• authored by <40 Below>
  • published Fri, Jul 11, 2003


Hey there,
I just wanted to create a thread where we could discuss the current Loblaws/RCSS situation. I am full time and it seems like there are a few changes.

No x mas bonus, we will get 1 in 5 sat and sun off(no sunday premium). 40 hour work week. We could have to work civic holiday. Overtime will be 1.5 times rate. max 5 weeks vacation. night premium is $1. Top rate for FT is $17.05
It won't be too bad for me as I am not a high paid full time so I won't lose wage.

It looks like the part time are really getting screwed. $11.49 top rate for clerks... $10 top rate for Gm workers. They have really bad scheduling, but max hours go to 28. Benifits are changed for part time which is one of the worst things of the deal for part timers.

The early retirement(55+) is 3 weeks per year PT (up to 10K) 4 weeks for FT (up to 75k)
Buydown is 3 weeks per year part time max 10K full time minimum is 10K.

That gives a bit of the run down I have so far. I haven't recieved all of the info yet. I have a question about sick days. I heard that we will lose them, but I have no read that yet(maybe someone has more info)
Hope you read this cointoss. I am also working for Loblaws in London

  • posted by <Soitis>
  • Fri, Jul 11, 2003 4:18pm

Hey 40 below

Question for you. Does the Loblaws store employee's know about this yet or just the union stewards?
Also, are you folks being given a vote to mandate your local President to negotiate with Loblaw Co. Limited and create this appendix in your collective agreement?
That is what we had at Zehrs, but during our meeting it was mentioned that 1000A accepted the deal by having their directors vote on it.

Thanks in advance

  • posted by <40 Below>
  • Fri, Jul 11, 2003 5:01pm

Hi Soitis,
Yes the employees are aware of this. Not all of them though. Mostly full time and senior part time. Secondly I am being told that we will not vote on anything. Our meeting is in 2 days (Sunday). I guess I will find out then.

A question for you now. I heard that Zehrs decided to go along with whatever the 1000a choice was. Is that true? From what I am being told this is a done deal and we just have to be informed on the arangments. One thing is for sure there will soon be a big change for all of us.

  • posted by <Soitis>
  • Fri, Jul 11, 2003 6:21pm

Hi 40 below

Zehrs did accept this. But let me tell you why many did. It was mentioned at our meeting about three weeks ago that your local (1000A) accepted the deal because the union directors of 1000A accepted it. YOU DID NOT EVEN GET A VOTE! Right there when we heard that, we realized we were beat. So if Zehrs turned it down, then , they would use the Loblaws name only. This made us feel like it was hopeless. If they tell you at your meeting Sunday that they are following Zehrs , then that is a lie. At least 1977 let the members decide (though at that point it was usless because we all were divided by 1000A accepting it on your behalf first). The 1000A made it a done deal by not taking it to the membership.
I have not heard how local 175 handled this. They represent Zehrs in the Windsor area.

  • posted by here we go again
  • Fri, Jul 11, 2003 6:53pm

to 40 below: when 1977 had its meeting we didnt even know what it was about until we got there, thats when we were informed that your local had already agreed to the mandate.

we didnt get a chance to ask questions mainly because we didnt know what to ask. You on the other hand are at least forwarned about what to expect. Do us all a favor and ask the questions we didnt. Get as much info as you can before voting on the deal.

One of the best questions to ask is HOW ARE THEY GOING TO ARRIVE AT THE FIGURES FOR THE BUYOUTS AND EARLY RETIREMENTS. No one will give us that info now that the deal has been voted on. Is there some kind of secret mathematical equation they are going to use so that no one is going to get what they think they are entitled to? Some of the people I have talked to say that it is going to be a straight forward so many weeks for each year you are there and others have said that they are going to only use the last 13 weeks that you have worked and average them out to arrive at a new much lower figure for a weekly amount. Make sure you get the answer for that question I have a feeling that we are all going to be surprised at the answer and we sure as heck arent going to get what we think. Let us know after your meeting what answers you get.

  • posted by <Soitis>
  • Fri, Jul 11, 2003 8:07pm

To 40 below

Another thread 'Real Canadian Superstore (BC)' on this web site has a person that has worked 6 years for RCS writing:

"Look at the trend of previous negotiations, concessions and more concessions...Negotiations are scheduled up untill October, the company is already beating the Wall-Mart is coming to town drum..."

The Company and the Union gave us the impression that becoming a Real Canadian Superstore was the answer to combat Wallmart. Yet what do we see out west (Vancouver)??? They want even more back from people who have weak contracts that were designed to compete with Wallmart. This is not going to end folks. It does not matter what we hand over, they will be back for more the very next oppurtunity.
I truly believe we are being had.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Jul 12, 2003 8:15am

Lets start a decertification drive.......any contract over 3 years in length is open to a "raid" on it's anniversary after 3 years.all we need is 40% to sign cards. the first step is a contact in every loblaws in local 1000a.then to find another union willing to take us on.if they won't give us a vote we can find aunion that will.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Jul 12, 2003 8:29am

the divisional boards gave the president the mandate to finalize the deal with a unanimous vote held on June 16 and 17 2003.the divisional boards expenses are directly approved by the president of local 1000a.How could those boards vote unanimously without input from the membership?The Toronto division has a meeting on July 17 to inform membersabout the done deal

  • posted by <Soitis>
  • Sat, Jul 12, 2003 9:38am

The 1000A local has a lot of explaining to do. Their directors vote of yes influenced the 1977 vote. I for one felt that once we were divided (Loblaw and Zehrs workers) then we didn't have a chance in hell of challenging this spiral down. And our local making the 1000A acceptance known took the steam out of any movement to go up against LCL east.
Let us know bb if 1000A local uses the Zehrs vote as a reason they did not take the mandate to their people. If they do, then at least you will know that they are putting the cart before the horse.
I for one am convinced that our union as a whole are not fighters for us, but are first concerned about a healthy growing union (with union dues to match) and do not want to piss off Loblaws possibly losing voluntary union recognition for new stores.

  • posted by <40 Below>
  • Sat, Jul 12, 2003 1:35pm

Perhaps someone from RCSS out west can give me an idea as to what your rates of pay and benifits are compaired to what Ontario RCSS's will be like. It looks like the contract offer that is coming up in BC might look something like they are forcing on us.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sat, Jul 12, 2003 2:04pm

Here is a link to the RCSS agreement out west where employer concessions roam free.

Hope it helps.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Jul 12, 2003 7:39pm

they are not using the agreement from out west. they are using the local 175 fortinos agreement.the new names are loblaws RCSS and zehrs RCSS,the company can't lose brand recognition!!! and our insulated kings of solidarity used it to their advantage and padded their wallets a bit more

  • posted by cointoss
  • Sun, Jul 13, 2003 7:54am

40 below My spouse works for Zehrs so we are getting it from both sides. What about Fortinos. Are they being put into rcss and if so at what threat , just the department store agreement appendix. I still hate that we had three years to go and now the company gets what it wants and the union gets what it needs and our standard of living drops. I want to see some militancy shown towards wal-mart by the ufcw.

  • posted by <EDelio>
  • Sun, Jul 13, 2003 9:59pm

I was amember of local 175 at fortinos warehouse. We lived by that same contract with our own "warehouse" appendage in the back. They sold us out and let us get gobbled up buy the big brother 1000a when they "closed" our warehouse. You want a good read,, check out hte CA of 1000a with its warehousing,,,wow!

  • posted by <loblaws0>
  • Mon, Jul 14, 2003 5:59am

i think we should boot the union out get caw in there who wont jerk any employees around ,are union has sold us before we even knew what hit us as long as they keep getting there 7.50$ a week they dont care at all ,and im sure all the big wigs in loblaws wont take a pay cut instead they will get a raise ,in reality they shouldnt have signed a 6 year contract should of been 3 years and now they want to open it so you tell me the union aint kissing ngco ass, think it's been in the works for at least a year all i got to say thank the union another pissed off employee

  • posted by scathands
  • Mon, Jul 14, 2003 6:23am


"i think we should boot the union out get caw in there who wont jerk any employees around"

Why do you think the C.A.W. is any different from the U.F.C.W. ?, The grass is no greener on this side. The rank and file has the power no matter who represents you.

  • posted by <edelio>
  • Mon, Jul 14, 2003 7:52am

We tried to vote in the CAW but when it came time to count the votes the UFCW challenged the vote and won. They used a letter of agreement between the 2 unions back in 98 agreeing to a no-raid clause. The 1000a contract is 6 years with a sort of open period after 3 years for some negotiations IE:make concessions or we wont voluntarily recognize you for our new super-warehouse we have being built in ajax. Of the more than 700 employees at Malplegrove warehouse ,only 50 are left of the original 1000a members{who got to bid 1st on choice jobs even though their warehouses were not closing}, the rest of the employees "inherited" the 6 year deal because of loblaws VR agreement.Employees that came from non 1000a facilities were stripped of their senority,some having over 15 years, and were told that when applying for global postings they were only allowed to do so with the 1000a senority they had accumulated and not the overall company service.We pay the same dues as our union brothers that were fortunate enough to be a part of the grandfathering contract from day 1 yet someone whos work was transferred to the new building,and may have 20 years with the company , can only apply with their 1oooa time in to postings throughout the monopolized Loblaws warehouses.

  • posted by <edelio>
  • Mon, Jul 14, 2003 7:58am

PS: 1000A if i am correct ,currently is the largest local in canada with over 25'000 members!!!!!

  • posted by <40 Below>
  • Mon, Jul 14, 2003 8:55am

To Here we go again: I arrived at the meeting late and forgot to ask your question about how the would arrive at the amount of money. However I would say that the answer is still unknown since the paperwork hasn't changed. So we will probably have to wait until we get packages in the mail to find out...

  • posted by here we go again
  • Mon, Jul 14, 2003 10:03am

Holy smokes you mean your union is actually going to send you something in the mail !!!!!

At least you will have some info which is a heck of alot more than we are getting. We havent heard a word from the union since we had the vote way back on July 9th. I still cant get any more info from the web site . Just the same old same old crap .

In some cases no news is considered good news. Unfortunately this is not one of them. I am to the point where I just want this settled , give me my cheque and I am outa there faster than goose grease on a slew in the middle of June. I have never in my life given up on something that I believe is worth fighting for , but , this time I figure I am going to cut my losses early and start over again. Lord knows it will be a heck of a lot less stressful than putting up with the fact that someone else is determining my future.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Mon, Jul 14, 2003 12:27pm

{here we go again}
Try this site for more info.

  • posted by cointoss
  • Mon, Jul 14, 2003 1:12pm

did anyone ask about sick pay??

  • posted by <40 Below>
  • Mon, Jul 14, 2003 9:01pm

cointoss there will be no sick pay. You can get all this info at the site listed above

  • posted by <loblaw dummy>
  • Tue, Jul 15, 2003 2:08am

well we are going to loose all our sick day's
our wages are going to be cut
out benefits are going to cut
do you think the union dicks are taking a pay cut ?
NO they have decided to increase union dues , because it cost extra to fight wallmart

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Jul 15, 2003 3:41pm

The first time someone said that the URL for the new Local 1000a web site was I though they were kidding. But it's true. The local has included the name of the employer's new cheapy banner chain where it dropped its pants in order to get voluntary recognition. Sorry, to me that speaks volumes about the relationship between the local's leaders and the company or at least about their perception of the relationship. Why would you put the employer's name beside the union's name in the URL unless you perceive the relationship to be some kind of joint venture?!

I think we are getting closer and closer to the day when some agency or judicial body is going to have to draw the line at what constitutes a "union" and when and where a union loses the right to call itself that.

I'm also struck by the fact that almost every UFCW Canada local's web site features a big picture of the local pres who, in all but a few cases, looks smug, contented and - dare I say it - corpulent. Wehre do these smug shits get off thinking that they can impose their will on the union's members without even consulting with them first? If these guys perceive themselves as being partners with management, basically just a bunch of guys who smooth the path for the implementation of management decisions, at what point do they cease being a union?

I now have it one good authority that Local 1000a president Corporan has never been elected by the members (unless there has been an election very recently), yet feels quite alright giving his blessing to a "management decision" that will affect the members but about which they have never been consulted. How is this guy a representative of the people?

  • posted by <Local 175>
  • Tue, Jul 15, 2003 5:02pm

Does anybody know with any certainty if the arrangments made with 1000a & 1977 will be extended to 175?

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Wed, Jul 16, 2003 5:51am

<Local 175>
Does anybody know with any certainty if the arrangements made with 1000a & 1977 will be extended to 175?

<Local 175>
I believe the only reason 175 has been a part of this, is because Loblaws/Zehrs-UFCW intends to extend 175's contract to cover the new RCSS banner store's.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Wed, Jul 16, 2003 8:56am

there should be an artice in the toronto star by anne perry either thursday or friday the 18 of july

  • posted by <katnjack>
  • Wed, Jul 16, 2003 2:20pm

The union website says there are no wage or benefit concessions to existing employees.And getting bumped is better than getting laid off,I think. And a fair number of people are gonna take those packages so lots of positions may actually become available in the next year or so.Loblaws wages are already all over the board,so whats another wage teir? Two people doing the exact same job can already have a 5 dollar difference in their rates depending on when they were hired. If somebody wants to fluff pillows at Loblaws for 11 bucks an hour,more power to them.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Wed, Jul 16, 2003 5:14pm

That union website is operated by the same people that opened an existing contract,ratified democratically by the members,and entered into an agreement for wage and benefit concessions.They also agreed NOT to give workers a voice i.e. a ratification vote .....AT THE COMPANIES REQUEST.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Jul 17, 2003 7:32am

I'm wondering if katnjack could explain what is meant by "if people want to fluff pillows at Loblaws for 11 bucks an hour more power to them"?

Also, bumping may be preferable to getting laid off, but how do you know that anyone is going to be laid off?

  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Jul 17, 2003 11:56am

What people don't understand is that RCSS' are mixed-format stores. They run about 60% grocery and 40% general merchandise and OTC/Pharmacy. The grocery end ran with different classes of employees--"specialists", "departmental assistants" and GM. The GM people got paid less because the emplyer said they were working in an area in competition with Zellers etc. The departmental assistants were paid less because the company said they were doing "no-brainer" work. The specialists were put on a scale with a top rate similar to regular grocery stores.

Where Loblaw got its advantage was with cheating by employing departmental assistants to do specialist work. The Meat shops got special rates for "rubber-head" (not my term) work such as grinding beef and running the pork-chop cutter. The employer wanted to run Henry Ford assembly lines. It wanted to go from skilled side busting of carcas beef to repetitive single-job cutting of boxed meat. Try cutting just steaks for four hours. The health risks are enormous.

Rest assured, the top rates will be unatainable. Even the GM employees won't be around long enough to collect top rate. GM will be mostly staffed by minimum wage employees. Grocery will have a spin so great that the majority will be at the very lowest of scales.

By agreeing to GM rates for the whole operation sets the scale for the grocery store of the future. Who the hell needs a union except for the employers who need someone to effect the CLC no-raid agreement and to control the peons who work the floor?

  • posted by sleK
  • Thu, Jul 17, 2003 7:56pm

Sort of off topic, but not really;


Loblaw Companies Limited 2003 Second Quarter Report

TORONTO, July 17 /CNW/ -


Loblaw Companies Limited's ("Loblaw" or the "Company") second quarter 2003 basic net earnings per common share increased 22.2% to 66 cents from the 54 cents earned in 2002. The second quarter 2003 basic net earnings per common share included approximately 3 cents per common share from the positive net after-tax effect of the stock-based compensation cost net of the gain from the
fair value impact of the equity forwards. Sales increased 9.2% to $5.8 billion and operating income increased 15.7% to $317 million. Loblaw continues to focus on the execution of its operating and financial strategies.


Sales for the second quarter increased 9.2%, to $5.8 billion, from $5.3 billion in the same quarter last year. All regions across the country experienced sales growth consistent with expectations. Volume growth in some regions outpaced sales growth reflecting a strategic investment in lower prices.

The increase in second quarter sales resulted from a 5.8% same-store sales growth in the quarter and an increase of 2.2 million square feet of net retail square footage related to the 71 new corporate and franchised stores opened net of 55 stores closed during the latest four quarters. During the second quarter of 2003, 12 new corporate and franchised stores were opened and 8 stores were closed resulting in a net increase of .5 million square feet.

For the first half of the year, sales of $11.2 billion were 8.9% ahead of last year resulting from a year-to-date same-store sales growth of 5.6% and an increase in net retail square footage during the latest four quarters as noted above. In the first two quarters, a total of 25 new corporate and franchised stores were opened and 23 stores were closed, resulting in a cumulative net increase of .6 million square feet.

Consistent with 2002 and the first quarter, national food price inflation for 2003 remained low with some increases in the bakery and grocery categories partially offset by a decrease in the produce category.


Operating income for the second quarter increased $43 million, or 15.7%, to $317 million, including income of $5 million related to the stock-based compensation cost net of the gain from the fair value impact of the equity forwards. Operating margin for the quarter improved to 5.5% from 5.2% in 2002.

Operating income for 2003 year-to-date increased $79 million, or 15.6%, to $587 million, with an operating margin of 5.3% as compared to 5.0% in the corresponding period in 2002. All regions across the country realized earnings improvements over 2002. EBITDA margin for the quarter and year-to-date improved to 7.0% and 6.8% from 6.7% and 6.5% in 2002, respectively. An improvement in overall sales mix management at the store level, a focus on administrative cost control and operating efficiencies and reduced product costs from buying synergies continued to contribute to the improvement in margins.


For the second quarter, interest expense increased $5 million, or 12.8%, to $44 million from $39 million in the same period in 2002. Interest on long term debt for the second quarter increased $4 million to $60 million as a result of an increase in average long term borrowing levels. Other long term interest for the same period includes the net positive effect of the Company's interest rate swaps, cross currency basis swaps and equity forwards of $11 million (2002 - $7 million). Net short term interest expense of $1 million resulted from a decrease in average short term United States investment rates and higher average short term Canadian borrowing levels and rates and compares to income of $3 million in the same quarter last year. During the second quarter, $6 million (2002 - $7 million) of interest expense was capitalized to fixed assets. Interest expense year-to-date increased $9 million to $82 million from $73 million in 2002 as a result of an increase in average long term and short term borrowing levels.


Loblaw's effective income tax rate decreased to 33.3% from 36.6% for the second quarter and to 34.1% year-to-date from 36.8% in the same period in 2002 as a result of declining Canadian federal and provincial income tax rates and the income tax impact of fair valuing the equity forwards.


Net earnings for the second quarter increased $33 million, or 22.1%, to $182 million from $149 million in 2002 and increased 21.1% to $333 million year-to-date. Basic net earnings per common share for the second quarter increased 12 cents, or 22.2%, to 66 cents from 54 cents in 2002 and increased 21 cents, or 21.0%, to $1.21 year-to-date.



In line with 2002, Loblaw continued to maintain a consistent financial position into the first half of 2003. The net debt to equity ratio of .80:1 at the end of the second quarter of 2003 compared to .79:1 in the same period of 2002. The net debt to equity ratio at the end of the first and second quarter is typically higher than at year end due to cyclical fluctuations in working capital. Consistent with prior years' trends, Loblaw expects its net debt to equity ratio to improve throughout the remainder of the year. Shareholders' equity increased $210 million year-to-date, or 5.1%, to $4.3 billion. The interest coverage ratio improved to 7.2 times compared to 7.0 times at the end of the second quarter in 2002 due to an improvement in operating income in excess of the increase in interest expense.

The success of Loblaw's capital investment program is demonstrated by the rolling year return on average total assets at the end of the second quarter of 2003, increasing to 14.1% compared to 13.7% for the comparable period of 2002 and to 13.7% at year end 2002. The rolling year return on average shareholders' equity at the end of the second quarter, increased to 19.4% compared to 17.9% for the comparable period of 2002 and to 18.9% at year end 2002, mainly due to increased earnings.


