There is some kind of meeting for all divisional officers on Monday January 3rd and a meeting on the 7th of January for all union reps for Loblaws and RCSS. That's what our union rep in the store has told us. The last time they had this meeting we all got screwed from behind. This time I'm prepared because I bought a jar of vaseline. We are going to get screwed again by this union for the 3rd time in less than 2 years. First it was The Walmart effect, then they raised our union dues after they screwed us and now what kind of shaft do they have for the members this time? Any ideas? Maybe they had a change of heart and they grew some balls and have decided to represent their members. No I sorry I was dreaming again. Make sure you are all prepared this time around and invest in a bottle of vaseline before we all bend over and grab our ankles and take it from behind again.
quote:
Make sure you are all prepared this time around and invest in a bottle of vaseline before we all bend over and grab our ankles and take it from behind again.
Don't bother spending the money on vaseline you may need every dime before they get done,and besides I keep hearing they are all just a bunch of little pricks anyway. 
Wounder what it will be this time...
there was letter to the store stewards to attend a meeting on Jan 7 2005.
The letter said something about conditions surrounding the uncertainty of the RCSS.
my assumption is that the Company is not filling its quota to staff RCSS stores.
There was another developement that has a bearing on new stores. There was some sort of tax benefit that made it a better financial option to build a new store vs renovate an existing store.
With the loophole closed it may be more imperative to build on existing sites as opposed to greenfield sites.
If that is the case look for the Company to force the RCSS deal on everybody now.
The UFCW is also holding meetings to advise the paid reps about how to answer questions about the CCWIPP and its abominable investments.
Yes it looks like we are going to get it from behind again. The last time there was a meeting at the hotel with the stewards we got screwed. And NOW!!! here we go again. Is there anyone out there that wants to start decertification of this scum union??? We might as well be non union... or we each hire our own labour lawyers to represent us. Shame on you UFCW1000a.
I think the union will ask us to go into early negotiations with Loblaws. I am sure it could be even worse though. BB you might just be right.
This is what UFCW Local 1000a told the world:
quote:
Has the union agreed to concessions in the Loblaws collective agreement?
No. The union has not agreed to concessions. No existing employee will be required to reduce their wages, benefits, seniority or other working conditions in order to keep their job. No one will be required to move to a Real Canadian Superstore. The Loblaws collective agreement remains fully intact until it expires in mid-2006. Even then, there is a No Concessions Guarantee for the full term of the next collective agreement. Moreover, the union has negotiated additional rights, over and above the collective agreement, that give Local 1000A members potentially very attractive options in the event they are affected by the RCSS program.
Gee, what does "fully intact" mean?
Hey pussycat, maybe we should get these guys a comfy chair for all their hard work they have done for the members. How dare we question the dues increase because these assholes have fought tooth and nail to get us where we are today. I don't think Kevin Corporon makes enough money at $150,000 per year. What a joke this union is.He secured himself a future with this RCSS deal and stepped over the members to do it. As they always say after every letter " In Solidarity". What a bunch of hypocrates, these guys forgot where they came from. Ever notice that the union only hires union reps who know nothing about anything? This way they can't question any bonehead decisions they make especially cutting off the hand that feeds them, the members.
I heard , when the deal originally went own in July 2003, that the executives in Zehrs were very worried about the store by store "approval mandate" that was given.
If the outcome had been negative that...it could have meant the end of Zehrs. Now they are targetting the smallest Union, Local 1977 again.
the Strathroy situation did not occur spontaneously, it is just another step in a long road.
The Union should be very worried, while they are out to lower wages of the masses....IMO they are out to get rid of the Union.
