companies whose workers the UFCW (actually, a predecessor union which merged to create the UFCW in 1979) had represented for decades. Workers at the meat plants had good contracts and job security that most can only dream of today until Wynn and his posse got into the act.
The employers leaned on Wynn for concessions saying that they needed a break in order to compete with non-union companies. Wynn swallowed the bullshit and proceeded to bargain backwards from one end of the country to the other.
The lameass logic he used to justify his actions went like this: The unionized employers need a break on their labour costs or they will go out of business. We can't let that happen because it will be bad for the union. So we'll agree to concessions. Then we'll go and organize the non-union employers - all of them. Once all the non-union places are organized, the UFCW will have the bargaining power to negotiate upwards again. At that time, the UFCW will negotiate back the concessions it agreed to and then some. Happy days will be here again.
Of course, no one ever addressed in any meaningful way, the most obvious flaw in Wynn's strategy: Who the hell will want to join your union if you're bargaining backwards from coast to coast? And sure enough, the UFCW's organizing efforts in the non-union meat packing plants fell flat repeatedly while Wynn's employer-partners in the unionized plants continued to put the boots to the members. (If you are interested in learning more about this shameful era in UFCW history, check out the "Briefing Papers" section on the REAP web site.)
Things got so bad, that even the most dedicated sheep at the International couldn't help but see the foolishness of Wynn's strategy. Sometime in the late 1980's some kind of policy was adopted at the International that prohibited further concession-bargaining. Sadly, the policy never seemed to have made it across the border.
The decision by Locals 1000a, 175 and 1977 to give Loblaws, Fortino's and Zehr's a break so they can compete with a non-union employer is a return to the ill-fated strategy that the International abandoned over a decade ago. I wonder if the International has sanctioned this move as part of some larger agenda to keep their Canadian revenue flowing or if the local leaders - like three blind mice - heard the cat's pleas for help and rushed to his aid, blissfully unaware that the damned cat is just hungry again.
Members who are concerned about what's going on, may want to consider contacting the International Office and asking what the hell is going on.
Not sure i agree with all of your comments rv, some of the early concessionary bargaining was done at the local levels. I saw guys that loved each other ready to kill one another. In many cases, the leaders left it to the workers, who were willing to take cuts rather than have the plant move. It was an ugly time, with even uglier choices. The one sure thing is, those industries have never been heavily organized using that failed strategy, and the wages and benefits have never recovered. Lots of other factors influenced those two outcomes, primarily, the use of massive numbers of immigrants, many of whom are undocumented.
More significant is the failure of the International to address the UFCW Canada style of bargaining. I always had enormous respect for what they said they were doing in Canada. Turns out, I see the ten year deals, the Union spin offs, the non-elections, the unregulated pension investment scams, and my skin crawls.
I know what the constitution calls for, i know the mandated retail bargaining policies, i'm familar with US locals who have been trusteed for actions similar, and i give my head a shake. I thought the whole idea of a giant Union was some kind of controls. The premise of structure is, when followed, it gets stronger. In this case, the opposite is true. When you have rules that no-one gives a shit about, it weakens the organization, makes them look like a paper tiger.
I've never been a big fan of the bureaucracy, but if we are going to have belong and pay the per cap, then they need to enforce their own rules. If not, close up shop, put the money back in the locals, and let us do our own thing.
If that election of the Flight Attendants at Northwest airlines wasn't a wake-up call, i don't know what is. The funny thing is, the Teamsters 120 in the Twin Cities is a pretty aggressive Union. Course the problem was, it's a male dominated, top down style of leadership, and the flight attendants were looking for something other than that.
Every International in North America ought be looking in the mirror, doing a careful self examination of their own faults and blemishes. The future, IMHO, is going to bring more and more of these kinds of rogue, member driven departures. When the new organization has no ties to the AFL-CIO or the CLC, the policy of no raiding means nothing. Look out mainstream, workers don't need Unions to take them backwards, it didn't work in the 80's, and it won't work now.
The Local 1977 meeting schedule is astounding. The UFCW splits its groups into many meetings thereby depriving them of hearing questions posed by other members.
The extremely important topic "Real Canadian Super Stores: Mandate Discussion and Vote." is apallingly inadequate and says nothing about the monumental impact the vote may have on workers' lives.
The votes take place during peak vacation time and when union-member turnout is at its historical lowest.
These dudes are playing right into Earnie Eves' hands by pulling off the shit that gave rise to the government offering to bring in a Workers' Bill of Rights.