As declared by Loblaw's Board of Directors in the second quarter, a quarterly dividend of 15 cents per common share was paid on July 1, 2003.



In the second quarter of 2003 cash flows from operating activities were $338 million compared to $384 million in the second quarter of 2002. This decrease resulted mainly from a change in non-cash working capital, primarily accounts receivable and inventories. On a year-to-date basis, cash flows from operating activities were $159 million compared to $121 million in 2002. The year-to-date improvement resulted mainly from an increase in net earnings before depreciation partially offset by an increase in pension contributions.

The cash flows from operating activities for the remainder of 2003 are expected to fund a substantial portion of Loblaw's 2003 capital investment program of approximately $1.3 billion.


In the second quarter of 2003 cash flows used in investing activities were $86 million compared to $14 million in 2002. On a year-to-date basis, cash flows used in investing activities were $220 million compared to $256 million in 2002.

Capital investment amounted to $252 million (2002 - $178 million), for the second quarter and $425 million (2002 - $353 million) year-to-date, as Loblaw continues its commitment to maintain and renew its asset base and invest for growth across Canada.

In the second quarter President's Choice Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, securitized $75 million (2002 - $74 million) of credit card receivables, under its securitization program, and $154 million (2002 - $74 million) year-to-date. The securitizations yielded a minimal loss based on assumptions consistent with those disclosed in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Company's 2002 Annual Report.


In the second quarter of 2003 cash flows used in financing activities were $36 million compared to $231 million in 2002. The change is primarily due to the issuance of long term debt in the quarter. On a year-to-date basis, cash flows from financing activities were $374 million compared to $327 million in 2002.

During the first quarter of 2003, Loblaw issued $200 million of 6.54% Medium Term Notes ("MTN") due 2033 pursuant to its 2001 Base Shelf Prospectus. Loblaw's 2001 Base Shelf Prospectus expired on May 24, 2003. During the second quarter of 2003, Loblaw filed a new Base Shelf Prospectus, which permits the Company to issue an aggregate principal amount of up to $1.0 billion of MTN. Under this new 2003 Base Shelf Prospectus, Loblaw issued $200 million of 6.05% MTN due 2034 during the quarter and subsequent to quarter end issued $55 million of 5.86% MTN due 2043. The Company also repaid its $100 million 6.60% MTN that matured during the quarter. The Company currently has $745 million of MTN available to be issued.

During the first quarter, Loblaw renewed its Normal Course Issuer Bid ("NCIB") to purchase on the Toronto Stock Exchange or enter into equity derivatives to purchase up to 13,765,935 of its common shares, representing approximately 5% of its common shares outstanding. Loblaw, in accordance with the rules and by-laws of the Toronto Stock Exchange, may purchase its shares at the then market prices of such shares.

During the first quarter, Loblaw purchased for cancellation 730,000 of its common shares for $41 million and entered into equity forwards to buy 1,103,500 of its common shares, pursuant to its NCIB.


Operating and financial risks and risk management strategies, as disclosed in the Company's 2002 Annual Report on pages 33 to 38 of the Management's Discussion and Analysis ("MD&A"), remain substantially unchanged.


Effective December 29, 2002, Loblaw implemented Accounting Guideline 14 - "Disclosure of Guarantees", issued by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (see Note 9 to the unaudited interim period consolidated financial statements). This guideline requires the Company to disclose significant information about guarantees it has provided without regard to the likelihood that the Company will have to make any payments under those guarantees.


Loblaw continues to focus on the execution of its operating and financial strategies. Sales and earnings growth rates for the remainder of 2003 are expected to remain strong, supported by a solid financial position, good cash flow generation and the continuation of its capital investment program.

(signed) (signed)
W. Galen Weston John A. Lederer

Toronto, Canada
July 17, 2003

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jul 18, 2003 7:58am

From an article in today's Toronto Star:


Company executives told a conference call there has been double-digit percentage growth in same-store sales of so-called general merchandise - non-grocery items ranging from sandals to televisions. Loblaw plans to introduce 100 to 120 general merchandise products under its President's Choice brand by the end of the year, president John Lederer said.

Think about it. Food sales aren't the issue here. General merchandise is the ticket. These guys are moving into general merchandise. They make a bundle in grocery, and now they'll make even more in grocery because the UFCW has given them a huge drop in the labour rates on the grocery end.

The UFCW will also reap huge dollars with all the extra people needed to fill low-hour, part-time positions in the general merchandise departments.

You pay millions to the International and what for? The International knows full well what is going on, but does nothing.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Fri, Jul 18, 2003 8:10pm

letter of understanding #52
"the employer will make the following lump sum payment for education and communication initiatives.these lump sum paymentsare in addition to current education contributions.the ppayment of $150,000 shall be made in july of 2003,2004 and 2005."

this info was not made readily availabe at the meeting on Thurs.

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Jul 18, 2003 8:28pm


the ppayment of $150,000 shall be made in july of 2003,2004 and 2005.

"All the better to learn you with grandmother" said the big bad wolf.

What educational gain has the membership had from past employer kickbacks, I mean contributions?

This isn't funny anymore, when a machine sucks dollars from a cheap employer, dollars that could very well see workers getting something on the end of their paycheck if it wasn't tied up in trade.

"Up the employer pension contribution ... need more race cars" ... "up the employer educational contributions ... need more laundry facilities".

Give me a break, it's about backroom deals, each and every time it's about the backroom deals.

  • posted by Duffbeer
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 2:14am

From today's Toronto Star :

Loblaws union sets superstore wage cuts


The union representing thousands of workers at Loblaws stores in Ontario has agreed to wage and benefit concessions at new superstores in exchange for automatic recognition as Canada's largest grocery chain prepares to compete with Wal-Mart.

The United Food and Commercial Workers union held meetings across the province this week to notify members of the deal it signed with Loblaw Cos. Ltd. on July 11 after months of negotiations.

In Toronto on Thursday night, some members applauded leaders of their local for meeting head-on the threat of the non-unionized U.S. retailer. Its entry into the Canadian grocery market is widely seen as imminent. Others demanded to know why they had not been allowed to vote on the deal, which their local agreed to halfway through a contract that expires in 2006.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 3:55am

Good article. Thanks for posting it Duffbeer. It's good to see union democracy being discussed in the mainstream media once again.

Now to this tidbit that's got me sitting here, eyes bugged out:


letter of understanding #52
"the employer will make the following lump sum payment for education and communication initiatives.these lump sum paymentsare in addition to current education contributions.the ppayment of $150,000 shall be made in july of 2003,2004 and 2005."

this info was not made readily availabe at the meeting on Thurs.

Does this mean that the employer is paying the UFCW $450,000 for this deal?!!!

  • posted by here we go again
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 4:34am

it seems all the i's have been dotted and all the t's have been crossed on this " deal of the century ". Now , when do we find out when all this is going to be implented?? It's been 6 or more weeks since we had our "vote" ( for local 1977) and we have not heard word one from anyone. We have nowhere to go to get this info , the union head office is not forthcoming at all. I for one would like to know how long it will be before all this takes place. Has anyone heard of anymore meetings ?? Are we going to be notified by snail mail ??

  • posted by <Soitis>
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 5:40am

So what is going to happen if Walmart does not set up shop for some time? What plan has the UFCW negotiated for rewarding Zehrs, Loblaws and Fortinos workers for their losses? Or is all the extra profit just supposed to go to the Corporation (and the bonus/stock options of the Loblaw executives)?

  • posted by here we go again
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 5:59am

i just logged onto our unions website(1977) and they thanked me for my attendance at the meeting and for voting on such an important issue letting me know that my input was greatly appreciated. Sure , let me vote on a done deal before I even vote. Some input, like I had a choice as to the outcome. They also stated that they will keep me informed as to the next step. Another case of hurry up and wait.

  • posted by <Soitis>
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 6:23am

Local 1977 should not have told us that 1000A had their "directors" vote yes for their membership the week before. This changed many peoples vote in 1977. And 1000A should have let their members vote instead of a few directors. This whole process was divided and predetermined.
Has anyone heard what happened to Zehrs in the local 175?

  • posted by <edelio>
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 6:26am

Anyone see which London England chain galen just bought for 1.4 billion cash the oth day?????!!!!!!! WOW

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 6:28am

WOW is this not the exact same line that I read as coming from the mouth of local 1977's president about two weeks ago? "Local 1000A president Kevin Corporon said the deal makes the best of a difficult situation."

  • posted by <Edelio>
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 6:37am

According to another poster on the "1977 Deal" topic, there were fireworks at the 1000a meeting in Toronto last nite. I sure hope Kevins OK !!!!lol

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 4:48pm

one of the secret deals the last contract was that the company paid for the new local headquarter at 70 creditview road in woodbridge, they called it a training center.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 5:21pm

And what became of the old Clifford Evans Training Centre? Might it have become a bargain for Local 1977 or someone else? Does the Training fund still own that bit of real estate? If it does, is it really a training fund?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Jul 19, 2003 7:17pm

Sorry, did I just hear someone say that the company paid for the local's training center in Woodbridge? Isn't that where the local's office is as well?

I'm sure that the Local's exec's would say that's just a wonderful thing (why not get the company to pay for your digs after all) but if the company has all this money floating around, wouldn't it be better in members' pockets? What kind of stuff do they have at the training center anyway?

  • posted by cointoss
  • Sun, Jul 20, 2003 8:21am

What am I forgetting? NO Christmas bonus, max 5 weeks vacation, break every 4 hours, no sick days, and every benifit cut back. Wages rolled back, my job gone to a non-union job. Thank you ufcw, can I stand up now?

  • posted by here we go again
  • Sun, Jul 20, 2003 8:32am

And the difference between the job I am going to wind up with and the job now held by a Wal-Mart employee is??? Oh yeah, they dont have union dues taken off their pay every week. I repeat, the benefit of a union job is???


Thanks to our union I am back at square one starting all over again. Lesson learned , dont trust anyone but yourself for your future.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jul 20, 2003 11:01am

In june 1989 when the ink was barely dry on the first BC Real Canadian Superstore 1989 to 1993 CA, a secret contract was signed by a UFCW president. That contract bound all Superstore employees for an additional four years.

The deal was cooked to prevent any other union from getting hold of the members and bettering their working conditions. If the members tried to switch unions, the new union would have been stuck with the secret agreement.

The members didn't know about the agreement and certainly didn't get a say in it.

However that agreement wasn't surprising when one considers how the UFCW did friendly business with Loblaw.

When one looks at UFCW Canada policies one can only laugh or cry at the hypocracy in what the UFCW claims to stand for and what it really is.

The UFCW has a sick relationship with employers, and I don't think anything is about to change. This letter gives you an insider's view of how and why deals are cut.

  • posted by <edelio>
  • Sun, Jul 20, 2003 11:38am

The UFCW is nothing more than a massive employment agency. It started, I assume, as a noble assembly. But, through years of contracting out, shareholder demands, and the exhileration of years of dues, this union has become the number one leader in corporate controlled wage reducer. Don't get me wrong, i make a comfortable living as a warehouse worker. My wage is more than competible and i enjoy excellent health coverage. However, as a part of the loblaws company, the warehousing staff makes up only a small percentage of the total UFCW membership in this company. I have been greatly disappointed in some of my leaderships zealot like attitudes when it comes to maintaining the status quo. When you read the concessionary foreshadowing trife on the UFCW slide show, you have to acknowledge that more and more they are blatantly one of "them" instead of one of "us". To try and make us ,openly at that, feel sorry for loblaws being bullied around by the big bad wolf Walmart, we should look deeply into just how much this company has made for the last few years. There has ben constant growth in equity not to mention all the other assets our owner is tied to. Poor Mr. weston reportedly has just successfully purchased a large London chain store for 1.4 billion cash. One of this stores locations is a 550,000 square foot giant on one of the most shopped streets in the world. Sorry mr. or mrs. check-out clerk, we think you make WAY too much money, your killin' us here with this " I wanna live above the poverty line" pissing and moaning!!!!LOL--- to think u could do this to other Canadians Galen,,shame shame.

  • posted by <Stevie Baker>
  • Sun, Jul 20, 2003 11:41am

Comment to all affected by this Loblaws/RCSS agreement:

I personally feel that we've all been screwed. UFCW has literally caved in to the demands of Galen and company. Sacrificing our sick days and Xmas bonuses, Loblaws pockets close to $3 million in one year (according to Union Book re: full-time employees). That isn't even considering what they are going to save with the reduced benefits and hourly wages. I understood that I (the union) was going to be asked for a mandate on the proposed new contract. Boy, am I naive. The union, in turn, has the audacity to increase our union dues. How dare they!

If this contract is implemented I suggest that each and every one of us show up for the next elections for our union executives. And then we can make our voices heard. In my opinion, the union has sacrificed and conceded everything that they have gained--supposedly on our behalf--over the last 25+ years.

If we remain with the CFCW for three more years, to the end of our current contract(?), CFCW have stated they have gained an unprecedented achievement in getting a guarantee from the company that there shall be no concessions on benefits or wages in the next contract. What happens if the next contract is for 1 year?

My belief is that the union has shown a huge weakness, and the company, I am sure, also recognizes this. I guarantee the company will come back to haunt the union, realizing the union is totally lacking in balls. Right now the company is a major winner; the union is a close second; and, sadly, the membership are also-rans.

We probably should be considering looking at another union for representation. However, it is probably smart to stay away from these big ones; they all seem to move in the same circles.

  • posted by lefkenny
  • Sun, Jul 20, 2003 12:35pm

Before anyone can do anything, the workers must be appraised of what the UFCW is doing to each an every member. One member explains to ten members who intern tell ten.

Maybe you'll get a dissident group motivated for change or you'll see if the workers are content like sheep to be grazing in pastures already so baren that not even a camel could not survive.

There are always workers who enjoy being shit on and would sooner sit in a barrel of shit than get off their ass and do something about the stench.

Don't waist your energy on those who refuse to listen and like a door to door sales person keep spreading your pitch regardless of door slammers.

  • posted by Duffbeer
  • Sun, Jul 20, 2003 4:53pm

From the Inside Toronto website:

Loblaws may build superstores


But an analyst said the company would be moving toward superstores even without the Wal-Mart threat.

"Loblaw wouldn't be doing anything different if there wasn't a threat from Wal-Mart and superstores," David Brodie, an analyst with Research Capital Corp., said. "They'd still be spending every nickel of cash flow, plowing it into capital expenditures to expand their capacity and going into general merchandise."


The union president enlisted a call to arms from his membership Thursday, suggesting an action plan to promote the benefits of a union to Wal-Mart employees. The initiative is already under way in British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, he said.

"We're slowly but surely breaking the tide of getting Wal-Mart workers to understand the importance of a union. We'll be going after Wal-Mart with hired organizers about why they need to unionize. Be part of labour history," he said, adding discussions are also planned with employees of competitors Sobeys and Longos, which are both non-unionized.

Be part of labour history?
Holy crap!

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jul 20, 2003 6:19pm

Be a part of UFCW history:

If you are a UFCW member--YOU ARE HISTORY (at least your full-time job, pay and benefits are).

If you're going to stick around, work to make the machine heads accountable. Run an election campaign. Contact your MLA and MP. Write letters to the editor. Ask other unions for their help. Support those who file complaints at the Labour Board.

Here's one showing a UFCW member listening to the UFCW president tell him about the Loblaw proposal:

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sun, Jul 20, 2003 6:51pm

There are no elections in 1000a.At least not for the general the union office and ask for the international constitution, canadian constitution and the local constitution, all by-laws and an audited financial statement as required by ontario law. 905-850-0096 toll free 1-800-637-5936

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Jul 20, 2003 7:51pm

And ask for a up-to-date UFCW Canada Policies Manual too.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Jul 21, 2003 7:47pm

I wonder if there is away to introduce all the dirt that went on "out west" ,the 1518,777, pension theft etc..... In my DFR now.There are a lot of similar circumstances,"New" real canadian superstores, voluntary recognition,Loblaws and a cut-rate deal.I don't think the OLRB would look to favouably on any of that crap.

  • posted by unionnow
  • Mon, Jul 21, 2003 9:40pm

A look at UFCW history will clear things up a bit for you. When the packinghouse workers merged their union into the UFCW International they had excellent wages and benefits. After 10 years of being part of the UFCW their wage/benefit packages have largely been destroyed. Most are still dues paying members.

A look at who owns the most powerful of these packinghouses turns up some of the most powerful companies in the world that many believe have changed governments and created some of the most oppresive right wing governments we have seen in modern history.

One such company, the united fruit company (now flying a new name called united brands which owns some of the largest packinghouses) is credited with creating the famous banana republics south of the border. There is big money in bananas, bigger than you can imagine.

If the corps can manipulate whole governments, what is a stinking little International Union going to do? As one watches what is happening to retail in Canada, one cannot help but see the forshadows of what will happen in the lower 48.

One has to look beyond the chaff to try to figure out who is manipulating (or showing) the UFCW International how to conduct their business of raking in dues while allowing the multi-nationals to rape the members.

  • posted by <edelio>
  • Tue, Jul 22, 2003 9:56pm

In 2001, 27 union officials collected just under 3.4 million in salary from all the members. These same people are asking those with little to settle for nothing????

  • posted by licatsplit
  • Wed, Jul 23, 2003 4:31am


27 union officials collected just under 3.4 million

Not too shabby! Making a six digit salary and then holding on to it at all costs is a worthwhile goal I suppose, if you think being a responsible official is just business. When an official separates him/herself from the membership, and views their position within the union as another rung on the ladder of self indulgence instead of an obligation or a duty to the membership, then it makes it our obligation or duty to the membership to question their validity.

edit: sp

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Aug 4, 2003 10:15am

The Wal-Mart scare is more valid in the US than in Canada. UFCW Canada argues that Wal-Mart is the threat when in fact the Real Canadian Superstore and other big-box, low-wage unionized operators are the real threat. What's surprising is that the UFCW Canada has created its own threat by it's collapse in the face of any and every concessionary demand placed before it by Loblaw Companies.

Though the capitulation didn't start with this deal, it is indicative of how low the UFCW had sunk in subserviance to Loblaw Companies by the late 1980s.

Here's an analysis of how UFCW Canada's sweetheart partnering affected Canada's retail grocery agreements. It's also a good indicator of where they will head in light of the sweetheart, cheapo deal (one that matches non-union Wal-Mart's in the GTA).



Loblaws, a Canadian grocery and retail chain, opened Real Canadian Super Stores (RCSS) in Canada several years ago. RCSS combines food and discount retail under one roof, paying wages that are typical of the discount retail industry, as do Supercenters in the United States. RCSS entered the market in Alberta in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Safeway has been the primary unionized supermarket in Alberta for years, and Safeway wages in Alberta were considerably higher than RCSS. By the early 1990s, competition with the lower labor-cost RCSS began to have a dramatically negative impact on Safeway profits.

Safeway executives estimated that the wage gap between their employees and RCSS workers was between $8.00 and $12.00 per hour in Canadian dollars. In 1993, Safeway concluded it could no longer compete without drastically cutting pay and benefits. Management presented employees with two choices – either Safeway would cut its losses and leave the Alberta market, or cut pay and benefits by the equivalent of $5.00 per hour (Canadian).

Eventually, the unionized employees agreed to the pay and benefit cuts. Safeway implemented the pay cuts both by reducing pay and benefits and by buying out the contracts of 4,000 experienced employees and replacing those workers with persons earning approximately $6.00 per hour with no benefits.11 In 1997, Safeway employees went on strike in an effort to restore wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement.

The strike ended without the union regaining the wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement.