Hey emunster, I think a chair would be great, but it has to be a swivel rising chair with a solidarity sign sticking out of their rear ends. Instead of vaseline maybe astroglide would be a better solution so now they can grab us from our ankles and ears and really ram it to us in our behinds like a jack rabbit. Giddy-up!!! This union really makes me sick. Wal-mart has no intentions of building supercentres here. There is no threat. The only threat that Loblaws should be worried from is from Sobey's. They are right behind their asses. Look at the clowns they hire for the R.C.S.S. All young people that have no experience in the business. Look at our Union Reps?? Do they defend us? What a pathetic vial that work for the union. If you want to join the circus...join the union. It's time to get rid of them. Enough is enough. We are going backwards not forwards. I thought communism was depleted. I guess not. You have heard of the movie sleeping with the enemy?? Now a new one is out!!! Our union sleeping with the company. Giddy-up horse
And Brian Williamson brags:
quote:
...We made no concessions of any kind in our conventional supermarket agreement and protected the right of every existing Zehrs member to continue working under that agreement. We got no wage or benefit concessions for the entire term of the next contract, post-2006....And we did it all without a strike.
BB,
What do think these idiots are up to this week? Don't they realize that they have caused so much bitterness with the members? How long do they think they can continue to shaft the members? They have no idea what kind of members they represent. There are alot of wackos in Loblaws that wouldn't hesitate to go to the extreme if they are screwed any further. Of course the union is aware of these wackos because they always defend these type of people
even after they have assaulted another employee and threatened to kill someone else. Can the union and the company change the expiry date of a contract or do they need the members to vote?
I am not sure what they are up to this week.
There are two roas they can travel, both are at the Companies request.
the first is road to make the employees a little happier, they could do that by raising the start rate and putting more help in the stores.
the second road is to break the Union and make the employees as unhappy as posssible. A whole lot of unhappy members ten to go after the Union not the Company.
Our leadership is not pro-active, they are re-active. they react to things as they arise not prevent them in the first place.
quote:
the first is road to make the employees a little happier, they could do that by raising the start rate
The government just took care of that by raising minimum wage in Ontario, so I don't think that will be the agenda.
The union has a contract until mid-2006. It says it has assurances that the 2006 contract won't have any concessions. It sold the last concessionary deal on those terms. They promised that safety, respect and security were yours for the next several years.
Now, why would anyone want to open the present contract earyly? The answer is simple, either the union screwed up and plans to tighten up the present contract, but if that is the case, why would Loblaw agree to tightening up its contract?The most likely answer is that more "nonconcessionary" concessions are on the menu.
Loblaws have been closing between 50 and 60 stores per year and opening just as many or more over the same time. They don't abandon a market, so why all the fuss?
A fuss is being made because the union hasn't challenged the fact that Loblaw doesn't have to move the high-priced help to the new stores anymore. Why pay someone $18 when you can pay someone else $9 per hour? The union doesn't seem to have an answer.
Put on the rubber boots 'cause the bullshit will run three-feet deep starting today.
Wait until you hear about the CCWIPP. Ask how it figures in to the bending over for Loblaw.
Ontario's minimum wage is going up to $7.45 on Feb. 1/05 - so the minimum wage earning UFCW members at the RCSS's will be getting a raise of just over 4%!
That said, it's even more unlikely that the latest backroom boogie has anything to do with raising the starting rates in the RCSS appendix.
My guess is that, seeing how much they could squeeze out of the UFCW in the secret negotiations of 2003, the boys from Loblaws are going in for another squeeze. Watch for concessions (called something other than concessions) to the contract provisions that cover workers at conventional stores. Possibilities: Reduced entry rates, scaled down benefits (or additional qualifying criteria for new hires) and more management flexibility. You just can't have a crappy deal appended to a good (or less crappy) deal without the rot spreading.
Keep us posted UFCW members. Whatever it is, we want to make sure the whole world knows as much as possible, as soon as possible.
Well it seems they are going to be a vote by members of UFCW Locals 1000A, 1977, 175 for early contract negotiations on June 2005.
Try these links: Declaration of Solidarity UFCW Locals 1000A, 1977, 175 and Local 1977 Zehrs membership vote in January on early contract renewal negotiations
Sends a cold chill down one's spine...
Rob.