As an aside: I see a link at the bottom of the UFCW Local 1977 home page that asks, "Need a Union?"
I'll bet more than one Local 1977 member has clicked and said, "YES! Where can I find one?"
Soitas: I can't help but notice how your comment applies so perfectly to a dispute in B.C. The Overwaitea Food Group also had a very strong loyalty among the union members. After UFCW abandoned the membership and its primary purpose - ensuring quality of life for workers and their families - it seems the employers followed suit. After UFCW endorsed the concept of multi-tier pay scales and a series of collective agreements resulting in more part-time low-pay members, it was clear that the loyal long-term employee was to be a thing of the past, both to the union and the employer. In their place would be a dues-collection gold-mine for the union: part-time membership. While many employers promise the consumer a customer service focus in their marketing, the truth is that they want their cake and eat it too. At the bargaining table, employers of full service stores see RCS and WalMart labour requirements as directly transferrable to their own. When the marketing department speaks, the employer wants the world to believe that their staff and service set them apart.
While debate continues over the union/employer complicity in the disenfranchisement of long-term members, the result is undeniable. The quality of life for workers and their families in this industry has suffered huge losses. Who was first to turn their back on the workers is ultimately a moot point. What we know is that of the two parties, the union was bore the sole responsibility for representing the membership that it had, not the membership it forecast as the most lucrative. In a phrase, participating in the race-to-the-bottom has been financially rewarding for UFCW. A noteable by-product is how these dynamics also reinforce the security of the union leadership; junior members are generally far less inclined to demand accountability than the senior long-term member. Far less embarrassing questions.
So when you say, "Good work Loblaw Co. officials", I can relate. I worked for the Overwaitea Food Group for many years. At one time the Langley warehouse was regarded as one of the best in North America. Employee loyalty was very high. It didn't matter.
When UFCW demonstrated that it was willing to go down the part-time, low-pay, no benefits, no future model, employers abandoned investment in human capital. Employers still like to market the appearance of customer service, but when it comes time to pay for it, they are just another WalMart. Meanwhile the profits roll in, both for the employer and for UFCW.
Sharing this information with friends and neighbours is valuable. Corporate image is important to these companies. The gap between their marketing and their daily practice is as big as it ever has been. But where these companies are really vulnerable, is where such information becomes public. Members who take their message to the public and get some kind of media coverage are more likely to actually achieve something than relying on the UFCW.
When the OFG warehouse members were the subject of the same dynamics, the dispute took to the stores and the public. Who do you think would turn out to be the employers best friend in defeating the warehousemen? According to most of the membership, the answer is UFCW 1518.
I suggest that you counsel your fellow members to study the issues in detail and pay close attention to the union statements. Ask questions often. Demand a full answer. Form interest groups. Keep discussion alive. Form e-mail networks. It's up to you. The employer and the union don't give a shit about you or how well you perform.
It would seem to me that their are two different groups (from the Company) in this matter. Zehrs management is staying out of site and not answering TV or newspaper reporters by not being available for comment. However the members know that it is the Loblaw co. officials (in Toronto) that are the authors of this brutal restructuring.
What a shock this has been. At couple of weeks ago we had our 2003 Quarter Century Awards Banquet. On the inside cover of the booklet our Zehrs Executive Vice President writes "Zehrs Markets has had the fortune of employing the hardest working and most dedicated people in the business. You are the winning team" and "Our customers are loyal to Zehrs Markets because of the relationships that many of you built with them over the years." We believe that as employee's. Yet we have these clowns from Loblaw Co. head office offering us buyouts so they can put in a high turnover, low paid, fast food type industry workers who could give a dam because they are only here till something good becomes available.
I think that some day Loblaw Co. management will be used as a case study for "what went wrong?"
That will be their legacy.
Companies that demand concessions and apologists for the biz-unions that agree to them, spin a popular myth in support of their actions: That wage concessions are necessary to keep the business profitable and competitive.
This is a myth in that only in the most troubled enterprise are wage concessions even close to a competitive necessity. Making a profit on the backs of workers is only a strategy for making a buck. On top of that, it's only one strategy. Competitive pricing is important in the marketplace but there are other ways to achieve competitive pricing, profitability and competitive advantage.
There are many other strategies that businesses can and do employ to be profitable and to compete. If the high-priced help at the George Weston group of hugely profitable businesses can only think of one, shame on them for their strategic myopia.
Why not tell the union to tell management to go do its f*****g job and stop messing with your contracts?