In 1996, similar competition between grocery chains with dramatically different labor costs sparked a labor dispute in Vancouver, British Columbia. RCSS operated with a lower cost [UFCW] contract than either of the two primary Vancouver chains -- Safeway and Overwaitea (a Canadian firm). Safeway estimated the labor cost differential, including benefits, at $11.58 (Canadian) per hour. The cost differential greatly reduced Safeway's and Overwaitea's ability to compete in the Vancouver market, and from 1985 through 1996 RCSS gained nine percentage points in market share in that urban area. Having already faced similar competition with RCSS in Alberta, Safeway was committed to closing the labor cost gap before profits turned to staggering losses. After a bitter strike, Vancouver Safeway employees accepted a new contract that reduced pay and benefits.

As another example, A&P faced similar competition from low labor-cost competitors in greater Toronto in the early 1990s. Non-union competitors such as Sobey's had lower labor costs, as did the "No Frills" warehouse grocery chain operated by Loblaw's. (The "No Frills" stores were unionized, but under a different contract that allowed lower wages and benefits compared with what A&P's union contract required.)

A&P felt that it was at a competitive disadvantage and forced a strike to gain contract terms more comparable to the lower wages paid to the non-union and "No Frills" competitors. The strike lasted from November, 1993 to February, 1994. The resolution was a compromise that did not fully satisfy either party. A&P came out of the strike in a weaker position, and was less able to renovate, expand, and open new stores than it would have otherwise. The union wages and benefits were also downgraded as part of the resolution of the labor strife.

Supermarket News stated in June of 1996 that, 'Partly because of the residual effect of that strike, A&P converted 19 of its Ontario stores to Food Basics, a lower-cost format that it operates under a separate bargaining agreement.'

The lesson is that major grocery chains will compete, and compete vigorously, for market share and profit when faced with low-cost competition. That competition takes the form of both short-term and long-term labor disputes. In the short-run, the Canadian chains (A&P, Canada Safeway, and Overwaitea) sought immediate wage and benefit concessions once competitors with lower labor costs became clear competitive threats.

The short-run concessions often took the form of buy-outs of more experienced, higher-paid workers combined with a two-tiered wage structure that included substantially less valuable pay and benefit packages for new hires. In some instances those buy-outs were combined with wage and benefit reductions for existing employees. In most of the labor disputes, the chains involved sought immediate labor cost reductions. For example, in Alberta Safeway appeared to try to close between forty percent and sixty percent of the labor cost gap with RCSS. (Recall that the 1993 concessions reduced Safeway labor costs by roughly $5.00 per hour, approximately forty to sixty percent of the estimated $8.00 to $12.00 per hour gap.)

Yet that estimate ought not be taken as firmly indicative of the type of response that would occur in other markets. Given the dynamics of union bargaining, it is possible that the concessions observed in Canada were interim steps, and that grocery chains will continue to seek labor cost reductions until they have parity with low cost competitors.

Labor represents approximately 60% of the controllable costs (excluding the cost of product) in the grocery industry, so competition often takes the form of meeting a rival's labor costs. Safeway argued in British Columbia that parity with RCSS in new hire labor costs was the only fair solution to the labor dispute.18 A&P converted 19 stores in Ontario to a low-cost format to take advantage of the lower-cost union contract for such stores.19

The mediator of the labor dispute in British Columbia was quoted after the strike as saying, 'Safeway and Overwaitea are legitimately frustrated with the substandard collective agreement in place between Real Canadian Superstore and UFCW Local 777 and that issue must be addressed.'20 Overall, the experience in Canada suggests that major chains will seek parity with lower labor cost competitors, if not immediately then certainly in the long run through mechanisms such as two-tiered contracts that reduce costs for new hires or changes in collective bargaining agreements.

The ability of grocery chains to obtain wage and benefit parity with low cost competitors hinges on the relative bargaining power of a chain and the union in any particular market.

Yet the evidence suggests that wage and benefit differentials across stores that compete vigorously with each other will lead to substantial downward wage pressure until those differentials are closed….

The 1999 report from which this is taken overestimates the impact of Wal-Mart Supercenters in the US. The predicted impact hasn't been as great as expected, but it does show that the UFCW has little power to organize non-union competition and routinely agrees to lower wages and benefits to the lowest level paid by either Union (UFCW) or non-union competitors.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Aug 4, 2003 5:05pm

HELLO LOBLAWS WORKERS.Any one interested in challenging the "deal" can contact me at 705-446-1933.I would also like to organize a protest at the union office or the company headquarters.Now is the time to be heard,if we do nothing then we accept this garbage.

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Aug 5, 2003 7:00am

David Noonan, son of the high-ranking UFCW official who thought that the $300,000 UFCW race car was a good idea; declared candidate for the Brant NDP nomination, UFCW "youth committee" memeber and UFCW Local 1977 vice-president writes a letter to the editor of the Financial Post. .


Loblaw's debateable deal
After reading the column regarding the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Loblaw companies (A Sweetheart Deal, Hugh Finnamore, July 25), it is obvious to me that Mr. Finnamore is jumping to conclusions on what is being offered to the UFCW members.

I am an executive member of this union and I can tell you we are not taking concessions. Actually, no concession clause came with this deal. What Mr. Finnamore is confused about is that those who decide to go to these new superstores will be at a different rate of pay, but are given healthy packages if they do so. Also, those who stay at their current Loblaws store will keep their wages and benefits as is.

There are also criteria that must be met for the Loblaw company to covert each store to a superstore. So there is no "mid-contract slashing" going on here. I, along with many of the membership, voted to give my union president a mandate to negotiate an appendix for those who decide to move to the new superstores. More of our membership voted at these meetings than at our last ratification meeting, and 91% of this UFCW membership voted in favour of this mandate.

David Noonan, UFCW member and Zehrs Markets worker, Brantford, Ont.

- - -

HUGH FINNAMORE RESPONDS: I base my assertions on UFCW members' comments, official UFCW publications and on my several years of experience as a UFCW official. Mr. Noonan is no doubt duty-bound to defend his deal. However, by the UFCW's own account, 31 stores are slated for change, now through 2004. The UFCW says, "many UFCW members will be affected and soon," and "all employees in conventional banners are potentially affected." In fact, the UFCW says, "it's happening now!"

Top-rate employees are paid up to $20 per hour to stock non-food items. Under the new deal, that work and new work will transfer to store areas with a top rate of $10 per hour. Most part-timers in these new areas will have to work 10 years or more to reach that top rate. These non-food positions will not be open to former food clerks except at the lower rates. Part-time food clerks who transfer to a new store will have their wages capped at a top rate $5.50 less than a full-time clerk doing the same work. Mr. Noonan says there are some protections for select employees, and he is correct. However, in the end the slashed rates will affect many current employees provided they don't accept money to quit. Those rates have the potential to affect thousands of present and future employees -- potentially up to 7,000 in the next year. The UFCW says the slated 31 stores are only the beginning. The deal was bargained in secret, and the UFCW states that Loblaw, "refuses to offer the agreement if [the] union requires a formal membership vote." There was no "ratification" and the true text of the deal has not been released to the members.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Tue, Aug 5, 2003 10:28am

The letter of understanding # 1 RE: assurance of employment is ammended to read " it is understood that employees hired at lLoblaws Real Canadian Superstore count toward fulfilling the requirements outlined in this letter." Yeah sure nobodies affected.......not in your office.

  • posted by Duffbeer
  • Wed, Aug 6, 2003 11:37pm

From a prescient June 25/03 post by weiser in another older thread:


Think of it this way. Wal-Mart should be the one worrying.

Wal-Mart Supercenters have lots of groceries. There are no plans for Supercenters in Canada. Sams Clubs are a threat to Costco, not Loblaw. However, Loblaw wants to get into general merchandise in a big way. That's the reason behind the RCSS format.

It isn't because Wal-Mart is comming after Loblaw with groceries, it's Loblaw going after Wal-Mart's general merchandise business.

Wal-Mart isn't becoming more like Loblaw, Loblaw is becoming more like Wal-Mart.


From the Aug 6/03 Financial Post:

Who should fear Wal-Mart invasion?
(Sorry rv, there's that war talk again!)


Canadian retailers are trembling at the upcoming launch of Wal Mart Corp.'s membership warehouse, but Costco Wholesale Corp. is likely the first to suffer.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Thu, Aug 21, 2003 9:40am

The infomation about the real deal is getting out.Several stores have been contacted and nobody has been negative about my complaint yet.
My complaint is against the union for not representing loblaw workers fairly.There is a lot of information out there.The board has ruled that a union must consult its members before negotiations.local 1000a claims to be a democratically run union.So why No vote???
Because the company did not want one. Is that right??What the hell is that??that is not the definition of a trade union. A trade is defined in the supeme court of newfoundland in UFCW vs cashin as"organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing their members interests in respect to wages,benefits and working conditions".Does the UFCW meet this definition??UFCW stands for Unfair Financial Collaberators With........ANYONE

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Aug 21, 2003 5:33pm

You might also want to give this a read. In it we discussed the Dunmore decision. The court had some really interesting things to say about what unions are all about in that one too. There are a couple of other cases cited as well.

  • posted by dave
  • Fri, Aug 22, 2003 5:38pm

155. As stated by Cory and Iacobucci JJ. in Delisle, supra, at para. 68:
The ability of employees to form and join an employee association is thus crucially linked to their economic and emotional well-being. Membership in employee groups assists the individual member in a great many ways. Simply to join a trade union is an important exercise of an individual's freedom of expression. It is a group that so often brings to the individual a sense of self-worth and dignity. An employee association provides a means of openly and frankly discussing work-related problems without fear of interference or intimidation by the employer. The association provides a means of expressing a collective voice, not only in communicating with the employer, but also in communicating with government, other groups, and the general public. The fundamental importance of the union remains, even though a statute may prohibit the employees from going on strike, or from holding a sit-in. The freedom of employees to participate in an employee association is basic and essential in our society.

As far as I'm concerned the UFCW has violated this quote in every context. If they are suppose to help the well being of individuals, then taking a wage concession and cutting back benifits is not the way to do it. In the beginning we had our respectfull locals prsidents saying that family time was important so sundays would remain a"family day". Now it seems that they argreed to have us work sunday through saturday, 1 weekend off in 5 and work 40hrs. So if it is our freedom to join a trade union, then ity should be our freedom to break the ties with said trade union.

  • posted by <Soitis>
  • Fri, Aug 22, 2003 6:41pm

It would be very helpful to me if one of our 'Loblaws Head Office deep thinkers' or 'UFCW super negotiators' could explain to me how me spending 4 out of 5 Saturdays & Sundays at work away from my family (while the above groups are at their cottages) will help keep Walmart from being successful in this market? Zehrs has gone out of its way in the last few years to make every employee work the worst possible schedule that the contract allows. I am sure they are licking their chops at this shit.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Fri, Aug 22, 2003 7:24pm

Do you think they are trying to get people to quit or to get them thinking seriously about taking the buy-out packages?

  • posted by edelio
  • Fri, Aug 22, 2003 9:30pm

When i was working for the fortinos warehouse before the transfer to Maplgrove we were under the same 175 contract as in the stores. The company line was always,"Hey,,this is a weekend business you know!" That aside, the most entertaining line in the contract was that instead of stating the obvious; you gotta work 4 out of 5 saturdays, the union worded it like a triumphant tale of a battle that ended with the company cowering to the ufcw and buckling to the ground as the ominous voice of the union came down from above to say that," (say in a Heston voice) All employees shall have 1 in 5 saturdays OFF !!!!) I just love semantics.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Aug 23, 2003 4:29am

the loblaws contract says all employees are entitled to 2 days off together every 3 weeks and 1 saturday in 6 weeks.Good work Kevin,Oh you don't have to work under those conditions.

  • posted by cointoss
  • Sat, Aug 23, 2003 5:58am

my wife tells me Zehrs is opening a store in kitchener that was closed for renovations called stanley park. guess what it will be, a zehrs, NO RCSS. They had it listed in the "offer/ threat" as going YIG or RCSS. I guess they have screwed as many as they have to. I think that this is bad faith bargaining. They told us no more loblaws or zehrs and here they go changing their minds. I know the union will say we are better off with zehrs, and they are right, but it still is proff of bad faith.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Aug 23, 2003 6:22am

That's important information (about the new store opening as a plain old Zehr's and not a Wal-Mart fighting RCSS). We should all keep an eye open for more of these and ensure that the person with the DFR knows about them. If I recall correctly, the UFCW's famous slide show stated quite definitively that plans to open or renovate a whole bunch of existing stores were now on hold and that these would be opening as RCSS.

While I'm thinking about it, the UFCW local honchos have made all kinds of grandiose statements about how for existing members nothing will change and their jobs are protected (well, unless they are laid off or bumped). But I'm wondering, what have they said about what's going to happen to all the jobs that will become vacant when workers take these buy out packages? Will these be filled under the former contract or the new contract (the one that includes the long appendix)?

edelio: Yes, I am always amazed at the UFCW's proficiency at doublespeak and doublethink. It's the one activity where they really shine.

  • posted by <Soitis>
  • Sat, Aug 23, 2003 6:55am

So Stanley Park Zehrs is going to be a conventional store???
Yet this is what the handy dandy little guide said that we voted on:

"The Company is no longer going to build large conventional Loblaws, Zehrs and Fortinos stores."

"It's happening now! The following stores were going to be large conventional stores but have now been put on hold:
*1000A:Ajax, Ottawa: Richmond & Kirkwood St.
*1977: Midland, +STANLEY PARK+
*175:Leamington: Zehrs; Windsor: Walker Road
Loblaws; Ottawa: Blair & Ogilvie Loblaws."

"Kitchener:STANLEY PARK NSR (Oringinal Intention Zehrs) (Option 1 YIG) (Option 2 RCSS)"

"The company will not be opening conventional replacement stores for those stores slated to close."

"Announced in December that the stores of the future in Ontario will be RCSS--as has been happening for several years in Western and Atlantic Canada--or other non-union format such as YIG."

So according to the Slide presentation conventional stores are gone, Gone, GONE!!! Yet here we have a brand new conventional store coming. Shows that the company was not so serious about the need for this change. And our union locals believed them.

One more point that burns my ass. The slide show presentation said: "No Local can bind another. Each will make its own decision." 1977 at least had a vote. But right when they announced the 1000A accepted the compromise(the directors on behalf of their membership) that changed the 1977 vote. Sure we could have voted it down, but at that point Loblaw Co. had the Loblaws name. WE WERE DIVIDED AND CONQUERED!!! All the company had to do is use the Loblaw name. Some vote. Someone needs their ass kicked.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Aug 23, 2003 11:02am

So Loblaw promises that there'll be no more conventionals built.


In the same breath, didn't Loblaw promise that they wouldn't ask for more concessions when the present contract expires?

Maybe Loblaw didn't promise a lot of things. The weasle wizards just thought they were makin' promises.

  • posted by <Leadershit 101>
  • Sun, Aug 24, 2003 11:41am

There's leadership and leadershit.

Leadership comes in many forms. Leaders are dependent on their followers; leaders have a connection to their followers;leaders have a grasp on the true needs of their followers and work hard to satisfy those needs.

Leadershit comes in one form but attracts many personalities--tyrants, despots, dictators greedy pretenders etc. I love the quote in another thread that has a UFCW president saying, "leadership is taking people where they don't want to go." In effect that's a prime example of leadershit. It's more like the dork saying, "leadershit is taking people where I want to go, or where I'm told to take them."

The employers use union leadershit experts to drag employees where the employer wants them to be. Leadershit requires the liberal use of lies, manipulation, half-truths, coercion and gall--lots of it.

Ships float, can follow a charted course and provide confortable passage to desired destinations.

Shit stinks.

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Aug 25, 2003 8:44am

Actually, the full Bernard Christophe quotation is:


Leadership is taking your members where they don't want to go, and ultimately to be proven right.

He said it was his motto.

Bernie's motto says volumes about the UFCW philosophy. "Your members" implies ownership. "Taking" means to convey or transport.

This statement sounds as if members are little more than props in a big play. It's as if he's saying, "As hard to move as it is, I move my stuff around as I see fit."

The "ultimately to be proven right" is really twisted. How on earth would Bernie be proven right? What's the criteria? Who proved Bernie right?

To be proven right, one has to have the outcome documented. That outcome has to be communicated. When it is achieved against great odds, then one can claim a victory.

However, can a person really call himself a leader if he constantly has to "take members where they don't want to go"? Aren't leaders supposed to listen to their members? When the membership says, Hey leader! We want to go there!" The leader says, "I will lead you there." If "there" is not safe, a true leader can convince her or his followers of the danger and convince them that another destination is a better choice. The true leader then hears his or her members say, "Good point leader, lead us to the safer destination."

Leadership is definitely not "taking members where they don't want to go..." Leadership is listening to where the members want to go and leading them to that place.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Aug 25, 2003 1:18pm


Leadership is taking your members where they don't want to go, and ultimately to be proven right.

This is one of my favourite ufcw-isms - one of those grandiose statements that makes no sense but says so much about the UFCW's commitment to undemocratic unionism. I've often wondered just how you go about being proven right after you've taken the members where they don't want to go. I guess in the undemocratic model, what the members think about it doesn't count so that only leaves the president's opinion - and he's always right.

In the alternative if, once you've taken the members to where they don't want to go, many of them become unemployed and are no longer members, then their views don't count. Same result.

  • posted by edelio
  • Wed, Aug 27, 2003 7:36pm


it was announced today at the warehouse that Loblaws is planning to go third party for all of its General Merchandise warehousing.A new state of the art warehouse will be built to accomodate them by Tippet Richardson.

"We shall ride the wave of change instead of...." lmao

  • posted by edelio
  • Wed, Aug 27, 2003 8:47pm

My bad,,,I dont think it is tippet richardson,,thats a moving company,,lol,,,I will get more info and post it tomorrow.

  • posted by <Dott>
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 6:11am

I heard it is Tippit Benton.
This company is ready to get rid of employees any way it can. But don't worry. They (the company) are going to let the employee's know when they are going to get shafted as soon as possible in advance.

  • posted by edelio
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 7:23am

Cant find anything on Tippet Benton,,are you sure thats it??? At work today i am going to try to get a copy of the staement released by Mr. Lederer,,or whatever his name is and post it on here....wish me luck,,,lol

  • posted by edelio
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 7:35am

PS....... HEY HAGEN,,,hows the holidays??? Can you believe when I tried to spread the word aboutthis site at work it was brought to my attention that the "original 1000a" guys were made to believe that this site was entirely your creation in order to slander the good UFCW name!!!! Funny considering,if memory serves me correct, I was the one to introduce it to you!!!! Rumours never cease to amaze me??? This one was purpotrated by the our large blond steward who transferred to Pinebush during the first wave of "lemmings" to leave the grove.I am sure Ed will tell u soon but here it is. Is it any surprise to you that a certain former steward who forced the company to request a month and a half absence from work by me has just applied for a supervisor job. For those of you not familiar with our east coast situation this was the same guy that was handpicked as a steward and forced us to endure this appointment for a year and a half.Hagen was the 1st membership voted steward at our facility.

  • posted by edelio
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 7:36am

Thats it Sig,,, u da man....

  • posted by siggy
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 7:37am

How about Tibbet and Britton edelio?

Sorry, for moving it, wasn't sure you seen it. soowy.

  • posted by <squrilley>
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 7:41am

LCE distribution has decided to go to a third party to distribute their general merchandise, resulting in the closure of the pinebush location

  • posted by edelio
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 7:49am

According to an original 1000a steward at my place,,it is believed that those employees at Pinebush will have bumping rights at any 1000a facility.(hes a good man)

  • posted by squrilley
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:04am

This is the 2nd time in a month that a branch of our business has gone 3rd party, CFS (cross docking) has also gone 3rd party to Newcastle logistics on Millcreek Dr. from Erin Mills distribution. 1000A has done nothing to stop this!

  • posted by edelio
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:11am

Why would they fight it? They got what they want. They got their voluntary recognition at the RCSS plus a $400,000 "education fund" contribution from sLoblaws. Not to mention the fact that all those full time jobs that will be turned into 2 part-time jobs(double the dues) from those people that will take a buyout instead of transferring to an RCSS for a $6\hr pay cut.