I agree with Weiser. Why would the company agree to something that will cost them more money? If we agree to a new contract where will my lump sum payment be this June? I agree that the 3 locals should come together to fight the company, but why would the company encourage this. One can only imagine what the proposals will be to keep these stores that are going to be "closed". It's BS and it is another company ploy. They are not going to just pack up shop and leave all of these communities. They also are not going to open up No Frills since that is against labour law. This is going to get interesting for sure.
seems kind of odd, they didnt need a mandate last negotiations to amend the contract. Why do they need one now?
What is that anyway,early contract renewal, and why do they need it?
the website says that loblaws cannot open RCSS under the RCSS "amendment" on existing sites.
My question is Why Not?
I will never forget the Company Lawyer at the hearing in Oct 2003 saying that a collective agreement was a fluid contract that could change with the times.
Get ready Loblaws, Zehrs and Fortinos...here we go again.
I agree BB!
I am sure the company will want every RCSS from now on to be considered a new site. No matter if they are built on current land or not. How that will be looked at as a good thing by the union I have no idea.
In the West, they created two contracts--one for urban stores and one for outlying stores. The new rates will only affect new hires. Then those with high rates will be "encouraged" to get lost.
The fact is that CCWIPP has 20,000 new members since 2002, but the average hours for each member has dropped by about two hours a month. A mere 8.5 percent actually get over 2,000 hours a year. Over 50% are at 20 hours or less per week. If you keep the hours low enough, you get high turnover.
The CCWIPP is in despartate shape and the union needs the employers contributions to bail them out. The CCWIPP has been given 10 years to dig out or else. The best way to dig out is to have contributions made for people who will never work long enough to lock into the pension.
Pay close attention to how the CCWIPP's failing finances play in this whole thing.
Time and time again, the employers seem to have money for the UFCW's education and training funds and pension funds, but no money for UFCW members' paycheques.
Think about it.
Then read this LOAD OF CRAP.
They say:
quote:
This vote is part of the outcome of mediation at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
That means that the UFCW agreed to it. Mediation isn't some court order. It's an jointly-agreed piece of shit.
Once you're made to believe that it's some sort of order, then they start the closure scare--they'll say, "agree or you're out of a job."
Remember what Mike boy said in the Canadian Grocer Magazine several months ago:
quote:
In other Loblaw news, the union representing thousands of Loblaw employees in Ontario said there was never any real fear that Loblaws' name change to Real Canadian Superstore would render the union null and void and make way for Loblaw to open nonunion shops.
"That was an argument that we certainly were having a debate about," said Michael Fraser, national director, United Food and Commercial Workers Union. "That argument could have taken place at the labour relations board for the next year. Who knows? But our position is, we believe [Loblaw] would have been forced to give us recognition."
Ain't is odd what Mike boy says to the managment media and what the UFCW says to the members.
Well, looks like we are getting screwed again. Why even bother having a contract when the union does what ot wants. Where is our rights. Oh. i'm sorry, we do not have any. The union is truly communism. First they get a 6 year deal contract in 2000 which is a crock of BS. No other contracts go that long, then they screw us with the R.C.S.S deal behind our backs and now they want to open negotiations before the contract expires!!! This is totally BS. There is no democracy. This union has got to take a hike. The members must stick behind each other and make this union bleed.
Although the UFCW is now referring to what it wants to do as an "early renewal" what Loblaws and the UFCW are up to right now is the same thing they pulled in 2003.
They want to change the existing agreements but don't want to do it on the expiry of the contracts in 2006 because (a) the company agreed, as part of the 2003 re-opener, that there will be no concessions in 2006, (b) during the normal period for contract renewal, there might be more interest on the part of the members in what's going on and more of an expectation that they will be consulted about changes to the agreements, and (c) why wait until 2006 to squeeze the union when you can do it right now?
My best guess as to what's going on and why this is happening now is that Loblaws has the UFCW over a barrel. It has tremendous leverage over the union and it's doing what any big greedy corporation would do in the circumstances: Use that leverage to extract as many concessions as it can.