Jan Kainer said this in 1998 and it's a good explanation of why the UFCW is rolling over so easily to Lobaw's demand:
quote:
One of the most important reasons why supermarket unions have been unable to effectively resist the chains' restructuring strategies, it is argued, is their long history of business unionism. This approach to bargaining is unable to offer an effective challenge to the corporate drive for labour concessions and workplace restructuring. In the 1990s the corporate stance of food retailers towards labour has become more aggressive and management is focussed on eliminating full-time jobs. Moreover, the part-time category is expanding and now represents an overwhelming majority of the retail food workforce. With the exception of a core full-time managerial category, almost no full-time positions are available in the supermarket sector. Despite the fact that the corporations are becoming more demanding in negotiations, the retail unions are not advancing an adequate strategy to deal with this corporate attack.
UFCW International President Doug Dority said to UFCW presidents, "Change or get out of the way!" Maybe it's time UFCW Canada got out of the way and let a social union take over.
Employers treat the UFCW like a prostitute and then wonder why it has such a bad reputation among decent Canadian workers.
What a mess!
I just have one question now,we did not have our
concession giving meeting yet ,but reading the posts everything is well known,well at least what they telling us ,suprises will come later.
Regarding the new 7 day scheduling,will it be mandatory to work Sundays?
""Sunday rules for employees hired before September 4, 2001
Employees of most retail businesses hired before September 4, 2001 have the right to refuse to work on Sundays.
If an employee agreed to work on Sundays, whether or not the agreement was made when he or she was hired, the employee can later decline to work by giving the employer at least 48 hours' notice before the employee's work was to begin.
Sunday rules for employees hired on or after September 4, 2001
Employees of most retail businesses hired on or after September 4, 2001 have the right to refuse to work on Sundays. However, if they agreed in writing at the time of being hired on or after September 4, 2001, that they would work on Sundays, they cannot refuse to work on Sundays except in certain circumstances.
An employee who agreed in writing at the time of being hired to work on Sundays can later decline to work on Sundays for reasons of religious belief or observance.
] An employer can't make an agreement to work on Sundays a condition of hiring an employee if this violates the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA). (Contact the Ontario Human Rights Commission for further information. The number is listed in the blue pages of your telephone book, under "Human Rights".
This is from the Employment Standards Act...
It all comes to when you were hired ,so if I started before Sept,4 2001 they cannot make me work Sundays .
Am I missing something here??
A deal has been struck to alter the terms and conditions of your collective agreement. Members who vote are voting to change the terms and conditions to whatever the Machine Heads and employers agreed to.
Have you ever wondered how three presidents could all agree to the same stinking deal and not say a peep about it until after it was cut?
Why all the secrecy about Wal-Martizing your collective agreement? Why didn't they tell the members up front, "Hey, boys and girls, we've agreed to WAL-MARTize your contract and working conditions. At UFCW-MART 'our everyday wages just got lower! Checkout the latest rollbacks.'"
It would seem that it is too late to do anything but roll over and give in on this madate thing. WHAT CAN WE DO NOW??????
Do the union members have the right under our existing contract to have a strike ??? Can we claim unfair negotiating by our union representatives as a basis for a strike???
It would seem to me that would be a fair and legal reason to try and nip this thing before it actually gets signed and we are stuck with it. Would such a move force the union members to have a general meeting with ALL the members informed ahead of time and given a written run down of what exactly we would be voting for ( in plain english not union double talk) ??? We could at least then make an intelligent vote weighing the true benefits or lack of benefits put forward to us.
Anyone with some input would be greatly appreciated. Our union agreed to something on our behalf we knew nothing about. How can this be legal?? Can we now undo whatever they put in motion ??
Contact the International, question whether the constitution was proprely followed. Send the same letter To Michael Frazier at UFCW Canada. There are specific rules on notifying members of votes, make sure they were followed. There are specific obligations on allowing members locations they can get to. Challenge the legitamacy of agreeing to cuts, without even knowing what those cuts are. What the hell is the point of having an international, if everyone can just do what they want. I understand the importance of local union autonomy, but this looks more like the acts of leaders who need a frontal lobotomy.
This case may also border on a Duty of Fair Representation violation.
You might want to check out this Ontario Ministry of Labor Fact Sheet
Other articles:
Straight Goods on Duty of Fair Representation Part 1
Straight Goods on Duty of Fair Representation Part 2
Ahhhhh…. Local 175 Wayne-boy's empty words echo from the abyss, into which the UFCW Canada has flung itself.
quote:
"We're certainly not intimidated," he said. "We've taken on big employers before and we will again."
That was UFCW-MART's Wayne-boy tellin' the world in 1995 that he wasn't ‘fraid of the big-bad Wal-Mart.