  • posted by squrilley
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:16am

do we see a trend here? who's next? frozen? deli?

  • posted by edelio
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:24am

I dont believe they are slated for 3rd party....I work at the new state of the art facility in Cambridge ontario. We are warehousing and shipping deli plus they are currently building a 20 million dollar frozen food section there that will put us way past 1million ft². I am more interested in what debacle they will wheel out for staffing it.

  • posted by squrilley
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:34am

I wonder if the company will staff Ajax the same way Maple Grove was, that if Ajax plans are off the ground yet. I heard it is on hold

  • posted by edelio
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:59am

I heard the same thing. The staffing of it will depend upon any closings of other warehouses.I have a feeling tho that the company will put it on hold until the 1000a contract expires in October of 04.That will free them of the voluntary recognition clause in the current contract.Then they can threaten the union with the old,"its an RCSS warehouse,give us concessions". Ican just see the two-tier pay scale now!!!!

  • posted by blasdell
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 9:30am

At least you guys will have the right to a ratification process and a strike vote.......unless the company demands no vote and just ammends your agreement.Voluntary recognition is a pretty big carrot for the machine heads to grab and screw anyone in the way.

  • posted by cointoss
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:06pm

Does anyone know what happened to 175? I heard a rumor that they turned down the "mandate" for their local.

  • posted by dave
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:06pm

Just a note: the Midland store is a RCSS, it open in October. As for the Stanely Park, that too will be a RCSS, postings went up for that one a while ago.

  • posted by dave
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:08pm

I have not heard anything. But why would they turn down the mandate?? I'm sure 175 will sign anyways.

  • posted by cointoss
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:24pm

Are you sure that Stanley Park is going RCSS. My wife says the postings say Zehrs for Stanley Park and Zehrs/RCSS for Midland.

  • posted by cointoss
  • Thu, Aug 28, 2003 8:28pm

175 might turn it down because they took the time to see through the empty threats. Go ahead and open their rcss. Weston makes too much money from Zehrs to close down all of Essex and Kent county not to mention Ottawa.

  • posted by <40 Below>
  • Sun, Sep 14, 2003 8:43pm

I hear that they are having trouble getting staff for the Ajax Loblaws RCSS that is set to open in 6 weeks. I hear that they can't get enough managers or part time staff. Is there any truth to this? Does anyone from the Ajax area know anything about this?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Sep 15, 2003 1:22pm

I suspect that 175 is waiting for the controversy to die down. Wayne Hanley doesn't want a lot of mud landing on him. I think he sees himself as an heir apparent to Mike Fraser and would rather Corporon and Williamson took the flack for the sell out deal. That way he can sign it later, when things quiet down and say "Oh well, what could I do. The other locals signed the damned thing and I had no real choice."

It's interesting that Local 1000a and 1977 took different approaches to dealing with the ratification "sticking point". I suspect there is tension between the large brothers. Maybe members from all three locals should start asking Brian and Wayne to explain Brother Kevin's behaviour. Make the uncomfortable and see what they say.

  • posted by cointoss
  • Tue, Sep 16, 2003 7:56am

We have not heard anything about a dues increase. The stores have settled down and no one is talking much. We all think we have been screwed by both the union and the company. The only difference is the union is on our side. Poor representation in all of this. Zehrs is opening Midland in a few weeks and Loblaws is going to the city for approval for more footage at Gamage. We all asked the ufcw to get together ( 1000A and 1977) for negotiations but apparently their egos got in the way. Look at what can be accomplished when people work together ( loblaws/ Zehrs) if you see what I mean.

  • posted by <Soitis>
  • Tue, Sep 16, 2003 7:08pm

Everyone including Zehrs, Loblaws, Valuemart, & upcoming Zehrs RCSS/Loblaws RCSS should DEMAND that all our contracts expire the same day, month year. That's the only way we are going to climb out of this pit we have all fallen into when it comes to wages.
This may be the only way Loblaw Co. will take us serious if all of Ontario is in the position of walking out. Why should the upper management be so well paid and as the store employee's head the other way???

Think about it.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Wed, Sep 17, 2003 8:56am

After the latest concessions,there is no way our union will ever make another demand let alone go out on strike.Our union is impotent an dishonest.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Sep 17, 2003 1:23pm

I think that you should ask the great UFCW leaders why they do not use their collective might to squeeze the employers for good deals. I think the answer may have something to do with the voluntary recognition deals that would go flying out the window if that were ever to happen. If you needle them long enough, you might get them to own up to it. Then there will be an interesting issue for the the LRB (or maybe the courts) to decide: Can a union sacrifice the interests of its current members to "grow" its treasury? That's a big question that has the potential to stand the biz unionists on their heads.

What's so sad about the UFCW's steadfast refusal to squeeze the employers, and what makes their whining about bad employers and inadequate laws, so lame is that the UFCW, more than most unions actually has the bargaining power to get really good agreements. When you have a large and profitable employer's entire operation organized, from provincial border to provincial border, and you have the employer's major competitors organized as well, you have all the bargaining power you can possibly ever have (no matter what laws are on the books). The UFCW does not use that bargaining power. We must ask the leaders Why not?

  • posted by <Larry>
  • Wed, Sep 17, 2003 2:25pm

Couldnt agree with you more, any other industry that is dominated by a handful of companies- all profitable - yet mostly organized would be a dream come true for a union with any kind of balls. Unfortunately each local is so paranoid about losing dues that it is unwilling to make a stand. The union has to stop listening to the companies demands for concessions due to the boogeyman/competition because for the most part its just stealing from its self (other union members).

  • posted by cointoss
  • Thu, Sep 18, 2003 3:48pm

Anyone hear how much they are paying bakery, produce, meat managers?

  • posted by blasdell
  • Fri, Sep 19, 2003 4:09pm

I have heard that you can make between,45,000 and 60,000 plus a bonus if you are a "manager" in the "new face of retail at Loblaws".Oh by the way a notice went up this week at Loblaws stores about the dues increase
11 hours or less per week 5.72
12 hours or less per week 6.97
over 24 hours per week 7.47
With a notation that the international has increased dues on locals effective 2003,2004,2005 and optional increases in 2006 and 2007.They have taken care of business for themselves for the next 5 years... now if they can only look after us....oh yeah they just did.I wonder when the pay raises for the union executives is going to come into effect?

  • posted by <another screwed member>
  • Sat, Sep 20, 2003 5:59pm

Hey Ben, when will this ruling by the OLRB take place as more and more members support your complaint and grow more and more frustrated against the union as they continue to ignore member issues. We are tired of our union rep not dealing with issues in our store and it just amazes me that with so many issues at hand our rep can go for coffee with our store manager (female) who has violated workers rights, worked the shelves and entered the mens bathroom while employees were changing would have such a cozy relationship. Can you imagine if that were a male store manager, what would happen to him ? He would be crucified by the union and fired. Of course nothing happened to our store manager, the union rep didn't even talk to any employees that had called him with complaints. I always felt that there was a fine line between the union and the company but in this case why would there be the company has paid $450,000 to be represented by the union against the members.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Sep 20, 2003 6:42pm

There may be a meeting on the 24 of Sept.2003.The union is impotent now.How can they fight for us when they have committed this crime?The company has this over them for all time.The only option is open revolt against the union.As soon as their worthless souls are threatened they will begin to fight.Not for us but for their own yellow skins.Keep up to date here, all info will be posted

  • posted by cointoss
  • Sun, Sep 21, 2003 6:25am

BB are you suggesting we contact the caw?

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sun, Sep 21, 2003 6:45am

No I am not suggesting that we contact the CAW,They won't touch us with a ten foot pole.They got their business union ass kicked at the Canadian Labour Congress for the shenanigans they pulled when they were raiding the SEIU.This has to come from Loblaw workers.Every person who signs on to the complaint is a very loud voice saying REPRESENT US FAIRLY.When the time comes and we create a little media stir,they will all be shaking in their boots.They cannot stand the media glare,To many dirty deals could be uncovered.Suppose there is a hearing and there are a few picketers on University avenue saying we want a vote.What is the Toronto Star going to put in the paper?Agitate,Agitate, agitate.The union is soft.They dont know how to fight as they have shown

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Sep 29, 2003 4:14pm

Good news all, a date for consultation has been set by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the matter Blasdell vs ufcw local 1000Aand Loblaw Supermarkets Ltd.( intervenor).The date is Thursday October 23,2003,505 University Avenue,Toronto Ontario at 930 am. in the Board Room on the 2nd floor.Be sure to attend the consultation is a public hearing and see your dues at work.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Thu, Oct 9, 2003 5:14pm

I spoke to a worker from Ottawa today,it seems the word is getting out over there and they are just as pissed as the rest of us.The co-worker is dedicated and has provided names and spread the word.He told me that the new rcss is due to open within a few days and that he was offered to go there and work without transfering for the opening.He would have to paid under our contract.Funny how necessity dictates wages.BTW how many walmarts are there in Ottawa?The worker also told me he is an active union steward and the company is none too pleased with him,he has a disciplinary meeting scheduled about his promotion of this website and passing out the Labour Board Complaint sign-up sheet.I am getting sheets back via the mail and they have this websites address on the sheets,the internet is a great tool!!There was another rumour that the re-furb crews that open new loblaw stores will not open rcss because of the wages ....TOO LOW

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Oct 9, 2003 6:12pm

Well that's great news that the Internet is helping people get connected and get involved. You must tell us more about the member who's going to get whacked with discipline for telling people about MFD. I think we could help spread the word about that managerial over-reaction far and wide. Hey, I think they fear the Internet, don't you? Gee, why might that be?

  • posted by blasdell
  • Tue, Oct 14, 2003 6:04pm

just to keep everyone up to date,the total of names is 67.I recieved 20 names today from Ottawa,I think there is a coincidence,that is where the Ist Loblaw rcss is due to open and the rumour is that a YIG closed down the street and the company offered all the jobs to the YIG employees.The company opposes adding any names to the complaint and I got a nasty letter after I demanded documents,which they might rely on in the hearing,which I am entitled to.We are doing very well in certain stores but finding contacts in stores not represented is still a challenge.Thanks for all the help everyone

  • posted by <edelio>
  • Tue, Oct 14, 2003 8:58pm

Someone told me that mine and Craig's names may hinder you and they wont acknowledge us because we are under a different contract.What have you heard about the warehouse and why should we ,"watch out."?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Oct 16, 2003 8:31am

If you have asked that your name be added to the complaint but you are from another bargaining unit, the worst that can happen is that the Board declines to add your name to the complaint. I have no idea how your request can hinder the complaint or why you would have any other reason to be concerned. Sounds to me like the machine heads are just trying to contain the damage to their grand plan and would like to keep members from other units from showing solidarity with the members at Loblaws.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Thu, Oct 16, 2003 2:03pm

Well things are heating up a bit.It seems the company would like to keep people working on the hearing date.A coworker asked for the day off and was told NO.The reason was template.I explained that the Labour Board would be very interested to know the "business reason" behind the denial.He was also told no other stores are going to the hearing.Hmmmm....Wonder where he gets his info.
Before the co-worker was told he could not have the day off,the manager a called Industrial Relations and Radek (the gm),so this is coming from the top. I wonder if the worried.....THEY ARE SHITTING.They would not have anything to worry about if they haven't done anything wrong.Instead of correcting what they've done wrong they perpetuate what they have already done.What fools maybe the company should be running the union.I hope people can attend the date is October 23, 2003 at 930 am, 505 University Avenue, 2nd floor (the Ontario Labour Board)

  • posted by <edelio>
  • Thu, Oct 16, 2003 11:05pm

Its just that BB mentioned to Craig to watch out or something to that extent and we weren't sure as to the context of the warning.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Fri, Oct 17, 2003 6:01am

I am not sure if names from the warehouse can be added.Warehouse workers are in the right local but not covered by the agreement?Your names have been submmitted to the Labour Board and the company and the union oppose the adding of any names.What I meant by "be careful" is be ready for any tactic the union or company may use to break up support.But the important thing to remember is Your union is our union,if our contract can be ammended without a vote,yours can too.Spread that message to your co-workers.Our deal is not due until 2006.Show your Rep the response from this site and ask about section 58 (5) of the act.Ask if any secret negotiations are going on?Ask if the divisional committee is going to vote for you?Ask if Michael Fraser is involved in any contract talks?Ask if a contract is a contract or is it toilet paper to be used by company and union officials if they have an accident?

  • posted by <another screwed member>
  • Fri, Oct 17, 2003 6:16pm

Hey BB, we were told at the union rep meeting by Kevin Corporon himself that this amendment to our contract would not allow any Loblaws employees to go and help in the RCSS stores and that it would be in violation of the RCSS contract. So why are a few of my friends that work in a Loblaws going to the RCSS Ajax store to help? Kevin told us that this is the same situation as a Loblaws employee going to help in a No Frills and that it is a violation of the contract. So why do these clowns keep changing the rules as they go along? I wouldn't be surprised if they were to change our contract again before 2006 where they take away our sick days and force us to work on Sundays, followed by Kevin Corporon telling the members that this was the best they can do of a bad situation or an unprecidented negotiation breakthrough.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Oct 18, 2003 4:42am

In a union submission to the labour board, the union opposes adding any names to the complaint... "there is no evidence that Mr. Blasdell has the authority to advance this claim for standing on behalf of these individuals"......What a lame submission,just because there are no signatures and a disclaimer stating that people who want their names added "have given me authority to act on their behalf "...Is that the best they have?I suggest everyone call the union office and give consent to them .....who gave them consent to act on our behalf with this deal?Everyone remember these morons will be representing YOU at the labour board on Thursday October 23 at 930 am ,505 University Avenue (the labour Board) 2nd floor.Maybe your name won't be added,but I will be there with the lawyer giving these fools all I have.Oh....they have also been ordered to give REASONS why they acted in the manner they did.I urge everyone to go and hear the reasons 1st hand and then explain them to their co-workers.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Sat, Oct 18, 2003 5:41am


In a union submission to the labour board, the union opposes adding any names to the complaint... "there is no evidence that Mr. Blasdell has the authority to advance this claim for standing on behalf of these individuals"......

The poor boys are just pissed that you have managed to get more people to back your complaint than they can get to back their shady deal gee go figure

  • posted by cointoss
  • Sat, Oct 18, 2003 4:16pm

bb you are the MAN!!! Now we hear that if a part time employee takes a full time job at rcss or if anyone takes any kind of a promotion then they do not get the buy down. Where did they hide this one, are we ever going to get the whole story?

  • posted by <40 Below>
  • Sat, Oct 18, 2003 7:25pm

ahhh I heard that too cointoss. I was wondering if that includes going from full time nights at Loblaws to full time days at RCSS. If so that would suck as that is the sitation I am looking at. Either that or working nights forever at Loblaws...

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Oct 18, 2003 8:13pm

Nothing about any of that in the Loblaw appendix.I have read it thoroughly.If you go over and take the buy down Ft or Pt and carry seniority what right do they have to say you cannot have any job.Same if part time go over and a job finally comes up.I think if you take the early retirement option and go part time you cannot post back into a Loblaw job.I will look up the section.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Sun, Oct 19, 2003 4:13am


Now we hear that if a part time employee takes a full time job at rcss or if anyone takes any kind of a promotion then they do not get the buy down.

A good friend of mine asked supervision about going RCSS in a higher position and was told exactly that, it is a "PROMOTION" and therefor you are not eligible for a "BUYDOWN"

  • posted by blasdell
  • Tue, Oct 21, 2003 5:53am

Documents were produced yesterday at 4 pm.I had an interesting night of reading.The documents are largely unhelpful to the complaint before the Ontario labour Relations Board.I want to remind everyone how inportant it is to act NOW, if you cannot make it to the hearing on Thursday at 505 University Avenue at 930 am, call your union rep ,call the union office 905-850-0096 or toll free 1-800-637-5936, call the labour board 416-326-7500, call the Toronto Star 416-367-2000 or e-mail Anne Perry at, talk to your store manager or department head,make some noise...Be heard.THEY ARE SAYING THIS IS A GOOD DEAL FOR YOU.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Oct 27, 2003 5:30pm

I was called into the store managers office at 430pm today and told not to associate with co-workers when they are on company time.I knew this type of thing was coming and was ready.My response was "if this is a reprisal for me excercising a right under Ontario law I will have YOU in court", I made sure that the store manager knew that HE would be without support just like the union is now.I am pretty sure this is coming from above him,fear is at the top.The company stands for making more money and that is all.I wanted him to know that they will piss all over him as they would me and our union leaders.That is why solidarity is important,we need our leadership to lead us in hard times,not sell our rights.I have been contacted by a ufcw 175 worker who wants to persue a complaint at the board.

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Oct 27, 2003 8:14pm

These guys must be takin' stupid lessons from the UFCW. Hey! Is that whay they teach in those employer-funded training centers?


  • posted by Lorna
  • Tue, Oct 28, 2003 11:49am

Just have a question if someone could help me. I went to work earlier this week and seen sign up sheets for who would help out at the new Don Mills RCSS ....was it not said at the union meeting that no Loblaws workers would be helping out. Also at some Loblaws stores they are also training the RCSS workers in Loblaws stores....Thought that wasn't suppost to happen either..

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Oct 28, 2003 12:05pm

Lorna: You should consider calling up Brother Corporon and asking him for an explanation. I suspect that LCL is having unexpected problems staffing its new joints.

bb: That's a pretty lame tactic. Just what did your manager mean when he said that you weren't supposed to "associate" with your co-workers? Is any kind of communication off limits? I agree with weiser - the LCL-UFCW partners are taking a long walk down Desparation Blvd.

  • posted by <40 Below>
  • Tue, Oct 28, 2003 12:45pm

Lorna I agree with you. It was said that both chains would be separate, but as usual when the company needs a favour the union is there to lend a hand. I would call the union and tell them exactly what you think about the situation.

  • posted by Lorna
  • Tue, Oct 28, 2003 1:08pm

Just sent them an email they dont respond to phone calls so I suspect I wont get a response to my email either. Will let you know what they say if I do get a response but don't hold your breath...It's not like they answer anything they are asked

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Oct 28, 2003 1:10pm

Maybe you can also tell them that there's still time to make a Section 1(4) application (an application that asks the OLRB to find that Loblaws and RCSS are employers under common control and should be covered under the current collective agreement - without the changes that were negotiated in secret). All Local 1000a would have to do (also) is repudiate the changes it agreed to. It has a perfect opportunity to do just that: Kevin Corporon can say, "Yes, the members are right. We didn't let them ratify the changes, therefore, we can't agree to them."

The transfer of staff from one chain to the other is useful evidence in a Section 1(4) application.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Tue, Oct 28, 2003 2:27pm

Encourage people not to help,in the agreement it is a one way street,if you go they do not have to let you go back technically to a "conventional store".People who go and help are helping to undermine their own wages,in the future all stores will be RCSS.Does the Company really need wage concessions?If they do why did they sign a 6 year deal.If I buy a car with 6 year payments can I handle the payments better in year 1 or 6?They are in great shape financially it is morals where they need help.

  • posted by Lorna
  • Tue, Oct 28, 2003 3:14pm

Just can't believe they are asking for our help to open up stores with lower wages......What do they think we are that stupid that we don't see this???? Especially after we where told time and time again this would not happen we would not help out in any way.. But then again they wanted to slash our wages more dues .....cut our benefits.....hate to think what they will try next....

