Members for Democracy Archive

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Hope it helps.

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.

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

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.

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...

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

cointoss there will be no sick pay. You can get all this info at the site listed above http://www.ufcwrealcanadian.ca/

The first time someone said that the URL for the new Local 1000a web site was www.ufcwrealcanadian.ca 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?

<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.

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.

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?

Sort of off topic, but not really;

quote:

---

Loblaw Companies Limited 2003 Second Quarter Report

TORONTO, July 17 /CNW/ -

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

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.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

SALES
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

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.

INTEREST EXPENSE

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.

INCOME TAXES

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

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.

FINANCIAL CONDITION

FINANCIAL RATIOS

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.

COMMON DIVIDENDS

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.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

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.

CASH FLOWS USED IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES

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.

CASH FLOWS USED IN FINANCING ACTIVITIES

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.

RISKS AND RISK MANAGEMENT

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.

ACCOUNTING STANDARDS IMPLEMENTED IN 2003

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.

OUTLOOK

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
CHAIRMAN PRESIDENT

Toronto, Canada
July 17, 2003

---

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.

From today's Toronto Star :

Loblaws union sets superstore wage cuts

quote:

---

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.

---

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 ??

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.

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

From the Inside Toronto website:

Loblaws may build superstores

quote:

---

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."

---

quote:

---

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!

There are no elections in 1000a.At least not for the general membership.call 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

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.

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????

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).

quote:

---

…EXAMPLES OF THE LABOR MARKET IMPACT OF WAGE
DIFFERENTIALS – CASES FROM CANADA

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.

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. .

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

AND THE FRIGGING UFCW IS HELPING THEM DO IT!

---

From the Aug 6/03 Financial Post:

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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).

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?

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

quote:

---

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

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...

quote:

---

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"

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.

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..

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.

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.

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 ...pay more dues .....cut our benefits.....hate to think what they will try next....

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.

: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.

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.

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.

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 .

quote:

---

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:

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

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 !

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

quote:

---

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.

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

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.

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.

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. Ahhhh....you 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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 ebosveld@clac.ca. You can also visit www.clac.ca.

Thanks for your interest.

Ed Bosveld
Provincial Director
CLAC

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.

quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

quote:

---

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:

quote:

---

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:

quote:

---

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.

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...

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

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"

[QB]

---

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

quote:

---

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.

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..........

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?

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

quote:

---

"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.

And the UFCW worships them as forward thinkers.

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...

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.

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?

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".

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.

Cheers

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

http://www.thestar.ca

anyone out there with any details?

ed=link

This is a very interesting thread

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.

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?

http//www.globeandmail.com

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.

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.

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?

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.