Where does the leverage come from? It's a combination of things. The two most significant factors are, I think, a culture where union officials have steadily become co-opted into the corporate culture and corporate way of thinking and the huge amounts of cash that the company (as well as other large grocery industry employers) have agreed to pump into CCWIPP - the troubled pension plan - to keep it from tanking. If you're a big greedy corporation, you just don't give a bunch of union guys millions and millions of dollars that you don't have to give them and expect nothing for your generosity. The world doesn't work that way.
Loblaws has the union guys by the balls and they're going to exploit their advantage to the fullest.
Loblaws also has fresh on its mind, its highly successful round of secret negotiations in 2003 which spawned the RCSS deal. If you can get a union to roll over for you like that- to the point where they agree to minimum wage for some of their members (!), - why stop there? Why stop at the RCSS's. Why not try extending that deal to your conventional stores?
The RCSS deal, awful as it is, did contain a few restrictions: It could only, for instance, be applied to DSTM staff in converted stores, it could only apply in stores that exceeded a certain square footage and that sort of stuff.
Well, that was in 2003. Now it's 2005, the first wave of RCSS's has opened and the company guys have had a chance to revisit their initial assumptions about how well the stores were going to do and so on. Every good business plan has some slack built in so that once the business is launched, modifications can be made based on how the market is responding. I'm quite sure that the boys at Loblaws never decided for a minute that the conventional stores were going to be phased out, eliminated, done away with, 100% no matter what happened after the RCSS's started to open. That's what they told the union but they'd be idiots if they didn't have a "Plan B" in case things didn't go quite as well as they were hoping with their new mega-stores.
It's quite possible that now - a year and a bit down the road - they've revisited their original plans to phase out all of their conventional stores. Maybe people aren't flocking to the new humungous RCSS's like they were hoping and some market research tells them that it makes sense to keep the conventional stores open. That could very well be but hell, it would sure be nice to have RCSS wages and working conditions at those conventional stores wouldn't it?
That's just one possible scenario. There are others. Maybe the Loblaws boys have decided that they'd like to keep the conventional stores operating but slap the RCSS banner on them, add a bit of square footage and some dept. store crap - but not to the extent that would enable them to apply the RCSS deal with its current square footage restrictions? That's possible. Again, they'd need the union's cooperation in modifying the RCSS deal to allow the lower rates and crappier conditions to be implemented at the smaller RCSS's.
Possibly, they would like to sever the RCSS deal from the three collective agreements and treat it as a separate collective agreement. That would give them even greater ability to bargain even lower rates and benefits for the RCSS workers. And there would be no fuss about who gets to ratify that deal: It would be the RCSS workers rather than the entire existing membership at the three chains of stores.
Or maybe the Loblaws boys keep looking at those lovely low low rates of pay in the RCSS deal and saying, "Dammit, it would sure feel good to be paying that at our conventional stores! Sonofabitch, let's see if we can persuade the UFCW!"
Why is the union so adamant that the members get to vote on whether or not the agreements will be "renewed earlier"? That IMHO is just a good bit of choreography. The UFCW has taken a lot of shit for rolling over and agreeing to Loblaws demands that members not be allowed to ratify the 2003 RCSS deal. They'll never come out and admit it, but that stunk so bad that even the most faithful labour movement types in other unions are turning blue from holding their noses for over a year. The UFCW wants to polish up its horribly tarnnished image and present itself as a democratic union that lets the members vote on .... something.
The stipulation that members of all three locals must vote "yes" in order for the union to enter into early negotiations is for two reasons:
1. The leaders don't want a huge rift in the ranks on this - with some locals voting in favour and some voting against. The flack generated by Ben Blasdell's DFR complaint was worse than they were expecting (and I'm not sure that it's over yet either). They don't want more members getting ideas in their heads about legal challenges and that could very well happen if there's another secret deal without even a veneer of democratic process.
2. It allows the leaders of Locals 175 and 1977 to feel like Local 1000a President Corporon isn't completely in charge of things. As things sit, I think that Local 1000a has the larger membership numbers and so could carry the vote even if the two other locals voted no. Corporon is IMO the most Loblaw-friendly of the three blind rats and is not especially well-liked by Hanley and Williamson.