  • posted by blasdell
  • Wed, Oct 29, 2003 10:19am

Things are heating up, a person who attended the hearing on October 23 was disciplined for "following direction" from the assistant store manager.They are really grasping at straws now.If you want to excecise a right under Ontario law you may be subject to progressive discipline at Loblaws.I wonder if qualifies as a reprisal?Will our union protect our brother?This person has not even submitted his name for the dfr complaint.Apparently he did not ask for the day off far enough in advance.I wonder what the business reason was for not allowing a Thursday off as opposed to a Wednesday?I guess we will let the Board ask the question.Is loblaws so high that it is above tha law?Why wouldn't he be able to that day off?What if he had some sort of appointment?Keep digging boys, the hole only gets bigger.We are the "power souce" and collectively cannot be beaten.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Thu, Oct 30, 2003 10:03am

Just a thought...there is a "general meeting" scheduled for Nov 11, 2003....What is the possibility of having a sneak ratification of the sneak appendix? Is our union above holding a quickie
vote?They may be getting ready for an unfavouable ruling from the OLRB.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Oct 30, 2003 11:12am

I wouldn't rule anything out but if it were their intention to hold a "quickie" ratification at the meeting on November 11th, I think that they'd be leaving themselves open to yet another challenge.

They haven't announced the meeting as a ratification meeting and they haven't scheduled meetings in a way that would make them accessible to the majority of members of the bargaining unit (you've got thousands of members scattered around Southern Ontario).

I doubt that's their plan. Holding a ratification vote is the last thing they'd want to do. That would look like you won. I'm sure they'll only hold a vote if the OLRB orders them to hold one.

My guess is that the purpose of the meeting is to soften up the members in case the Board does order a vote or maybe to tell them that if they make Loblaws even madder, the company will reneg on the deal or maybe to tell them how many happy campers have already taken their buy-outs and are lining up for lower pay.

Oh hell, the possibilities!

  • posted by skaramangas
  • Fri, Oct 31, 2003 5:02pm

:thumb:So guys what is wrong with the union allowing Loblaw union workers to be helping out at store openings ,its overtime an a win situation for all .One question I want answered , if the Labour board over turns what has happened and orders a ratification vote could the company then open stores without the Loblaw name on them and then BB , we could start another Bulletin board about how one guys thoughts or desires killed off the highest paying job any retail worker has ever had.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Fri, Oct 31, 2003 5:35pm

I would suggest that if Loblaws opens stores with whatever name on them, then the UFCW should start acting like a union and apply under Section 1(4) of the LRA for a declaration of employers under common control and direction. If successful (which they ought to be unless they've given up their right to make this kind of application in some other secret backroom deal), the workers at those stores would be folded into to your original (before the backroom deal) contract and they could also make the "highest wages ever paid in the retail industry" too.

In addition, the UFCW could and should immediately file an unfair labour practice complaint because of the company's threats of job loss if it doesn't get its way.

BTW, skaramangas, when you make a statement to the effect that a certain group of workers makes the highest wages in an industry or the highest wages ever or the highest wages period, please tell us what those wages are exactly and how you have concluded that they are the "highest". I doubt very much that UFCW members in Local 1000a earn the highest wages paid in the retail industry. If you think I'm wrong however, prove me wrong.

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Oct 31, 2003 6:00pm

I'd say that Loblaws couln't escape the common employer ruling--especially after everything that's been said at the Board and in sworn testimony.

skaramangas, you seem to be advancing the machine head argument of "do what the company says 'cause it knows best, and do what they say or bad things will happen to you."

I can understand why you might believe that sort of crap; it's been fed to union members by the rat union of all rat unions--the UFCW--for a couple of decades now. If it becomes a reality, it's because the UFCW made it a reality.

  • posted by skaramangas
  • Fri, Oct 31, 2003 6:31pm

First of all lets deal with the real issues here of JOB SECURITY and not whether or not I am correct about Loblaw employees being the Highest paid in the industry, this deal was done on our behalf by our union which was given the mandate to do so by our divisional officers. How would it have been better for the members if the company would have opened NON UNION???? And if you think that this wouldn't have happened you are kidding yourself. Every full time employee is still protected under the collective agreement with no wage or benefit deceases until it expires, and that some of you think that this is a bad thing is beyond me. What is happening here? What is the motivation? Simply to have the "vote"? Well let me see here, I still believe that we cannot tell the employer, or anyone for that matter where to spend their money and they could still open a non-union store after the vote and we would all be the losers here. Look, the company approached our union about opening a new banner and offered it to the union to be the bargaining agent and now look at what a "horrible thing"happening WE have the oppurtunity to go and work there or stay at Loblaws if WE choose.

For the record I am no fan of the Ufcw ,they are not in it to protect me as much as keep what they have , for we all know Walmart did not come here last year , more like ten years ago , they keep saying to organise the non union workers but in ten years their record speaks for itself they organised nothing that will signifacantly protect the jobs of their unionised members ,they have only gotten fatter , you doubt me look at their organiser .

  • posted by siggy
  • Fri, Oct 31, 2003 8:18pm

Run for your life Chicken Little... wal mart is coming! wal mart is coming!

Someone is being lied to and it is either the members or the workers.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Fri, Oct 31, 2003 8:24pm

I thought we have job assurance.In our current unammended contract.....Wait a minute THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGE TO THE CONTRACT.All full time jobs at RCSS count toward the total.Do the math 1500 at Rcss, how many at Loblaws, they only have to have at TOTAL of 1500.They did not tell you that did they, do you still trust our elected leaders?OH they recieved a firther 150,000 per year for 3 years for "education".Didnt tell us that did they.SKUNKS

  • posted by skaramangas
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 2:50am

OH they recieved a firther 150,000 per year for 3 years for "education".Didnt tell us that did they.SKUNKS Yes its in the copy they gave all the stewarts its for research and education, but they did tell us .

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 4:43am

That information was not made available to the general membership and it was not m,entioned at the meeting.The yatal contribution to the "education fund" is almost 2 million dollars over 6 years...FOR WHAT?I bet some of the education sessions are in the bahamas in feb and march.They bought the "training centre" which is also where the offices are located.Job security is important to all of us.They, union leadership, secured their sorry ass jobs at the expense of ours.They are assured of lots of dues now in all the "new" stores, which are no different than the old Loblaw stores.All jobs will be in the rcss format now so our jobs are less secure due to closings and bumping.Can you explain the total failure to consult the membership?Are we dogmeat?Ian Andeson,union lawyer, said that the membership cannot make an informed decision.If that is the case INFORM US.these fools are no morqualified than you and I, so why should they make decisions that drastically affect our lives in the middle of a 6 year deal?

  • posted by weiser
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 5:17am


posted by skaramangas:
OH they recieved a firther 150,000 per year for 3 years for "education".Didnt tell us that did they.SKUNKS Yes its in the copy they gave all the stewarts its for research and education, but they did tell us .

skaramangas, can you tell us what sort of "research and education" will be done and for what? What have they done to date? I see that the Local prides itself on training the paid reps. Does the employer pay for that training too?

While you're here, explain the differences between what went down with the secret bargaining and what Local 1000a boast on its web pages:


Process of collective bargaining
Collective bargaining is a complex and legal procedure which demands that negotiators be aggressive and skilled in getting the best possible deal for their members. At the same time, they must respect and uphold the labour law that governs the process.

A collective agreement is a legal and binding document. Terms vary from one agreement to another, but each Local 1000A member should have a copy of his or her own agreement. This is the contract that sets out employer obligations and the terms and conditions of employment for all workers covered by the agreement.

Before negotiations between the union and employer begin, the Local sets up proposal meetings so members can discuss and determine what terms and conditions they want to concentrate on during negotiations. Once those priorities are set, the negotiating committee studies the proposals and drafts the demands the union will take to the bargaining table.

The negotiating committee is appointed by the executive board and is made up of rank and file members, service representatives and union negotiators.

Negotiations continue until either the union or employer decides that no further change will be achieved at the bargaining table. Workers vote on management's 'last' offer.

Sometimes, these so-called ratification votes and strike votes are held on the same ballot. However, union members are not allowed to strike before their union meets conciliation requirements under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Workplace parties also have access to voluntary mediation services at any time after that.

If a majority of workers (50 per cent plus one) vote to accept the terms of the tentative agreement, the agreement is ratified, becomes legal and binding until it expires.

If a majority of the members of the bargaining unit (the group covered by the collective agreement) do not vote 'yes', the offer is rejected. In that case, the local conducts a strike vote which is done by secret ballot and in accordance with the UFCW Constitution. Even with a strike mandate, union and management negotiators are still free to resolve outstanding differences. However, if no changes are possible, the workers are legally allowed to strike or the employer may lock out the employees.

You'll note the odd phrasing in the last paragraph. Shouldn't it read "If a majority of the members of the bargaining unite vote 'no'"? I guess it's true that the UFCW just can't say "NO"! It's simply not in the UFCW Canada vocabulary.

  • posted by <40 Below>
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 7:59am

Job security is very important, but what good is a secure job if the wages keep getting lower and lower? Maybe your wages won't go down that much if you went to RCSS(mine wouldn't), but what about all of the other concessions that the union has made for us? What about all of the other members? I have not been a member of this union that long and I can see that each time we bargain we lose more and more. If we do not take a stand eventually there will be nothing left to stand up for. People are leaving Loblaws to go work at Walmart because of HIGHER wages! There starting rate is higher than ours and no dues. Why would an employee want to pay dues to make $10 after 10 years of work? That will probably be the minimum wage in 10 years. We deserve a living wage and so do new members. The union has divided us and so we are easily controlled. If we stand together we can actually get something done about the situation or we can just look out for ourselves and look forward to Walmart wages.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 2:08pm


posted by skaramangas:
: BB , we could start another Bulletin board about how one guys thoughts or desires killed off the highest paying job any retail worker has ever had.

Welcome to MFD skaramangas, I hope while you visit you take the time to read through the various articles and posts here, I am sure you will be outraged by what you learn unless you are happier allowing others to decide your future in which case I suggest you just continue to repeat what the company and union tell you blindly.
By the way congratulations on being the first person I have heard back this "deal" perhaps you are a new hire who believes that you are going to get a raise and a buy down payoff for going RCSS think again if you go over with a raise or to a higher position there is no "buy down" it's considered a promotion, but I'm speculating please let us know how you came to these conclusions.
As for BB at last count he had 127 members backing him on the complaint and hundreds more silently, I could go on and on but its already been said on this site so do yourself a favor and read up on the "facts" first and then make an informed decision don't be a sheep for the company (still posting record profits) or the union (Your local president made $146,000 last year) and buy the way did you know reps are considered Loblaw employees which entitles them to the same "buy down" but their wages-benefits- hrs do not change all they have to do is promote this deal and its bonus time !

  • posted by skaramangas
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 2:41pm

.ORIGINALLY POSTED BY NIGHTS:[/qb][/QUOTE](Your local president made $146,000 last year) and buy the way did you know reps are considered Loblaw employees which entitles them to the same "buy down" but their wages-benefits- hrs do not change all they have to do is promote this deal and its bonus time ![/QB][/QUOTE]

Great for them guys, the divisonal officers are the ones who agreed to the deal they should be paid also.The deal is done store in Ajax is opened and Donmills an Eglington will be opening soon, maybe the reps getting the buy down because they work so hard long hours weekend work ya right ,when was the last time your Union rep worked a Saturday.,great job if you can get in .

I am not saying I like or dislike the RCSS ideal I would rather that then closures, however a ratification vote is not what I think is necessary ,Walmart and Sobeys need to be paying a more living wage ,I read here the CAW wants us why dont they start with Walmart or Sobeys , show us why we should have them repersent us but their afraid of Walmarts nutbusters

Weiser , secret deals are just that , how would I know what was said in secret.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 5:29pm

The problem is the secrecy.Why did our union conceal negotiations and deprive members of open debate?The answer from Ian Anderson (in house lawyer local 1000A on Oct 23 2003) was "the company made us".....LAME.When does the union become independent of the company?When they stop relying on the company money.As long a the UFCW continues to court "voluntary recognition" from Loblaws they will forever be their whore.

  • posted by skaramangas
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 5:38pm


posted by bb:
The problem is the secrecy.Why did our union conceal negotiations and deprive members of open debate?The answer from Ian Anderson (in house lawyer local 1000A on Oct 23 2003) was "the company made us".....LAME.When does the union become independent of the company?When they stop relying on the company money.As long a the UFCW continues to court "voluntary recognition" from Loblaws they will forever be their whore.

The company wanted the stores to be union.
Kevin wanted the members.
The sticky part was the Loblaw name .
The company said no vote .
The union to keep the new members agreed.
If the labour board agrees with Bens complaint, will
the vote go yes or no, what will happen if no.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 5:53pm

Why does the company want the stores to be union? So they wont have to face a REAL union and the company knows that they have problems at the Board with Section 1 (4)..related employer.The only way they can get out from under that is TOTALLY different company different employees ,management, name and business etc.This stuff is not hard to find out it is at the Board site and all the decisions are there.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 6:03pm

I am not sure the Board will even order a vote.If they find that the ACT has been violated they will make a remedy.We (me on behalf of 125 members) have asked the board to nullify the divisional vote, order a vote,allow for informed debate,conduct the vote,post a notice the ACT was violated, allow time to address the crowd at meetings, order the union to produce member lists and a couple of other things.The idea is to take us back to the time before the law was broken and " make us whole.The Board will ensure our rights are not violated.I have one problem with your last post "the union wanted the new members" I hope you dont condone that action.They have never paid anything into our union and do not deserve any of the benefits of our collective rights.We should not have to give anything up as it will not benefit EXISTING employees.WE are better off without them.But it sur benefits the unon.WE WERE SOLD OUT.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 6:17pm


I am not saying I like or dislike the RCSS ideal I would rather that then closures, however a ratification vote is not what I think is necessary ,Walmart and Sobeys need to be paying a more living wage ,I read here the CAW wants us why dont they start with Walmart or Sobeys , show us why we should have them repersent us but their afraid of Walmarts nutbusters

What is going to compel Wal-mart and Sobey's to pay a living wage if unionized retailers are paying minimum wage? I think that the non-union retailers are being used as a distraction, skaramangas. These retailers will pay better wages if (a) they are unionized or (b) they are afraid of becoming unionized. The UFCW's deal with Loblaws is an encouragement for the non-union companies to pay low, low wages because they don't have to worry about being unionized - who the hell is going to join a union if the best the UFCW can do is $7.00 per hour?

Don't be distracted by the UFCW leaders' pleas to the non-union retailers (Oh come on guys. You've gotta pay a living wage..."). They're laughing all the way to the bank. The only thing that the UFCW could possibly do to scare these retailers is to bargain decent wages and working conditions in places where it actually has bargaining rights. If it can't do that, the non-union guys will keep laughing all the way to the bank year after year.

It's very strange. The UFCW followed this ridiculous course of action in the meat packing industry in the 1980's. After getting their asses kicked in round after round of negotiations, they actually acknowledged that they had been following a bone headed strategy and adopted some kind of policy against bargaining concessions under existing contracts. Too bad they never stuck with it.

  • posted by HJFinnamore
  • Sat, Nov 1, 2003 7:09pm

skaramangas, have you ever heard of Noam Chomsky? He speaks of congnitive dissonance:


"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."

I sense that you believe what you do because you have a great need to believe it.

You speak of the research and education money, and I spoke a bit of that type of fund in my 2nd interview with MFD.

I also had a bit to say about blind believers in my 1st interview with the MFD. You talk about what you think is going on and I talk about what I saw and did in the back rooms where you aren't allowed.


MFD: How about the other UFCW people who worked on the Westfair campaign? Did they believe?

HJF: They believed because they didn't know any better. They didn't have a clue that the Teamsters were doing exactly the same thing the UFCW did. They didn't understand the concept of "top-down" organizing. That is where a union approaches management with a deal in return for easy access to the employer's workforce.

Union manuals don't have instructions for and union workshops don't give directions on how to approach management to barter for members. Such activity is unthinkable to the average member of the Power Source. Union activists are taught that you would no more sleep with an employer than make love to a crocodile. You're taught that there'd be a heck of a lot of action, and then you'd be gone.

  • posted by <Larry>
  • Sun, Nov 2, 2003 5:59pm

This deal is nothing more than a cash grab by the union in the form of new dues and the education fund pay off. In return Loblaws gets a sweetheart deal- wages just above the minimum- and no worries about a real union - or any type of job action.

btw- skaramangas, Im a ufcw247 member, make $20.80/hour, and get paid for 40hrs while only working 36. plus paid holidays- currently 5 weeks and paid stat holidays. some of my union coworkers make well over $50k /year as dept. managers. And even at that IMO- im underpaid

but nowhere near as bad as the clerk 2's payscale we're stuck with.

  • posted by <Disgruntled>
  • Sun, Nov 2, 2003 6:15pm

I attended the meeting that Kevin Corparon held down here in Ottawa to introduce the great success he had with Loblaws in regards to the new R.C.S.S stores that the company wanted to open. I must say that the feeling that I left with must have been the same that a person would have after being gang raped by a group of drunken Mongol warriors.
I listened to him go on with the speech he must have gotten directly from the cooperate head office of Loblaws because it sounded like the stuff I am use to hearing after 29 years of being with Loblaws with over half of these years in middle management positions.
During the question and answer part of Kevin's presentation he stated that if Loblaws were to close their locations and reopen new locations with the new banner name they would not hire any of the old Loblaws personnel because it would allow the union to go to the labour board and challenge the company with union busting.
He also stated that the name Loblaws would be down played to minimum and the new banner name would be significantly promoted, again the reason would be that the new company would have to be a separate entity not just a reworked Loblaws store.
Unfortunately this is not the case the name on the marquis is LOBLAWS on the top with The Great Canadian Superstore underneath it in much smaller letters.
These stores are still serviced by the same warehouse, the head office support personnel to my knowledge are the same people, their supervisors are the same, and their ad in the newspaper is just a wrapper around the regular Loblaws circular. Most of the new non-union positions and unionized department assistant positions are held by ex Loblaws employees anyway.
This to me seems to be just like what the old Dominion Corporation tried to do when they tried to say that the Mr. Grocers stores were a new and separate company. If I am not mistaken they lost their case when their union took them to the Labour Board.
Why did our Union not wait to take Loblaws to the Labour Board and why are they not doing so now??
I also would like to know why we let members of our local go and work in the new Ottawa store when it opened? If this store is not part of our company why are we allowing members of our local to work there? Doing this no better than asking the person that was gang raped if they would not mind going out on an other date!!!!!!!
I must say that I feel along with quite a few fellow employees that we feel the Union has sold us out for future memberships they will receive when the new stores open.
I wish all the success to Mr. Blasdell in his case and maybe then the Union will realize that we are not all sheep being led to the slaughter and grow some big ones and take a stand that will protect the interests of the membership and remember that they are there to represent us and not there to represent any secret agenda they may have.

  • posted by weiser
  • Sun, Nov 2, 2003 6:55pm

I'm gettin' a picture of Kevin with a big spoon leanin' over a bowl of poop, and saying, "mmmmm, ice cream. Would you like some?"

When the crowd winces and says, "that's nothin' but a bowl of poop, Kevin." He responds with, "Why you're all wrong. The company told me it was ice cream--chocolate ice cream. C'mon you guys. Eat it quick before it melts."

  • posted by <Frustrated>
  • Sun, Nov 2, 2003 7:30pm

Could someone tell me what effect BB and the labour board decisions will have on windsor, Will this help us out any. There's a lot of people that still know nothing about whats been going on, I in fact was surprised to find this site, Isn't there a better way to make everyone aware of this site. Help!

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sun, Nov 2, 2003 7:50pm

The Labour board decision will have no effect on Windsor,Different locals have to file on their own behalf.I found this site 3 months ago and began acting.What are you willing to do?If you sign onto my complaint I will pass you address onto a concerned member from your local and they can contact you.Read the zehrs thread,there was a lot concern about a month and a half ago.They may still be interested.That might be another local though, 1977.If this is just hitting 175 now is the time to act.The Board dismisses cases on delay.They will tolerate months but not years.Promote the site and go to other stores that is what I have done.If you want some help feel free to call me at 705-446-1933 or e-mail

  • posted by <Frustrated>
  • Sun, Nov 2, 2003 8:10pm

I have been promoting this site, but am still amazed at the members that still have no idea what's going on with this union, we have members that are now going into the new Leamington store to help set it up and see nothing wrong with it, and members are taking new jobs with the new stores, they are very down on the union but feel Zehrs is on the way out and this is the only way they will get ahead in the company even if it means stepping out of the union, then again what has the union done for us lately.This contract is tearing apart the membership, its every man for himself . where has the solidarity gone to ?