UFCW-MART! UFCW-MART! Hey, I love it. It's so apropos. UFCW-MART. How about the slogan, 'Where the lowest wage is the law.' Then again, they could say, 'We're rolling back wages for you.'
Another thing you can do is to e-mail the UFCW International at: press@ufcw.org
Posted this on the other thread, to.
If the UFCW is just going to close ranks and support this garbage, I'd recommend that in addition to the suggestions above, you also contact the CAW pronto and demand that they say something about this. The autoworkers are now in the retail grocery sector, too, and their contracts are going to get dragged down just like everyone else's are if this isn't stopped.
Email Buzz Hargrove: cawpres@caw.ca
Write/Phone/Email CAW National Office:
205 Placer Court, Toronto, ON M2H 3H9
Phone: (416) 497-4110
1-800-268-5763
Fax: (416) 495-6559
E-mail: caw@caw.ca
Write/Phone CAW- Retail Wholesale Union
6800 Campbello Road, Mississauga, ON L5N 2L8
Phone: 905-819-9000
1-800-961-1001
Fax: 905-819-1262
Buzz Hargrove was visiting our recently CAW certified factory, usual handshake stuff. I asked him about UFCW ,if they going to take it over,
he said "What a terrible union, I'm wondering how come they are still in business."
Told him my wife works there , here in St.Thomas
Ontario, and that was it he had to go.
This is an option, cannot be worst than now.
I DON'T THINK THE CAW IS THE ANSWER IN THIS CASE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS IF YOU HOLD THE LINE LOBLAWS WILL OPEN NON-UNION REPLACEMENT STORES WHERE-EVER POSSIBLE. HERE IN ST. THOMAS WE HAVE TWO UNIONIZED STORES AND TWO NON-UNION (SOBEYS) AND A WAL-MART AND THERE IS A LOT OF UNION PAYCHEQUES BEING SPENT IN THEM. THE TRUTH IS THAT MANY UNIONIZED WORKERS WILL SHOP ANYWHERE TO SAVE A BUCK. THIS IS EVEN TRUE OF OUR CAW LED LABOUR HALL.
Loblaw is going to open different formats no matter what. The big players in the industry have been doing it since the seventies.
To say that you have to take a cut in pay to keep working spawns the question, "What good is the UFCW?"
Listen up. It ain't as easy as you would think. Loblaw would have to purchase twice its current real-estate holdings to pull off a complete switch-em and close-em strategy. Likewise, they would have to convince the Labour Board that they weren't using the switch to de-unionize its operations.
You are being hoodwinked and the UFCW knows it.
Like I said further up:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA
Excerpt from: EVIL EMPIRES OF THE CANADIAN GROCERY INDUSTRY APRIL 27 2001 By Perry Caicco
WAL-MART AND THE CANADIAN GROCERY MARKET
No Supercenters
We believe that the highly successful U.S. Wal-Mart Supercenter operation will not be seen in the Canadian market for at least six or seven years, and probably not ever. The reasons are as follows:
• The existing Wal-Mart Canada discount stores are on fire, growing comp-store sales (sales at stores open from 12 to 18 months) at an estimated 8% to 10% clip, and are still not close to being maximized. Productivity in the Canadian stores, at Cdn$350 per sq. ft., is only slightly behind the U.S. discount stores at US$370 per sq. ft., but should easily surpass it.
• The company has plans for at least another 60 to 70 Canadian discount stores over the next five years. Although its share of the Canadian discount market is higher than its share of the U.S. discount market, the Canadian discount market is undeveloped relative to the U.S. and growing at a much faster pace.
• The U.S. Supercenters used pure pricing power to steal grocery share from higher-priced small-town conventional store operators with run-down physical plant. Canada has much lower food prices than the U.S. to begin with, a strong complement of low-priced discount or 'box' stores and plenty of fresh, modern assets even in the most rural of markets. Very simply, there are few sources of share growth vulnerable enough for Supercenters to feed from.
• With the single exception of Real Canadian Superstore (RCSS) in Western Canada, there have been no successful 'supercenter' formats in this country.
Loblaw's SuperCentre and Provigo's Maxi & Co. were unmitigated failures. Admittedly, they were poorly operated, but nevertheless the Eastern Canadian consumer developed no taste for an extended ‘one-stop-shop' environment. In Eastern Canada Loblaw has developed the better hybrid model in their 85,000 sq. ft. Loblaw format, combining food, drug and 'consumable/high-turn' general merchandise. The Western Canada RCSS format was entrenched before discount mass merchants were prevalent in that region and have evolved into powerful centres.