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 5:47am

Everyone has right to make choices.The sad part is the lack of education.Our union is responsible for that.There are many people who support unity and solidarity but will not stand up.That is the silent majority.How many zehrs are there in the Windsor area, can you contact them all?There are probably many employees who are willing to take action but dont know what to do EDUCATE them and let them make choice.If they are all not on your side, so be it.Some will be and that is who you will have to work with.Zehrs was on strike not long ago and dont count your co-workers out.Loblaws has never been on strike.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 6:46am

Is anyone else appalled with the fact that 1000a has scheduled a meeting on Nov.11 ?

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 7:56am

They only did it 'cause Christmas day was too far away.

Seriously, it is in really bad taste--especially when you consider that it is a day of remembrance, and considering that Canadians so recently buried members of our armed forces killed in the war in Afghanistan.

Sensitivity and thoughtfulness aren't in great supply as far as I can see.

  • posted by <dazed and confused>
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 2:11pm

Meeting on Nov 11? I didn't think these people could get any more insensitive.

Do you happen to know the time and location of this meeting?

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 4:47pm

NoVember 11,2003 at the Howard Johnsons at the 401 and Keele at 7 pm

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 5:10pm

It's actually called the Travelodge Hotel now (ever since Father Ron Kelly sold part of it to Royal Host REIT and another part to himself). It's a 2737 Keele Street (just north of HWY 401). It's the hotel that was featured in our most recent feature about CCWIPP - your pension plan.

While you're at the meeting, you might want to take a look around. Millions of your pension dollars are sunk into the place. Ask Kevin what's going on with the pension plan and what Father Ronnie is up to these days. I'm assuming that a big kahuna like Corporon must be in the loop about these things.

And yes, I think holding the meeting on Nov. 11th (for our US friends, that's Remembrance Day - the Canadian version of Memorial Day) is thoughtless and just the kind of thing our Kevin would do. My first thought was that he had planned it on that day in the hope of getting a lower turnout. On reflection, I think he just could care less who died in what war or that somebody might give a shit about things like that. Maybe you all should turn up and ask for a minute of silence for the dead and another minute for the death of grass roots unionism.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 5:18pm

I heard today that non-union managers have had their benefit plans changed.They now have to pay 15 bucks a week to keep the same benefit plan.I do not have all the details but it is costing them money to have what they had for free before.

  • posted by Lorna
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 8:15pm

They haven't even posted anything in our store about a union meeting at all.Seems kinda weird usually a union meeting you want your membership there don't you??? No one at our store knew nothing about it....and I agree Nov. 11 what a day to have it on....doesn't really surprize me though. Just notice of meeting would be the least your union should do for you shouldn't it????????

  • posted by verity tango
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 8:24pm

If you check your union by-laws, you'll probably find that their is a REQUIREMENT that the union post a notice. This will likely be delayed as long as possible because less notice means less attendance.

  • posted by siggy
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 8:35pm

They do have a website don't they?

I went looking to see if the meeting notice was posted on the ufcw1000a website. I googled "kevin corporon ufcw 1000a". The first 3 that google found were MFD .

Anyone can post a notice, plaster the boards.

  • posted by <(Less) frustrated>
  • Mon, Nov 3, 2003 10:03pm

What is this meeting about on Nov 11th. Of course we have not been informed of any meetings coming up.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Nov 4, 2003 5:13am

To get the Local 1000a web site you have to google search "real canadian" - as in Real Canadian Super Stores, I guess. Their site is at

I doubt there's any mention of a meeting on it. Just looks like a lot of propaganda about how happy members are to take buy-outs and related crap.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Tue, Nov 4, 2003 5:33am

Lorna I had the same problem (no postings in my store) until I posted that fact on this site,I guess it was just a coincidence that the next day they where all over the store
As for what it is about, the post says general meeting but the rumors are starting to run rampant.
I suggest everyone who is able show up lest they try to slip something else past the members.

  • posted by <another screwed member>
  • Tue, Nov 4, 2003 7:13am

Hey BB,
When will the board give their decision on your complaint? If they rule in favour of your complaint do they have the power to nullify the secret deal and if so what will happen to the new banner in respect to having non union department managers? Will they become unionized and what will happen to the staff that went over and took the buyout, will they have to give the money back?
This is a big mess that could have been avoided if the union had let the members vote.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Tue, Nov 4, 2003 7:50am


what will happen to the staff that went over and took the buyout,

I think you meant "Buy-down" in which case you have to stay with the RCSS for six months to get.
As for the rest of your questions over to you bb although most of what you ask I believe are mysteries as yet to be revealed.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Tue, Nov 4, 2003 10:05am

The Board works at its own speed, be patient, I would expect within 1 month of Oct 23, and that is only a bakers opinion.The Board realises there is urgency.The Board, if they find the Act (law) has been broken can order anything that is asked for as a remedy.I feel confident the Act has been broken, democracy is enshrined in the Act and if they rule that members do not have to agree to amendments, that is a very un-democratic decision that will have wide-ranging affects accross Ontario.Lets not forget we have a new government now.The remedies that I asked for are, An order that the act was broken, an order nullifying the divisional vote,an order for a general ratification surpervised by the Board, an order not to negotiate until the open period, an order to have time to address all meetings and informed debate,an order to produce all names and addreses to me and an order to post anotice in all workplaces of the decision.The remedies are available under , the complaint and further reading under Secret Deals Done Dirt Cheap.

  • posted by skaramangas
  • Fri, Nov 7, 2003 5:08pm

Toronto Star . This in todays paper ,John lederer did not mention the dissident union members.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Fri, Nov 7, 2003 7:32pm

But the Star did? Oh and by the way we would not expect recognition from the company , It is the union we are complaining about, you know the secret keeping, back stabbing, dues raising, misusing education fund brothers.

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Nov 7, 2003 9:33pm

Gee, it's rather confusing. Loblaws say they can't open without a union deal. I thought they were going to open come hell or high water. The only question was that if they didn't have a union deal then they'd open non union.

So what's the hold up?

I guess the need for a sweetheart is a really big need. In effect they are saying that they can't open without their sweetheart tucked neatly between the sheets.

  • posted by verity tango
  • Fri, Nov 7, 2003 10:34pm

"I guess the need for a sweetheart is a really big need. In effect they are saying that they can't open without their sweetheart tucked neatly between the sheets."

Ain't that it in a nutshell. Employers know that not having one of these sweetheart deals opens up the possibility that the workers might actually gain some effective representation. I admit the chances are slim but the possibility is very scary. There's gotta be one union that can use those dues dollars on our terms, right?

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Sat, Nov 8, 2003 7:15am

Quite a few weeks back can't remember the exact date Neilsons dairy in Georgetown decertified the teamsters after years of concessions and are now negotiating a new contract in which I understand is coming down to the wire, apparently the new union has gone back as far as 1978 contracts in asking for benefits being given back, really playing hardball.

In 1978 Donlands dairy was bought out by Neilsons,owned by none other than Mr. Weston.

The new union is CLAC, opinions of CLAC that I have "heard-read" are basically "biz-union", so what"s really going on?

I have been trying to get to someone inside willing to post here but so far unsuccessfully, I have been told "moms" the word even though they had to go to the labor board before the company would even recognize them as the new union.

  • posted by skaramangas
  • Sat, Nov 8, 2003 12:41pm


posted by weiser:
Gee, it's rather confusing. Loblaws say they can't open without a union deal. I thought they were going to open come hell or high water. The only question was that if they didn't have a union deal then they'd open non union.

So what's the hold up?

I guess the need for a sweetheart is a really big need. In effect they are saying that they can't open without their sweetheart tucked neatly between the sheets.

They would rather keep their bedmate than have to get used to another partner perhaps more demanding and not so submissive.

  • posted by HJFinnamore
  • Sat, Nov 8, 2003 3:06pm

Now, I want you to read this 14-year-old news clipping very carefully. Consider that the start rate was actually above minimum wage at the time. Today the start rate in the RCSS is minimum wage.

This deal was brokered and signed by none other than Mike Fraser's uncle Clifford R. Evans. If you want to read how it came about you can read this affidavit.

Tell me what's different than what was being said 14 years ago. guessed it. Everyone has dropped to new lows ever since.

Oh, and yes, that's me talkin' in the media. Cliff must have been busy that day. And yes, Dave has moved from Loblaw Companies to Canada Safeway.


Pact flak called 'hysteria': Superstoresunion officialdefends deal:
VALERIE CASSELTON The Vancouver Sun: Mar 29, 1989. pg. D.1

An official of the union that negotiated a cut-rate contract at the Real Canadian Superstores lashed out Tuesday at what he called "hysteria" and misunderstanding about a deal that has shocked B.C. employers and unions.

Hugh Finnamore, representative of Local 777 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, denied that his union's contract unfairly undercuts the existing industry standard and upsets the competitive balance of wages and pricing of major grocery retailers.

"It's obvious people don't understand what's in our collective agreement," said Finnamore. "A lot of the stuff is just hysteria now."

Real Canadian Superstore spokesman Dave Ryzebol said any contract must recognize that about half the stock in the new stores is non-food items and the store must compete with the minimum wages of non-union retailers.

"In the bigger picture, unions should say 'look, we've got a foothold in a part of the market we've never had,' " said Ryzebol.

Local 777 is a new creation within the UFCW, whose other locals are now negotiating contracts that expire March 31 with major food chains, including Overwaitea, Safeway and Save-On Foods.

Those locals have charged that Local 777 undercut their contracts.

Local 2000 president Leif Hansen said there has been a temporary setback in negotiations as a result.

"Locals 2000 and 1518 requested the international president (Bill Wynn) to conduct a review of the collective agreement (of Local 777) as soon as possible," said Hansen.
B.C. Federation of Labor president Ken Georgetti, Confederation of Canadian Unions president Jess Succamore and other labor leaders such as IWA-Canada president Jack Munro have condemned the deal as a sellout to employers.

"Georgetti and Munro don't understand this," said Finnamore. "It's a great deal, you've got 3,000 jobs for B.C., darn good rates of pay for someone coming off the street and in a short order they're up to top rates."

But Georgetti said Tuesday the Local 777 contract "is one of the worst contracts that I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

"I have a typed copy of the contract and suffice to say that I would not have Hugh Finnamore negotiate any contract for any union that I know of, at any time."

Employers, too, criticized the deal, especially clauses they say encourage workers to quit before reaching senior levels, to receive buy-out payments in the form of Registered Retirement Savings plans worth up to $2,500.

"I've never heard of anything like this in all the training and experience I've had," said Bryan Wall, vice-president of industrial relations for Overwaitea and Save On Foods.
But Wall said Overwaitea is not jealous of the Local 777 contract.

"I don't think we want the 777 contract," he said. "We think it's a bad collective agreement for the employees and employer as well.

"What advantage is there, to an employer that believes in its people, to have an operation like that, to encourage people to quit?" he said, referring to the 777 buy-out plan.
But Ryzebol said "some people interpret that as a way to keep them there for at least two years."

The provision was designed as a kind of scholarship fund for its student workers, he said.
"We may have a lower start rate, but it's fair, comparable and it goes up, above the industry rate," said Ryzebol.

Meatcutters at Real Canadian Superstore, for example, can earn a top wage of $18.76 per hour, compared to other major stores at $17.26, he said.
And he questioned retailers' arguments that Real Canadian Superstore has upset the balance and industry standards.

"Is it they're concerned about a level playing field, or they're concerned about competition?" said Ryzebol, charging that much of the rhetoric is "posturing" related to the food industry negotiations now underway.

Finnamore said cashiers in his union local start at $7.50 per hour compared to $11.02 per hour at other major stores. He admitted Local 777 will not have many of the benefits enjoyed by other locals.

Also unlike the rest of the industry, Local 777 has no extended health coverage or long-term disability pay, but Finnamore said sick pay does exist, at reduced rates, for six months.

Real Canadian Superstore pays more for statutory holidays than other stores, he said.
Wages will be renegotiated every year and senior Real Canadian Superstore workers may be paid more than those at other major stores, although he admitted it will take longer to reach that level, especially with a high staff turnover.

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Nov 9, 2003 6:58am

Minimum wage in 1989 was something like $4.50 in B.C. Today it is $8.25 with the first 500 hrs worked being paid at a whopping 6 bucks.

I've read a thousand letters from big biz (lobbying) when the minimum wage was being upped. They were very convincing about how it was going to hurt the economy, yadda yadda.

But just in general, the clout a non entity has to control our legislation is astounding (Labour participates and pro'lly sends in a couple letters too, tho not many came up in the search).

"Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law."... off topic but: How did we get here and how do we get back.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sun, Nov 9, 2003 7:23am

mr finnamores comments are a mirror image of exactly what is going on now at Local 1000a.bad deal , unions gets more jobs, expounds the benefits of being in a union. But does not talk about lower pay, less benefits, and worse working conditions.Where does it end. It has to end now or in another 14 years we will be here with the same conversation.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sun, Nov 9, 2003 4:04pm

If the ravages of the biz unionists aren't stopped now, there will be no one talking in 14 years. The workforce in the retail food industry will be like the workforce at McDonalds or maybe even Wal-mart: Few will keep their jobs long enough to think about anything related to a future, working in retail food will be something that you do when there is nothing else you can do, people who work in supermarkets will be ashamed to say that they work there and so will have even less motivation to speak up and rebel. Of course, if they feel like speaking up, they'll have their union, the Voice for Working America to do their talking for them. My guess is that the supermarket companies will still have their partner union around 14 years from now for fear of what might happen if they go union-free. So yes, now is the time to stand up and speak up and rid ourselves of these leaches masquerading as representatives.

NIGHTS: Regarding the situation at the the dairy, there are 3 possible explanations for the presence of CLAC at this workplace (where a local of the Teamsters Union was recently decertified).

1. The workers considered which union they wanted after the Teamsters were decertified and decided on CLAC. This would be fine if that's what happened but I doubt it's what happened.

2. The employer, realizing that the Teamsters were toast and fearing that some other more militant union might get in, greased the skids for CLAC to get in. This may have involved actively seeking out CLAC (see this article for some further insight into how such things happen) or may simply have involved the company steering workers towards CLAC.

3. The workers decided to seek out a different union to represent them and ended up with CLAC because none of the mainstream CLC-affiliated unions would touch them with a ten foot pole (to do so would be to violate the "no raiding" house rules of the Canadian Labour Club).

My guess is that it's either #2 or #3. #3 is marginally better than #2 because at least the workers have exercised some degree of choice, even if it might have been a "default" choice (because no other union would touch them).

If many of the workers in this bargaining unit didn't know what was going on then it's more likely that it was 2 rather than 3.

I'm no fan of CLAC but at the same time I consider them a biz union just like the UFCW. The only difference is that instead of wrapping themselves in a political flag, they wrap themselves in Godly-goodness. I know that CLAC is favoured by employers over certain other unions in much the same way as the UFCW is.

Please keep encouraging people to post on this site. It's really important that people talk about what's happening to them and what they think about it.

  • posted by CLAC
  • Tue, Nov 11, 2003 7:30am

This message in response to the question re: Neilson Dairy.

In August the Neilson Dairy employees (Georgetown, Ontario) voted overwhelmingly to leave the Teamsters and join CLAC.

CLAC is an independent, all-Canadian union with about 28 000 members in all sectors. It has existed since 1952 and is federally and provincially recognized as a trade union.

CLAC advocates some "old-fashioned" things in its approach: democracy, integrity, respect, etc. CLAC doesn't support political parties or social causes--its purpose is to provide union representation. Because it is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO or CLC, CLAC members are free to leave and go to other unions if they wish, and other unions' members are free to join CLAC.

CLAC is often bad-mouthed as being pro-employer (the biggest insult in the union business) by competitor unions but the facts remain that CLAC collective agreements are good and its service excellent. It's one of the fastest-growing unions in Canada.

For more info, or if you'd like to hear from a Neilson's employee, contact me at You can also visit

Thanks for your interest.

Ed Bosveld
Provincial Director

  • posted by siggy
  • Tue, Nov 11, 2003 4:50pm

Welcome a board Ed.

I don't want this thread to head into offtopicland, so I have started another thread over here where I hope you will answer a couple questions for us, I know I have a couple.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Wed, Nov 12, 2003 5:14am

Local 1000A toronto division had ageneral membership neeting last night, there was an unprecedented turnout for a regular meeting.The members were upset and worried.Kevin Corporon did all the talking after a very brief introduction from Sabastian Aguano.I am not sure if members went awy with any more answers than they already had.The only thig I learned was that the company intends to hold the parties to the contract to all terms legally bargained and there are no ongoing talks.Kevin Corporon is meeting Deane Collinson on friday though and will ask about the store accross the street from North Oakville, the future site of a Fortinos or a Loblaws.

  • posted by Lorna
  • Wed, Nov 12, 2003 5:52am

Last night was our union meeting, was a great turn out for a general membership meeting. I think they seen how many people where upset over this deal. I had a question I wanted to ask but never got a chance to. This contract we have now is 6 years and they changed it on us ,so whats to say when they negioate a contract in 2006 and its ratified by us the members that it won't be changed to????They said as long as they don't change the terms anything in a contract can be ammended.So does that mean they can negioate our wages to stay the same and then change that half through the contract???? Also what was said is there will be no job loss, well im from Durham region there is 4 stores in our region all slated to close where do we go,do we have much choice...I wouldn't say so and if we do stay in Loblaws are we gonna get any hours??? To me even your employees losing hours is a job loss in effect. Unless you wanna move your family where are our choices????? Ben thanks for all the info....keep it coming.....I think last night they really seen how pissed off we where and we are not gonna accept just whatever they want to tell us.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Wed, Nov 12, 2003 6:30am


This contract we have now is 6 years and they changed it on us ,so what"s to say when they negotiate a contract in 2006 and its ratified by us the members that it won't be changed to????

They did not change the contract as long as you stay with the Loblaws banner, the problem lies in the fact that by 2006 the few remaining Loblaws stores will have no power to negotiate anything as far as wages ect. and according to Loblaws battle plan (3) in the unions slide show they wanted all stores changed by 2008, with no power left thanks to this "deal" it will happen.
But more importantly and something I heard argued at Ben's complaint with the OLRB hearing was if this deal is allowed to go through then it will set a president for every company to sign long term contracts that at the time look good to the members, only to be opened up and gutted one or two years later, SCARY SHIT if you think about it.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Nov 12, 2003 6:47am

Tell us more about what was said at the meeting last night? What did Corporon talk about? What questions was he asked and how did he respond?

Sounds like it was quite lively!

  • posted by blasdell
  • Wed, Nov 12, 2003 10:09am

The meeting was lively and the media and non-members were barred.No other person addressed the members, only Kevin, He talked a lot about walmart and the threat is real.he mentioned that the arguments Harry Kopyto used were just that argumentsand not fact.when asked about allowing non-union workers into the stores to work if we went on strike, could the stores remain in operation.Most of his answers were structured around "yeah but what if the stores opened non-union."He was asked about elections and replied that the divisional board was to be held in 2004 and executive elections in 2008.

  • posted by <guiltybystander>
  • Wed, Nov 12, 2003 1:08pm

I have attended both the union meetings and the OLB consultation. It seems to me that the main point of debate is that Loblaws made it part of the requirements that the Union have no ratification vote on this.
I see three problems related here.

1. Why would Loblaws ask for no ratification vote, when they know that a ratification vote is not permissable by law in midcontract discussions?

2. Did Loblaws tell the Union that they could not speak to their members at all about this? If they did why didn't the Union tell them that they represent the members and the members have a right to know what is going on, and to quit interfering in the way the Union opperates. And if Loblaws didn't require complete secrecy then why didn't the union at least tell the members what was happening.

3. How can our union call itself democratic if the members are forced to accept a deal negotiated by a president that we (the members) didn't even elect? At least you think K.C. would have let the divisional board members talk to the actual members to see what the best plan of action is. Even if it did nullify the talks currently going on with the company. Those issues could have been dealt with in 2006.

The unions point of view on these issues is completely contingent upon the argument that Loblaws requested complete confidentiality. Right there that should have told the "democratic" union that we're dealling with a totalitarian regime, and they should have simply walked away from the table.

Any other thoughts?

  • posted by blasdell
  • Wed, Nov 12, 2003 3:41pm

the difficult hurdle to overcome is the hurdle that the UNION does not represent the members.If they represented members, stewards would be elected and educated properly, divisional officers would be elected in a manner that members would actaully participate in, and executive positions would be open to the membership.Make no mistake our leardership keeps this heiarchy in place so that we are NOT represented.If we were represented would full time jobs disappear without a wimper.Two tier wage scales, voluntary recognition agreements, partnering agreements ETC do not benefit the members, they benefit the union.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Thu, Nov 13, 2003 8:01am



2. Did Loblaws tell the Union that they could not speak to their members at all about this?

Yes and I believe the companies stand at the hearing was because that would tip their hand to the competition if the information got out as to what their plans for the future were.

Limp? yes but I believe that was their argument.


1. Why would Loblaws ask for no ratification vote, when they know that a ratification vote is not permissible by law in midcontract discussions?

a: union slide show LCE Battle Plan (3)
(Ontario law permits the parties to a collective agreement to amend it's terms (except expiry date) without a membership vote.)

b: union slide show WHEN WILL IT HAPPEN ?
(if LCE decided to open them non-union, it would require a lengthy and expensive legal battle with an uncertain outcome for the union.)

Quick answer: it was easier,less expensive and more profitable "for the union" to just go along with the company.


How can our union call itself democratic

I think bb answered that already.

O.K. not so quick, the legal battle refers to the fact Loblaws had already approached the union in regards to the RCSS format which then left them liable to become union through a court decision if the union could prove now that the only reason Loblaws did it was to bust the union in order to save wages ect.

I am no lawyer but does that not seem obvious ?

Answer: My quick answer and bb's reply.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Nov 13, 2003 1:51pm

That's a good analysis NIGHTS et al. A lot of what's being dished up by the company and the union are clever "interpretations" on the law that are intended, IMHO, to confuse, distract and demoralize members who are finding out that there really are some laws that protect them. Not many, mind you, but there are a few and members are finding out about them and going to the administrators of the laws and demanding their rights. That's dangerous for enterprising machine heads and their corporate partners. They've been able to run roughshod over members' rights for a long time now and with this troubling new trend, their own comfort and security is on the line.

For this reason, they are bobbing and weaving and dancing and spinning to try to get you guys to give up your fight. Here's a good example:

In one of the recent posts about the Nov. 11th membership meeting someone reported that Bro_Corp said that the collective agreement is between the union and the company and that the members don't really count in the equation. Well, Bro_Corp is right in that the agreement is between the union and the company. But what he's left out is that the union is supposed to represent the members and their interests. A "union", in fact, is defined as "an association of employees". If the members don't count, a union can hardly be a union (as defined in the law at any rate).

The issues raised in bb's DFR complaint go to the core of the question "What is a union?" While the LRB's have given unions a lot of decision-making power in issues related to grievances (alleged violations of provisions of collective agreements by a member or a group of members) they have taken quite a different tack when it comes to decisions about what is going to be in a collective agreement.

The boys in the backroom are worried. They're hoping that they can confuse you or demoralize you enough so that you'll go away and stop terrorizing them with your demands for your rights. But they're worried and they should be!

  • posted by blasdell
  • Thu, Nov 13, 2003 2:15pm

There was one troubling fact at the hearing, the union provided case-law in support of what the did, or let me say that they interpreted, But they provided no evidence of company demands or requests, just the pleadings which are available under "complaints and further reading".There was no document that said the offer is conditional on no vote, also why did Zehrs get a vote?both the the company and the union said at the hearing "we dont know about the other locals".....Hmmmmm

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Nov 13, 2003 3:24pm

See point 16 of Loblaws response to the DFR . You'll see that the company acknowledges that it would not sign off on the deal unless there was a commitment that there would be no ratification.

If the company hadn't made this demand, the union would still be no further ahead. In their slide show materials and in other statements they say time and again that there was no ratification because the company insisted on it. If the company didn't insist on it, I'd say the union would be no better off because then, in addition to denying members their right to ratify the deal, they'd also be lying.

Where there is disagreement between the company and union stories is with respect to the threats of store closures and layoffs that the union said would happen if the company didn't get its way. The Loblaws guys deny having said anything to this effect. They're smart guys on this score. They know that if they admitted to doing something like this they'd be in danger of being found to have committed an unfair labour practice.

My guess is that Zehr's got a vote because Williamson might have held out for one and/or was able to convince all the boys in the backroom that he would get a "yes" vote.

  • posted by weiser
  • Thu, Nov 13, 2003 4:55pm

But Williamson didn't have a ratification vote. His people voted on whether he could cut a deal as he saw fit. It would be like a union pres. saying, can I go bargain with the company and you can live with whatever I bring back. It wasn't a ratification.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Thu, Nov 13, 2003 5:09pm

They say that in the pleadings, but the lawyer Bob Kitchen said at the end of the hearing "we did not compell anyone to do anything" and I cannot find documentation stating "no ratification for the general membership" in the agreement in principle it says " method of approval by respective local unions to be determined".at point 19.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Thu, Nov 13, 2003 5:30pm

Well of course that's what he said. What else could he say?

Tell me something bb, by the time Kitchen said that, had the Vice Chair said something about the importance of ratification votes?

  • posted by blasdell
  • Thu, Nov 13, 2003 6:17pm

He had questioned Ian anderson extensively about why the union acted the way it did, about what point negotiations no longer needed to be kept secret, the normal process of proposals negotiations, agreement and ratification.

  • posted by <peaches>
  • Fri, Nov 14, 2003 10:36pm

You are a company person posting on this web site, What are you afraid of 'BB' ?
Please let the union brothers voice their thoughts, because if you continue to use names you will be exposed into the limelite. In a single beat of my heart your credibilitly is ruined. I don't like your style of game. I have followed many threads and you always trash the the UFCW. Stop and start talking to your employer.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Sat, Nov 15, 2003 3:50am

How is bb a company person, peaches? He's a union member and far from preventing his brothers from voicing their thoughts, he's going out of his way to encourage them to speak.

If by "naming names" you're referring to his reference to Ian Anderson, UFCW lawyer, please explain the basis for your concern. bb is talking about what happened at a public hearing.

Lastly, many people criticize the UFCW because quite frankly they deserve it. If you have some views on why the UFCW doesn't deserve criticism, we'd be interested in hearing them.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Nov 15, 2003 4:40am

Hello Peaches, I am a company person, I work for Loblaws they pay me and that money supports my family.Thank you Loblaws.As far as the union goes, why dont they work for the dues payers? They got an increase to the "education fund" while all other entitlements, legally bargained, are being trashed.You cannot honestly jusyify theses mid-term take aways can you?When you consider the events they are astounding.Loblaws does not want a work stoppage.1996, 4 year contract with no raise.2000 6 year contract 50 cent for 3 years and a 1500.00 lump sum for 3 years.Barely ratified.Midterm negotiations and concessions with no concesssions next contract.All the new stores open and the next contract passes, because of no take aways.Think and consider all the facts.Your union got an increase though.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Nov 15, 2003 2:40pm

In Order clarify Ontario labour law for Peaches, the ufcw is the only voice I have in respect to my employer.I cannot talk to my employer because the ufcw is the legal bargaining agent.It is unfortunate that the ufcw did not consult with their members in order to be able to advance their members intersests, unless their interests are more closely aligned with the employers interests and the members are just something to be ignored and manipulated.

  • posted by <Soitis>
  • Sat, Nov 15, 2003 6:42pm

Everyone is putting giving too much credit to 1977 for having a mandate vote.
When the local announced that 1000A accepted the deal before us, the vote changed that exact moment. I talked to people who were going to vote NO but changed it when they realized that we would be standing alone. So big deal if Zehrs is not on the RCSS name. Just put Loblaws there. Do you see what I mean?
Some vote.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Nov 15, 2003 7:23pm

soitis, can you find a zehrs employee that will File at the Board, or testify?Both Loblaws and Local 1000A have claimed ignorance at my dfr hearing about Local 1977 and local 175.I understand someone from 175 may take action but no-one from 1977 has come foeward, if the deal at Loblaws is overturned, delayed or some thing else it will not affect 1977 unless someone files their own complaint,it is not difficult and support is available.I am sure that my representative is on side.

  • posted by <Doc Silver>
  • Sun, Nov 16, 2003 6:44pm

Hi, I was at the recent 1000a meeting and also the OLB hearing. Huge lessons to be learned. I do recall that the unions lawyer submitted that 1000a was 'compelled to accept' the terms that Loblaws dictated in regards to there being no ratification by the membership for a deal to occur. The company stated emphatically that they 'did not compel anyone to do anything'. I may be paraphrasing here but that was the gist of it. Two stories, only one can be true. The OLB hearing for me was the closest I've ever been to actually witnessing the shit hitting the fan. Right on Ben!
I‘m not a lawyer, I did not understand everything that was said on that day, nor do I totally grasp all the arguments or issues particular to this situation that we employees find ourselves in. But I DO know the sound that a jar of Vaseline makes as it's being opened!
If union meeting were as well attended and as rowdy as they were the other night I would probably go more often. There were definite sparks in the air, a lot of shouting, but also a lot of listening going on, on both sides. People crave more information about the circumstances of their livelihood and are willing to go out after supper on a weeknight to acquire that info. Whether it's useful information or less-than-truthful disinformation, I believe that it's all worth hearing and digesting. Then follow your gut instinct, it never lies! What are obvious to me are two things:
1. The union is corrupt and needs to be fixed.
2. The company is not your friend; it is your employer and seeks to exploit you in any manner of ways.
A little obvious right?
Thanks for reading my post, please add comments.
Thanks, Doc

  • posted by jackyl
  • Sun, Nov 16, 2003 7:13pm

Hey bb goodluck to you. I am a ufcw1977 member. I don't think we, the members of 1977, have a case against our local. They where up front in saying that we had no REAL choice in voting. If we voted NO the result would be, with 1000a signing, we would be replaced with a Loblaws banner. We would eventually be phased out, not immediatly, but as new stores were opened, Zerhs/Fortinos would cease.
Secondly, does it not state in the OLB law that all union presidents have the authority to alter/ammend/...whatever we call it, (even to re-negotiate) contracts without consukting the members first. I understand the only thing they can not change is the length...
Have I been smoking STUFF to believe this??
Please clear the AIR enlighten me if you will... thanx

  • posted by siggy
  • Sun, Nov 16, 2003 7:21pm

Hi jackyl, welcome to MFD


They where up front in saying that we had no REAL choice in voting. If we voted NO the result would be, with 1000a signing, we would be replaced with a Loblaws banner.

That sounds like a scare tactic, why would your union give lip service to a scare tactic?

During legitimate bargaining, threatening closure is an unfair labour practice. Why would a union give it lip service, especially when the agreement is still alive?

  • posted by blasdell
  • Sun, Nov 16, 2003 7:39pm

Funny they told us we would be a Zehrs or Fortinos.The Labour relations act states VERY clearly no contract is valid until it is ratified, no if ands or buts SECTION 44.What is the point in ratifying if the president can turn around and amend?The contract can be ammended through a fair and usual process.The act says in 58 (5) that it can be amended, in my interpretation the reason that is there is, if it was not there it could NOT be amended under any circumstances.Say there was a fire and the place of employment was destoyed, the employer could amend and make other arrangements.That is why amendments are allowed, to benefit employees.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Mon, Nov 17, 2003 6:09am

bb In an earlier post on this thread here we go again stated


when 1977 had its meeting we didnt even know what it was about until we got there

would the fact that the meeting was not posted as a ratification help 1977 members with a complaint?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Nov 17, 2003 6:21am


Secondly, does it not state in the OLB law that all union presidents have the authority to alter/ammend/...whatever we call it, (even to re-negotiate) contracts without consukting the members first. I understand the only thing they can not change is the length...
Have I been smoking STUFF to believe this??

I would like to shed some light on this nonsense about union presidents having the right to change collective agreements in mid-term without consulting with the members. Nowhere in the Labour Relations Act does it say that union presidents can do this. In fact, if you look that the Labour Relations Act of Ontario you will not find a reference in it anywhere to union presidents. What you will find are two sections - one of which the UFCW seems to be trying hard to forget about.

Section 58(5) says this:


Revision by mutual consent

(5) Nothing in this section prevents the revision by mutual consent of the parties at any time of any provision of a collective agreement other than a provision relating to its term of operation. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, s. 58.

This means that there is nothing unlawful about making mid-term changes to a collective agreement. However, notice the reference is to the parties to the agreement. That's the employer and the union - not the employer and the union president. Elsewhere in the Act, a "union" is defined as "an association of employees". That in itself implies that the employees consent is a part of the "mutual consent".

And this makes even more sense when we consider the provisions of Section 44, which states:


Mandatory ratification vote

44. (1) A proposed collective agreement that is entered into or memorandum of settlement that is concluded on or after the day on which this section comes into force has no effect until it is ratified as described in subsection (3). 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, s. 44 (1).

So what this all means is that, yes, it's possible for the parties to renegotiate a collective agreement in mid-term but there is a requirement, before any changes to that agreement become effective, for a ratification vote.

IMHO, the UFCW presidents are trying to cherry pick the law. They're pulling out clauses from the LRA that help them and ignoring those that don't. Anyone familiar with the interpretation of legal statutes knows you just can't do this. You have to read each clause in the context of the entire Act and take into consideration any related clauses.

I don't see how their interpretation could fly. If union presidents could change contracts in mid-term without consulting with their members, then ratification votes would become meaningless. A union president could get a collective agreement ratified today and turn around and change it tomorrow in secret with the employer.

As for whether or not what Local 1977 members had was a ratification vote:

I would certainly argue that it was not a ratification vote because:

1. It was not presented to members as a "ratification vote". It was called some kind of "mandate vote" or something along those lines.

2. Even if it somehow qualifies as a ratification vote (which it doesn't because the union itself has said that it wasn't because the company wouldn't let them hold one) if what we are hearing in this thread is true, members were coerced and manipulated into voting "yes".

I think you people from 1977 should consider filing a complaint.

  • posted by <guiltybystander>
  • Mon, Nov 17, 2003 10:17am

The union seems to driven by the almighty dollar. Is there any way the members can hurt the union fiscally?
It seems that the members can't with hold their dues since we don't have access to company payroll. What about requesting that percentages of dues be donated to charity? I know some trade unions allow this to be done, but I'm not sure about UFCW.
If K.C. won't take a pay cut upon our request, maybe he'll listen if his revenue starts to roll back.
It seems that the union will only listen if the thickness of their collective wallets are compromised. I don't want to halt the labor movement by bankrupting the union, I just wish the members had someway of showing the union whose in control; the members not Galen and his SUETS.

  • posted by <40 Below>
  • Mon, Nov 17, 2003 6:29pm

I recieved my 1000a "connections" newsletter today. The whole thing is filled with propaganda for Loblaws. Here is my favorite part of this issue
"No one working in those stores that were closing would have been offered jobs in the new or replacement stores" says Corporon. The company knew that we would have argued at the OLRB taht the employer had simply moved the same store and workforce to the new location. Under those circomstances. the OLRB would have likey ordered them to honor the collective agreement in the new location"

Of course they knew thats what you were going to do. Thats why they offered you this shit deal. To see if you would take the bait. It just makes no sense. Why would the union not go to the OLRB and just say screw you Loblaw? Instead they screw over the membership for no reason. The law is on our side, but why bother using it seems to be the attitude of the union. It just doesn't make any sense...

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Nov 17, 2003 6:50pm

It makes a lot of sense 150,000 dolars per year for 3 years to 3 locals and who knows what else?This union has evolved from a association of workers into an association of deal makers.... and not very good ones at that. These union leaders think they are businessmen and in reality they could not get a job in the business world because they are no good at it.They are losing their only real asset every time they bargain, the job benefits of their members.If they retained the member benefits they would have something to offer a future member on an organizing drive.As it is why would anyone join...what are the benefits?

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Mon, Nov 17, 2003 6:51pm


Why would the union not go to the OLRB and just say screw you Loblaw?

In Kevin's own words (it would have been a long and costly battle for the Union.)

Loblaws dangled $450,000 in front of them and they sold us out.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Mon, Nov 17, 2003 7:23pm

From the Unions rag.

Quote: Three of Ontario's large UFCW locals representing ten's of thousands of affected workers have reached an agreement with the company that offers protection and options to thousands of workers who would have otherwise lost job's,earnings,and union protection.
Bold added.

Do you see the way they convince members of their B.S. by printing worst case scenarios as if it was a fact.

Quote: Along with UFCW Canada,Local 1000a,Local 175, and Local 1977 pooled their efforts...

If this is true why did they testify at the board hearing they had no idea why the locals ratified the deal differently, and on that note Kevin must have looked into it because I recall him speaking about it at length at the union meeting.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Tue, Nov 18, 2003 2:40am


posted by 40 Below:
[QB]I recieved my 1000a "connections" newsletter today. The whole thing is filled with propaganda for Loblaws. Here is my favorite part of this issue
"No one working in those stores that were closing would have been offered jobs in the new or replacement stores" says Corporon. The company knew that we would have argued at the OLRB taht the employer had simply moved the same store and workforce to the new location. Under those circomstances. the OLRB would have likey ordered them to honor the collective agreement in the new location"


Hmmm...this big bold statement seems a far cry from this:


How can a unionized company get around the union by simply opening up stores under different "banners?"

In Ontario, this is the law. Under the Conservative government of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, labour law has been changed to the disadvantage of workers and unions. In most cases, opening up your business under a different name at a new location is enough to get rid of both your employees and any union. What you've heard about Conservatives being the political party of big business is true. Remember this at election time.

Under the law, the union has "successor rights" at an existing site only. Successor rights mean that the union would represent the employees of the new store on that site regardless of its "banner." This is why the union was able to fully protect the wages, benefits and other conditions of workers in existing sites that are converted to RCSS stores.
Local 1000A's collective agreement, however, gives its members greater rights than the law. Under the union contract, any Loblaws store on a new site must be covered by the current agreement.

The company's choice was to open the stores as "Real Canadian Superstores" and thereby avoid the union or try to strike an agreement with the union so that the stores could be opened as Loblaws The Real Canadian Superstore.

That manipulative piece is still posted on the official UFCW Local 1000a-Real Canadian web site.

I can't believe the arrogance of these bastards to spin completely contradictory propaganda to the same group of members at the same time! Or maybe it's just a strange mix of arrogance and stupidity?

On a certain level, it's good that they said what they said in their latest propaganda rag: If you or other members need it to support your case, it's there for you. Corporon finally says something that makes sense: The Labour Relations Act prohibits throwing union members out of work and opening similar non-union businesses as a means of coercion of unions. Contrary to what he says on his web site, he didn't have to roll over - but he did anyway. As bb says, it's about the money and it's also about the longstanding close relationship between UFCW honchos and Loblaws guys. You've got more than a decade of coziness going on here, during which time the UFCW has benefited greatly from playing ball with the company while the members have paid the price. IMHO, it may also have something to do with the enormous pension contribution increases that the contributing employers of which Loblaws is the biggest, made to bail out the troubled CCWIPP plan in 2002. Sorry, call my a cynic but I find it really hard to reconcile that a company that's supposedly in dire need of labour cost reductions will cough up 20 cents per hour worked for tens of thousands of workers over a five year period and er, um, not ask for anything in return.

bb or NIGHTS, could you send us a copy of the propaganda rag? It would be fun to compare it to other propaganda about the secret deal and point out all the contradictions.