Always in Food
Wal-Mart Canada has sold groceries and related grocery-store products such as health-and. beauty-aids since their purchase of Woolco in 1994. Their typical assortment has consisted of 500 to 1,000 high-volume dry grocery products including a modest complement of refrigerated and frozen cases. By our estimation, the typical Wal-Mart grocery section - including volume HBA - produces between $8 and $9 million in sales per store annually.
In 1997, Wal-Mart experimented with an expanded grocery assortment in eight selected stores. The original idea behind this 'pantry' offering was to drive additional traffic through aggressive grocery pricing, which it could then lever into the higher-margin general merchandise. It didn't work. What did happen is that store traffic grew no faster than in non pantry stores, but customers in pantry stores added a few low-margin items to their baskets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This doesn't mean that Loblaws isn't about to open new banners and different formats. They said as much in their last annual report.
What's significant here is that Wal-Mart is being used as a red herring to scare concessions out of Loblaw workers. What's obscene is that the UFCW is going along with the plan.
Costco is a bigger threat, but it's still small potatoes compared to Loblaw.
quote:
Buzz Hargrove was visiting our recently CAW certified factory, usual handshake stuff. I asked him about UFCW ,if they going to take it over,
he said "What a terrible union, I'm wondering how come they are still in business."
Told him my wife works there , here in St.Thomas
Ontario, and that was it he had to go.
This is an option, cannot be worst than now.
I think that labour leaders like Hargrove (and others who have any respect at all for the notion that unions should be about the members) are going to have to step up to the plate and do their bit to reverse the damage that has been done by business-oriented unions like the ufcw. Seriously, this secret deal that the 3 locals have hatched with Loblaws, Fortino's and Zehr's is, IMHO, going to spell the end of the unionized retail food industry in Canada.
I understand that Hargrove may not be keen on what the CLC would call "interfering" in the internal affairs of another union, but the time for towing party lines is over. If these workers are left paying dues for non-union working conditions, it's a matter of time before we see a wave of decertifications. If they're disillusioned enough with mainstream unions by then (and they will be if no one stands up for them), they'll never want to join another union as long as they live, no matter how good a union it might be.
I'm glad that you took the opportunity to raise a bit of awareness with Hargrove about what's happening at the the ufcw supermarket units. We need more of this.
I still think that the ufcw did a good job bringing our jobs up to the standard that they are at. Their biggest fault is in how each local is so alone at contract time. In the last contract Loblaws and Zehrs were up at the same time. It would have been the right time for major cimbined bargaining. Instead Loblaws settled for a crappy contract which took the wind out of zehrs sails, even though we did go on strike. A strike by zehrs is not as affective as it would be if we shut down both chains. Then let them sell their Westons bread and Neilsons milk and try to hit the movement bonuses from all the direct suppliers. The ufcw seems to afraid to push Weston. I have always wanted us to hire someone to negotiate a contract instead of using our own people. They bring in a hired gun from Westons and we should bring in someone from the CLC.
Bargaining a collective agreement is not a complicated process. It's all about understanding your power and using it effectively. If you don't have a lot of power, it's about confusing or distracting your opponent about his/her power.
In labour negotiations it is almost always the case that the workers (through their union) have a lot more power than management (unless the company is in dire financial straits). Unfortunately, in a lot of cases the union doesn't realize this or allows itself to be distracted by the disempowering tactics of the management negotiators.
There is actually no difference in the bargaining power of Zehr's, Loblaw's or Fortino's. They are all subsidiaries of the same organization. They try to make it look like they are separate entities with different bargaining strategies because that gives them an edge (if the union buys it).
Company representatives try to make collective bargaining look complicated and mysterious because that serves their purposes. It's intended to make things look confusing for the union negotiators and to create an environment where the workers are completely befuddled by what's going on and can easily be sold on whatever tentative agreement the negotiators from both sides want to put in front of them.
Who actually bargains for each side has very little influence over the outcome of negotiations. The company uses a hired gun because it's convenient for them to do so and it's generally believed to intimidate the union negotiators and union bargaining committee (this is especially so in organizational cultures - labour and management - where lawyers are held in very high esteem).
A negotiator from the CLC would not necessarily give you any great advantage. In fact, because CLC types are usually in very comfortable jobs, far-removed from the trenches and interested in maintaining good relations with corporate folk (yes, the really are!) , they are less likely to be effective negotiators (ones that get the workers what they want in negotiations).
You could bargain as effectively as any CLC official or union leader. I'm serious. What you need is a basic understanding of the process, an understanding of your power, where it comes from and how best to wield it, and a good handle on bargaining strategy. This in itself would give you an edge over most of the comfortable golf-club-swinging dudes of labour. What would give you an additional advantage is your knowledge of the business that you work for, the people you represent and that fire-in-your-soul to make things better for them.
I'm not just shitting you. I've bargained more collective agreements in my life than most labour or management guys. If I've learned anything that's important about bargaining, it's what I've just told you.
One day (maybe soon) I'd like to make A1 negotiators out of as many working people as are interested in becoming A1 in this area. (Hey, it's not just useful in contract negotiations - the skills you use for collective bargaining can be useful in a lot of other situations).
Take my word for it, your union locals could have the George Weston group of supermarket companies by the balls. The only reason they don't - IMHO - use their leverage is because the companies would cancel the voluntary recognition agreements that give them a steady supply of new members as the companies open new stores or new banners. Well, that's not just my humble opinon - It's actually been stated (not recently, but several years ago) to me by one of the Local Presidents involved in the concessionary dealings with the 3 George Weston companies.
Bargaining is pretty straightforward when you understand your power and have your priorities straight. The sad reality is that a lot of union leaders have their heads up their asses on both counts.
Want to learn more about bargaining? Let me know.
Cointoss, the old Retail Clerks Union was fairly strong, but mostly they rode on the coattails of the Meatcutters' and Distribution contracts.
Don't confuse the UFCW with the Retail Clerks Union. All militancy died with the merger. The UFCW has done little for retail food workers, and UFCW Canada has done even less.
Please take 10 minutes and read this bit of history.
(bomp)
Here's some more pretty compelling truths about what a load of bullshit is being sold to Loblaw employees by their employer and their union.
As A Grocer, Wal-Mart Is No Category Killer .
quote:
The widely held belief that Wal-Mart's grocery business is a deadly threat to established supermarket chains may be only a myth. A new Merrill Lynch study finds that Wal-Mart has made few inroads into the large cities where most grocery dollars are spent....
...The real problem the traditional grocery chains face is weak demand and an inability to raise prices in a deflationary environment--not Wal-Mart pricing pressure. Kroger and Safeway are gaining or maintaining share in about half or more of the top 100 markets where they have a presence. The only two big chains to suffer inroads from Wal-Mart in 2002 were Albertson's and Winn-Dixie, the Merrill report said....
...[Wal-Mart] expects to have only 40 Supercenters in California in the next four years, equating to a market share in food of around 1%....
we had our "mandate " meeting is St Thomas last night. Maybe a 40 % turnout. It went through by around 75%. Questions that were asked were answered. The hardest thing for some of the part timers is accepting wording on sunday. They don't see why they can be forced to work on sunday. Part time vacation pay is capped at 6% and no christmas bonus for anyone. Full times lose the sixth week of vacation. Some small things increase like starting wage, night crew bonus, uniform allowance and others. Department managers are out of the union.
Thanks for that lovely Forbes article and Merrill Lynch report. We have been so busy fighting the Wal and limiting their grocery operations that I have been too busy to do needed research. I will make sure it gets spread around some of the locals in California. I agree with some of its conclusions and it may change some of our thinking on how we must deal with the employers and the Wal out here in CA.
One camp says to put our limited resources into public campaigns to alert the public about the Wal. Others (like myself) say we must focus on organizing in the big boxes that are so much a part of the present and future. Any ideas or comments?
What baffles me is that the UFCW has mentioned nothing about its ability to take Loblaw on at the LRB if it tries opening stores and closing others to get out from under its CAs. Once Loblaw stated its purpose and threat, to my mind, it engaged in "bad faith" bargaining.
In BC the Labour Code says:
quote:
The Board has the power to ensure that the rights that employees have gained under the Code are not avoided or adversely affected by corporate shifts or alterations. If the Board is of the opinion that:
· Associated or related activities are carried on through more than one company;
· Those companies are operated under common control or direction; and
· There exists a labour relations purpose in doing so.
The board may declare and treat those companies as one employer. This is often referred to as being a "common employer" for the purposes of the Code. The intent of such a declaration is usually to preserve existing rights and obligations under existing certifications, accreditations and collective agreements.
I'm sure the Ontario code has similar protections.
Buzz would have nailed these guys to the wall. There are just too many ways to kill the Loblaw threat and plan.
One would have thought the Labour Board would have been the first stop rather than the back room.