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Tue, Nov 18, 2003 5:55am


bb or NIGHTS, could you send us a copy of the propaganda rag? It would be fun to compare it to other propaganda about the secret deal and point out all the contradictions.

Fortunately I felt it was not worth wiping my ass with in the out house and the cat refused to use the litter box until I took it out.

If your still interested rv you will need to e-mail an address, I would have to send it via snail mail.

  • posted by edelio
  • Tue, Nov 18, 2003 7:35pm

Heres a vision for you to ponder,,,,,,,,,,,

,,,yesterday at work ,from what I was told, one of the Loblaws big wigs was giving a tour of the largest warehouse in Canada for our business (1.3 million ft²) to 2 reps from WALMART. The plot thickens..........

  • posted by blasdell
  • Wed, Nov 19, 2003 6:29pm

The sad commentary on this whole deal is Loblaws inability to map out an effective business strategy.The forward thinking mismanagers at the top feel the best way to compete is to become just like'm.The last original idea they had was presidents choice and that was a long time ago.This new idea is "lets compete on the backs of our workers".Is that the best you have?Lets cut wages, my answer is CUT YOUR OWN if you are really interested in competing.With better service levels and committed experienced employees, customer service will be better and shopper loyalty is gold in this business.Does Loblaws really believe a minimum wage newly hired employee will bring customers back?You can do better than that, time will tell if the honchos at the top are worth their weight in gold or a spoonful of foul smelling crap that they are feeding workers.

  • posted by <guiltybystander>
  • Wed, Nov 19, 2003 10:19pm

bb is exactly right. This company has become too content a top the retail grocery industry. All they care about is keeping the shareholders pockets lined, mainly because they themselves are the majority shareholders. It is difficult to distinguish the difference between ownership and management with in this company. The only people who actually care about the daily operations of this business, are the people involved in daily operations. By this I mean the department managers, and ft/pt retail clerks whose blood and sweat have built this retail giant known as Loblaws. If they gave equal pay for equal labour, my pay should be somewhere on par with G.W., around 20M/yr. Just to make comparisons, Bill Gates the CEO of Microsoft among others, doesn't even pay himself 1M/yr. I think that 20M could be invested better elsewhere. Like G.W. needs a paycheck anyway, I though those polo games with Prince Charles were free of charge?

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Mon, Nov 24, 2003 4:50am


Mr. Lederer praised the UFCW for its "strong collaborative" work with Loblaw . "We think that will lead to more union jobs and still allow us to compete toe-to-toe with global players."


Michael Fraser, national director of UFCW Canada, said Loblaw threatened to open non-unionized stores under the Real Canadian Superst
ore banners if the UFCW didn't agree to the contract cutbacks.
The alternative for union members could have been losing their jobs entirely, Mr. Fraser said in a recent interview.

"Loblaw is being somewhat forward thinking," Mr. Fraser said. "They realize Wal-Mart is probably going to come into Canada in a big way with Sam's Club. Loblaw is the only employer in Canada that's prepared to try to compete with them on the same basis ..... If we had sat back and done nothing ..... eventually we would be watching a lot of our members be put out of work by non-union competition."

The whole story

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Nov 24, 2003 5:46am

The UFCW is forward thinking alright but on behalf of whom?

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Mon, Nov 24, 2003 6:34am

What amazes me is that time after time they admit through their own words (could have, probably going to) that there really was not or is any justification for the ufcw to force this Deal on the membership, the only real gains being made are by the union and the company.

  • posted by siggy
  • Mon, Nov 24, 2003 6:54am


"Loblaw is the only employer in Canada that's prepared to try to compete with them on the same basis ....."

This explains the ufcw walmart organizing effort.

ufcw isn't organizing walmart workers, they're organizing the retail landscape.

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Nov 24, 2003 10:30am

I found it quite interesting that on the front page of the business section of the gobe and mail there is an article expounding how little canadian directors make compared to their american counterparts after a 17% increase in 2002.Then on the next page In Walmart stirs the grocery industry "Loblaw's views that it needs to reel in wage and benefit expenses" I wonder if the directors of Loblaws woul agree to the same concessions they are trying to hand everyone else?And all this because 4 Sams club open in the Metro Toronto area.One thing people are neglecting to think about is the other players besides Loblaws.What about A&P, sobeys and costco.You would think that the only employer threatend by walmart is Loblaws...what a crock ....they are the only ones willing to compete with walmart on the backs of workers and will go to any length to do it.

  • posted by weiser
  • Mon, Nov 24, 2003 10:39am

And the UFCW worships them as forward thinkers.

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Mon, Nov 24, 2003 1:14pm

You know, Mike Fraser and the other brain waves at the Canadian UFCW never cease to cause me to rush for the Gravol bottle. I saw his reference to Loblaws officials being "forward thinking" and practically gagged. It's an indicator of how completely the UFC-dubyas have swallowed free market ideology. How on earth can they possibly represent workers when they are essentially on the same page as the bosses?

IMHO, the whole Wal-mart menace is a corporate smokescreen designed to distract the rest of us from the reality that Wal-mart is only doing what all corporations do: Screwing people for greater profit.

These guys need to be hung out to dry and the sooner the better. The only good thing that I can say about Fraser and his posse is that they're giving us plenty of rope.

  • posted by <40 Below>
  • Mon, Nov 24, 2003 6:25pm

I don't mean to change the subject, but I hear that the Ontario government is going to raise the minimum wage to $8 an hour. I had a look at the RCSS apendix and it said that after 3900 the raise brings the part time worker to $8.25. Would it be the case that since the minimum wage would increase it would not affect the contract other than workers would be working about... 4 years before getting a raise! Wow what a great contract! Working 4 years for a 25 cent raise...

  • posted by blasdell
  • Mon, Nov 24, 2003 8:16pm

Isn't it ironic that a union member has to rely on the goverment to increase the minimum wage to get a raise?The UFCW when it negotiates contracts like this perpetuates inequlity.Their actions remind me of a Dickens era lord.Minimum wage....Minimum wage is that the best you can do UFCW?You should be ashamed with you 146,000 dollar salaries. Can you not see the inequity?

  • posted by <bb>
  • Sat, Nov 29, 2003 1:40pm

The London division is electing a divisional officer on sunday November 30 at 7pm at the Lamplighter Inn.I hope the spot is filled by someone who has some meaning as to what democracy means.The 22 divisional officers who perpetuated the gross abuse of process should be replaced by members who care.I hope the London division takes the first step in democratization of our unionAttend the meeting and excercise your democratic rights.

  • posted by <garfield>
  • Wed, Dec 3, 2003 8:07pm

Hi, I just wanted to respond to an older post (july 11 2003) by Soitis regarding on how 175 handled the proposed amendments to the loblaws/rcss stores.

as I recall, the amendments were brought to the stewards in a meeting and had them (amendments) explained to. it was stated in the meeting that because the way the union by-laws are written, the union can go ahead with the changes without our concent/vote. The leaders then wanted to have a meeting for those who are eligible for either retirement or early retirement or those wanting to retire but remain part-time. (which they did post a meeting for) but as for posting a notice for a general meeting regarding the proposed amendments, there was no such notice.

I guess the leaders felt justified by bringing it to the stewards to say that the amendments were brought to the membership via stewards since they are supposed to "represent" the membership, so they then can at a later date say that the amendments (as they call it) WERE brought to the membership if questioned.

Since there is only 1 rcss store in 175, it is thought to be believed that the rcss store will be covered under the current contract (why have two contracts for 175?? 1 for loblaws stores and the other for the rcss store.) I guess that is something to find out.


thoughts/comments anyone??!!!

  • posted by blasdell
  • Thu, Dec 4, 2003 7:32pm

The questions I have are ..Is your contract amended? Did the membership get to vote on the amendment? Why Not? What is the point in having any ratification at all? Why have a Union? What is the difference between the company and the Union?
Is the Ontario Labour Relations Board there to keep workers from becoming too oppositional to management or are they there to ensure workplace democracy?

  • posted by <garfield>
  • Fri, Dec 5, 2003 9:43am

BB, To my knowledge there was no vote of the amendment/ratification, since I don't remember any postings in regards to a general meeting to vote on the ratification/amendment. And yes, as far as I know the contract is amended.


  • posted by blasdell
  • Fri, Dec 5, 2003 10:08am

Garfield, what would your position be if the Labour Board ruled a contract amendment must be ratified?The Board cannot rule on things that are not before it.If the case turns out the way I hope, Loblaws may not have an amendment but Zehrs and Fortinos may have one because members "let it happen".

  • posted by <oranges>
  • Fri, Dec 5, 2003 10:36pm

BB and Garfield
What the crap are you guys pretending to be important about. This site is trying to deal with releavent issues and concerns of the people. The London division?? Who was your president and/or why the election? Those could provide some good discussion type issues. All those people that went to the conference in the states, that was done by a ballot election.
ll cool

  • posted by <garfield>
  • Sat, Dec 6, 2003 3:31am

BB, If the Labour Board ruled that the amendment must be voted on which involved concessions I would obviously not support it. I forgot to mention that we were told that the amendments would only affect new hires and any existing employee would not. (at least in terms of top pay rate, I don't have the amendments in front of me right now).We were also told that there would be no concessions (ie loss of benefits) SO as it sounds as of today, the only changes will be the 3rd tier pay scale (for non-food depts) so we might get the same contract for either another 6 year deal or maybe even a 10 year deal. So we may not get anything (ie pay raise) but we won't lose any benefits either. We'll know for sure as our contract expires in 2006.

oranges: To have the top pay rate dropped from over $15/hour (p/t) to just $10/hour (p/t)for new hires is pretty depressing. The new hires (in non-food depts) still have to work over 8750 hours to get $10/hour; at max hours of 24 hours/week (not including sundays) you would have to work that regularly ( or about approx 1200 hours a year) to get to your top rate. At that rate, it would take you 8 years (at least) to make your top rate. I think new top rate for new hired p/t to f/t is $15/hour) I make more that right now.

I've been told that RCSS stores are eventually going to be the future and Loblaws will be eventually phased out; if that's true, then my paid sick days are gone, my christmas bonus is gone, the part time benefits will be half of what they are now, you will probably be seeing MORE non-union positions in RCSS stores (based on the current trend that's happening now) and god only knows what other concessions they have in their contract (I haven't finished reading it yet). The point is, the company is taking away benefits from the employees that took a long time to achieve over the years of negotiations, all because they claim that they cannot afford them because of walmart. I don't know about 1000A's contract, but we've had 3 bad contracts in a row (i would assume the same for 1000A and 1977) with no pay increase (except the $1.65 we got on our current 6 year contract); And yet each 130,000+ sq/ft store costs a MIN of $120 MILLION to build and lets not forget about the 550,000 sq/ft warehouse in ajax (and I believe there was one built in Kingston as well).

So Oranges, I do know who my Local President is (as I do the other elected officals) But you have to remember that 1000A spans from Ottawa to Toronto and everything inbetween) So what happens in London will eventually affect Ottawa,Kingston,Toronto etc..... So even though you have valid questions, it's what and the why our elected officals are doing these things to us may be more important than the Who is doing it.


  • posted by blasdell
  • Sat, Dec 6, 2003 10:14am

It is so typical of an ignorant machine head to try and keep us "workers" in our place.Because we, or anybody, puts some information or an opinion in an online forum we "trying to be important".Give your empty head a shake. What is wrong with disseminating information?What is wrong with members knowing who THEIR elected officials are?After all it was THOSE elected officials who perpetrated this fruad in the name of a union.All the information a union has should be available to all the members.Maybe Oranges you can answer..What exactly is a union a union of?

  • posted by <ZEPHYR>
  • Sun, Dec 7, 2003 1:15pm

Loblaw reopens East Coast stores

Loblaw Companies Ltd., Canada's biggest supermarket chain, will reopen 15 Dominion stores in Newfoundland and Labrador today after ratifying an agreement with 1,600 workers it locked out last month in a wage dispute.

Toronto-based Loblaw locked out the workers after they set up picket lines at the stores on Nov. 18 to protest the company's demand for wage and benefit concessions.

No details of the new agreement were released in a statement.

Loblaw has been negotiating lower wages in Ontario and eastern Canada to compete against non-union outlets such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which has been opening about 20 stores a year in Canada. Rivals Sobeys Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corp. also operate non-union stores.

Loblaw reached a tentative agreement with the Canadian Auto Workers union, which represents the workers, on Tuesday.

bloomberg news

anyone out there with any details?


  • posted by <ZEPHYR>
  • Sun, Dec 7, 2003 1:21pm

anyone out there with any details?[/QB][/QUOTE]

sorry asked the question before finding this THREAD;f=18;t=000149

  • posted by Scotty_UFCW_Lester
  • Sun, Dec 7, 2003 2:26pm

This is a very interesting thread

  • posted by <bb>
  • Thu, Dec 11, 2003 7:04am

I have it on good authority that if this deal with Loblaws is allowed to stand then in 10 years a grocery store in Ontario will not have a contract worth the paper it is written, they will be changed after they are ratified for the benefit of the companies and the union and members wont be able to do anything acbout it.Companies will claim a threat from "something" and if it does not materialize, where can you go?

  • posted by NIGHTS 046
  • Thu, Dec 11, 2003 8:29am

Loblaws will never be Walmart and their lack of vision will be their downfall, this company already has what it needs.
Not to compete but to survive with Walmart, why do people shop Loblaws?
Not because they are cheap but because they offer a superior and unique product in their PC lines, once Loblaws surrenders the high standards of their products for lower priced goods Walmart will run them over.
I am already seeing the slow death as I watch quality orientated and dedicated employee's being replaced by cheap labor.

  • posted by Milkman
  • Sat, Jan 10, 2004 6:57pm


posted by <edelio>:
Anyone see which London England chain galen just bought for 1.4 billion cash the oth day?????!!!!!!! WOW

  • posted by <twin>
  • Wed, Feb 18, 2004 12:05pm

The Globe and Mail reports record profits fo Loblaws again despite a 25 million dollar 4th quarter charge for early retirement.

"Analysts anticipate a further shake up of Loblaw's work force as the company strives to slim down even more in the cutthroat market."

Can this mean that the backroom dealing is not over? Who is next?


  • posted by cointoss
  • Sun, Feb 29, 2004 2:52pm

Question? Zehrs agreed to no wage concessions in the next contract. Did Loblaws? I am hearing that they added a year to the contract.

  • posted by Berserkerman
  • Tue, Mar 2, 2004 8:05am

Loblaws also agreed to no wage consessions in the next contract. We did not add a year to the current contract as I believe it is law that the period of the contract cannot be changed once it has been ratified. I will beleive no consessions when I see it. Seems to me that the company will probably ask for a very short contract should there be no consessions.

  • posted by siggy
  • Tue, Mar 2, 2004 8:13am

Welcome to MFD 40 B


Seems to me that the company will probably ask for a very short contract should there be no consessions.

The obvious question here is how much lower can it go? Is there lower than minimum wage and no benies?

Nah unh, the only way is up and for that you will need some representation which has a proud history of no concessions and no backrooms, you know a union which is not dedicated to mega dues for the sake of mega dues.

  • posted by Berserkerman
  • Tue, Mar 2, 2004 8:35am

Thanks for the welcome hehe. I started this thread along time ago, but I guess now you have to register to post. Anyway there is still plenty of room to go downward. There is always room for that as far as the company is concerned. I am not so sure about your comment about needing another union to get more from our contract. I would like to see what the CAW was able to get for the workers out east and that would give a better picture as to what to expect from another union. I think the UFCW has done little to help us, but it is hard to say what union would be good representation for us.

  • posted by siggy
  • Tue, Mar 2, 2004 9:08am


Thanks for the welcome hehe. I started this thread along time ago, but I guess now you have to register to post.

I thought I'd seen your face before.


Anyway there is still plenty of room to go downward. There is always room for that as far as the company is concerned.

I was referring to legislation but you are right, that can and has changed as labour cowers 'neath the table. No doubt the employers have the money to make it worse.


I am not so sure about your comment about needing another union to get more from our contract.

I think I meant more of a contract.

It's not all about changing representation, tho that option should always be fresh in members's minds. To me it is about rattling windows, standing with co-members/workers whether or not you agree with them.

"I may not agree... but I will defend to the death your right to say it", those are very wise words and exemplify the power of solidarity IMO, something which has been systematically destroyed by the concessionary, divisional contracts.

Members spend way too much time "rastling" with each other don'tya' think?

  • posted by cointoss
  • Tue, Mar 2, 2004 6:46pm

40 B , Give me a prediction, Do you see all the Loblaws changing to rcss or do you see only a few new ones? Are you familiar with London and the changes going on there?

  • posted by Berserkerman
  • Wed, Mar 3, 2004 7:55am

siggy I agree with your comments about the members infighting. Thats what happens when there are people on 5 or 6 wage scales. Cointoss I beleive the number of RCSS' stores to be build is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30 in the next 2 years. Don't quote me on that. Now if there are lets say 200 total stoes of Loblaws, Zehrs and Fortinos(approx) then that is quite the investment. The number of old format stores will come down because some of the RCSS' will be replacement eventhough they are not on the same property. Eventually all of the stores will be RCSS, but really it is more a question of how long that will take. I beleive that if not next contract than the next one after that the stores will all change over. Of course that depends on how well the RCSS stores do which I am sure they will do well. Right now as it stands in order to make an existing store an RCSS they have to increase the square footage by 50% and have to have total square footage over a certain amount. Something like 120K. I can't remember exactly... Then only the GM departments will run in the new wage scale in those stores. What I think will happen is that the union will agree to let the company switch all of the stores over at once and have the same kind of deal where old employees will get to keep the exisiting contract. Now those stores will be fun to work in. People making $20 and people making $7. I am sure everyone will get along well LOL. As for what is happening in London I can tell you because I am in London. I think you are too cointoss? Anyway, it appears that the RCSS out east will be done in June. The RCSS out west in Oakridge will be done sometime in 2005. Then there will be 2 RCSS and 3 Loblaws stores in the city. It will be very interesting next contract to see how the RCCC people vote because they will now hold the majority in London. London was one of the reasons that we didn't go on strike last contract. I beleive that the people in Toronto and London will be upset with the situation and expect more. Especially in Toronto where I have no clue as to how people can live on current wages. Wow that was long winded

  • posted by Berserkerman
  • Wed, Mar 3, 2004 8:16am

Some other interesting info about what is going on in London. Since there have been alot of retirements people have been moving up in positions and it has trickled down to full time positions. I was shocked to see this as I thought they wouldn't keep the current full time numbers at the Loblaws stores. It appears that they will keep the numbers up, but will not be adding to them. So the future full time jobs will be at the RCSS, but as people retire or leave they will be replaced. Which is good for people that have not applied for full time and are now seeing it as the best option in the current situation. My advice to the part time people is to apply for every full time position because they are a rarity these days and they don't want to end up getting a full time job in the RCSS agreement so apply while you can. It seems that alot of people are thinking the way I am because it seems that alot of people are applying for these jobs. It is taking forever to find out who got the positions.

  • posted by skaramangas
  • Tue, Jan 25, 2005 1:48pm


posted by <bb>:
I have it on good authority that if this deal with Loblaws is allowed to stand then in 10 years a grocery store in Ontario will not have a contract worth the paper it is written, they will be changed after they are ratified for the benefit of the companies and the union and members wont be able to do anything acbout it.Companies will claim a threat from "something" and if it does not materialize, where can you go?

looks like your right BB.

© 2024 Members for Democracy