Section 1(4) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act covers this off in unambiguous terms:
quote:
(4) Where, in the opinion of the Board, associated or related activities or businesses are carried on, whether or not simultaneously, by or through more than one corporation, individual, firm, syndicate or association or any combination thereof, under common control or direction, the Board may, upon the application of any person, trade union or council of trade unions concerned, treat the corporations, individuals, firms, syndicates or associations or any combination thereof as constituting one employer for the purposes of this Act and grant such relief, by way of declaration or otherwise, as it may deem appropriate. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, s. 1 (4).
This is pretty straightforward stuff. If an employer is trying to circumvent its obligations under a collective agreement by setting up other (non-union) businesses, a union can rely on this provision to stop that.
If an employer is trying to circumvent or carve up a contract by threatening to close or move the business, there have certainly been unfair labour practice charges that have been won in those circumstances.
Gee, I hope the ufcw hasn't promised the employers that it will not exercise its rights under the Act. I know that would be really preposterous but hell, they've done it before.
Read this article from 2000:
quote:
Grocers hammer new deal:
Nanaimo Daily News; Nanaimo, B.C.; Dec 28, 2000; Robert Barron
Overwaitea employee alleges the union and management manipulated workers' votes
Some Overwaitea employees in Nanaimo are not happy with an agreement reached to keep two local grocery stores open.
David Hendrickson, an employee at Rutherford Mall's Overwaitea store, said he believes the union and management manipulated employees, represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers' Union Local 1518, into endorsing a mediator's report by 67.8 per cent.
The mediation was to resolve a number of outstanding issues before the Labour Relations Board and to change the company's plans to close six stores in the province, including the Rutherford and Terminal Park locations. The closures would have cost 600 jobs, 143 of them in Nanaimo.
'It was a very good sales job with the threat of store closures to back it up,' Hendrickson said. 'The plan is that a great number of mostly part-time employees low on the senority list will still be laid off and new employees will be hired at about half the wages.'
Hendrickson said the severance package being offered to induce employees to leave voluntarily is convoluted and many employees will be disappointed with what they will receive.
'It's a complicated formula based on the number of years the employee has with the company and the amount of time worked in the last 13 weeks,' he said. 'Many of these people are part time. So while someone may have worked 10 years with the company, they may only be attributed with six years based on the hours worked.'
Tom Fawkes, the union's director of communications, said the union only suspects layoffs will happen, but doesn't know where they will be or how many people will be laid off until sometime in January. Fawkes said union members were sent a copy of the proposal and had three weeks to ask questions before they voted.
'We held meetings for the staff to ensure every opportunity was given for them to air any concerns,' he said. 'We didn't endorse the proposal, but left it to the members to decide for themselves. If some employees have questions regarding severance packages, then they should call their union representative for clarification.'
We'll close if you don't take a rollback and sign a "new banner" cheapo deal. Then the Union leaves it up to the members to figure out.
Now that's leadership!
It doesn't really matter if Loblaw offers the top-raters a two-dollars per hour increase instead of a rollback. Those with top rates won't be there to collect a paycheque in a couple of years. The Loblaw deal is about enabling the employers to create minimum wage-rates and an eventual atmosphere where either mass decertifications can be achieved or where the workforce is so fragmented and complacent, that it won't have the will, way or means to seek real union representation.
You hit the nail on the head weiser.
after observing the strategies of the company and union for twenty five years, what will happen is, when contracts come up in two years for Loblaws & Zehrs the company will have flipped about half of these stores to RCSS and we will again hear the same song and dance (concessions or we shut them down) and with the workforce cut to the bone (there will be no new hires in that time regardless of what is in the current contracts) and once again the company will win, it is the same strategy they have always used (Divide and Conquer) and is generally readable from one contract to the next, for instance RCSS's next contract with a mostly part time base and a wage progression from $7.10hr to $10.00hr after 8750hrs. or over seven years working 24hrs a week will be tossed .50 cents and maybe .10 cents a year in the following five or six and that will be a done deal. The union has to see this too but have never taken any steps to stop it.
I wonder if anyone other than myself has noticed that zehrs has been actively working towards this mandate ever since we signed our last contract 3 years ago?
Have you noticed that your average weekly hours have dropped drastically , especially during the busy times of the year? They have consistantly lowered the weekly allowable hours to each department , getting the same amount of work done by fewer people. I dont think they even care that customer service is suffering. The staff is running around in circles trying to please everyone and the stress level of not being able to do this is atronomical.
Now they offer this package of buy outs and early retirements to everyone knowing full well that everyone is going to have a much lower weekly income to base it on. We not only loose our jobs but loose greatly on the amount of money we should actually be getting.
Of course the union honchos never explained how this buy out scheme works in full. We dont know the bare facts of who is eligible and how the mathematical breakdown works. I have a feeling that there is going to be a lot of people thinking they are going to get something and all they are going to wind up with is their pink slip.
If there is a cap on the amout each person can have according to their parttime or fulltime status is there also a ceiling on the total amount the company has made available to each category ( parttime/fulltime) ? Is it going to be a first come first serve service and will those left over after the total fund amount available get nothing? No one knows and lord knows the union is not telling us anything.
If someone can explain exactly how this works I would appreciate the info.
The answers to your questions about buy-cown cap were answered in the mandate proposal. I agree that not a lot of things were explained.
the proposal stated that all part time people would be capped at 10,000.00 and all full time people would be capped at 75,000.00. But I think I read in an earlier post in this website that one similar package implemented by the UFCW also had a clause in it that (after the vote was held and voted on ) the members found out that there was also a monetary amount limit put on the entire fund to be distributed amongst the members involved , leaving some members at the bottom of the seniority pile with nothing, That is the part of the mandate I was referring to. Does this particular mandate have a similar clause????
The part that bothers me the most about this is the fact that someone who has given many years to zehrs in a partime position ( say 10-15-20 or more) who could not take a full time position because of family or other obligations will get much less than someone who steps into a full time position a short time ago ( say 1-5 years) that has maybe a few other years as partime employment. There is a terrific gap between 10,000 and 75,000 dollars. We all do the same work for the same company . Partime people dont do less work or have less responsibility than the fulltime people they just get less pay and benefits for their efforts. Another way of the company to put a giant wall between the two parties once again.
The next go around the members of each and every union should not accept any contract that puts a difference in any way between partime and fulltime members. We should all have the same pay and benefits after all we all do the same work everyday for the same company. Its not like you can tell the difference between the two when you are shopping at the stores. I am sure no customer has ever been told by an employee " I'm sorry , I cant help you with that , I'm not a full time employee, you will have to ask someone else for assistance"
Here we go again said:
quote:
Of course the union honchos never explained how this buy out scheme works in full. We dont know the bare facts of who is eligible and how the mathematical breakdown works. I have a feeling that there is going to be a lot of people thinking they are going to get something and all they are going to wind up with is their pink slip.
That lament is an echo of the Overwaitea employees only a short while ago.
quote:
Grocers hammer new deal:
Nanaimo Daily News; Nanaimo, B.C.; Dec 28, 2000; Robert Barron
Overwaitea employee alleges the union and management manipulated workers' votes
Some Overwaitea employees in Nanaimo are not happy with an agreement reached to keep two local grocery stores open.
David Hendrickson, an employee at Rutherford Mall's Overwaitea store, said he believes the union and management manipulated employees, represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers' Union Local 1518, into endorsing a mediator's report by 67.8 per cent.
The mediation was to resolve a number of outstanding issues before the Labour Relations Board and to change the company's plans to close six stores in the province, including the Rutherford and Terminal Park locations. The closures would have cost 600 jobs, 143 of them in Nanaimo.
'It was a very good sales job with the threat of store closures to back it up,' Hendrickson said. 'The plan is that a great number of mostly part-time employees low on the senority list will still be laid off and new employees will be hired at about half the wages.'
Hendrickson said the severance package being offered to induce employees to leave voluntarily is convoluted and many employees will be disappointed with what they will receive.
'It's a complicated formula based on the number of years the employee has with the company and the amount of time worked in the last 13 weeks,' he said. 'Many of these people are part time. So while someone may have worked 10 years with the company, they may only be attributed with six years based on the hours worked.'
Tom Fawkes, the union's director of communications, said the union only suspects layoffs will happen, but doesn't know where they will be or how many people will be laid off until sometime in January. Fawkes said union members were sent a copy of the proposal and had three weeks to ask questions before they voted.
'We held meetings for the staff to ensure every opportunity was given for them to air any concerns,' he said. 'We didn't endorse the proposal, but left it to the members to decide for themselves. If some employees have questions regarding severance packages, then they should call their union representative for clarification.'
I plan to file a DFR with th OLB any input with regard to bad faith bargaining and the legalities related would be appreciated.The UFCW Canada agreed to wage concessions in exchange for not having to organize the RCSS stores in Ont.The union also agreed NOT to have a ratification vote because Loblaw demanded so.
You may want to read over my comments about a DFR in this thread.