3. If there is a great deal of opposition to the idea of a re-opener prior to 2006 in any of the locals, then the three idiots can wash their hands and tell Loblaws, "Uh sorry guys but we just can't do it again this year. It's the members. They won't let us."
4. On the other hand, if the members vote "yes", it gives the union leaders the green light to do gawdonlyknowswhat. One thing that makes me very leary is that in the announcements about the upcoming votes, there is no mention made of why the idea of early renewal is being promoted by the company at this time. (There is only a reference to this being something that came out of the mediated settlement at the OLRB. This actually allows the union to deflect any questions about "why now?" which the lame explanation that, "It's just part of the deal we made at the Board. No other reason." See how they use the OLRB process for cover?)
There is also no mention of whether - assuming the members vote "yes" - the collective agreement amendments will be put to a ratifcation vote by the members. Remember one of the UFCW's arguments in response to Ben Blasdell's DFR complaint was "it's a mid term amendment so there's no requirement for ratification by the members". Members who are going to the votes should ask about this: If there are early renewal negotiations, will we get to ratify whatever agreements may come out of those negotiations? If the answer is "no" (or anything but a straight up and unqualified "yes"), watch out.
My guess is that there will be considerable pressure at the votes for a "yes" vote although very little will be put in writing (after all the propaganda that got posted on the internet last time around). The general flavour of what members will be fed will go something like this:
The Wal-Mart threat continues. The company has had to make some further business decisions that will help it fight Wal-Mart. Those decisions won't affect you - they will affect new hires. Or - those decisions will affect you but here are some goodies that we will get for you to cushion your fall. These goodies are only available if we can make the deal now - in 2005. If we make the company wait until 2006, they'll either (a) challenge the enforcability of the "no concessions" agreement in the RCSS deal in court and they might just win because the courts are filled with right wing bastards or (b) they'll close all/most/many of the conventional stores and there's bugger all we can do about that or (c) all of the above. So do you really want to take a chance on losing out on the great deal we can do in 2005? Come on people. We're riding the tidal wave (yes, they really used that in their 2003 propaganda) into the new world of retail.
Their shtick will be pretty much a repeat of their 2003 shtick but having the votes will give it a veneer of democracy. If the members vote "yes", then, whatever the deal turns out to be, the leaders will say, "Hey, the members said they were OK with it. They gave us the green light to bargain and this is the best deal we could get."
Since the public doesn't understand the distinction between a vote of this kind and a ratification vote, the opportunity will be there to make the whole thing look legitimate and basically to blame it on the members, thereby avoiding the the prolonged cringing and nose-holding that the 2003 deal provoked.
(If you are going to the votes, take notes, bring in recording devices and tell the world as much as you can about what's being said.)
Why was the cheap deal done in 2003? It was done because Wal-Mart Supercenters were comming (a weak assertion and probably not true).
Why does Loblaw want more concessions in 2005:
quote:
Wal-Mart and Sobey's are planning stores in Strathroy. We want you to give us an exception to the RCSS Appendix we agreed to last year. We need this to compete with these new stores.
Now they want a better deal than Sobey's. They already have a deal that allows them to compete with Wal-Mart (never mind that the Wal-Mart in question isn't a Supercenter or Sams Club).
Why do they expect Local 1977 to bend over?
quote:
UFCW Local 175 has already agreed to this ‘side deal' for the Chatham Zehrs stores. They let their members vote on it. If they did, why can't you?
Oh ya! And now these cowboys are saying that they are sticking together to fight the evil Loblaws.
Bullshit!
Why not wait until the meeting to find out instead of thinking the worst?
If it turns out to be bad then complain, but if it does not then you look like fools for all the complaining you did ahead of time.
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
< snip >
There is also no mention of whether - assuming the members vote "yes" - the collective agreement amendments will be put to a ratifcation vote by the members. < snip >
From: UFCW 1977 link
quote:
The current collective agreements expire in the summer of 2006. The employer has proposed negotiating renewal agreement by June 2005, one year early. The local unions have accepted this proposal, with the following conditions:
1. The members of all locals must separately approve going to the bargaining table early. If the members of one local vote against doing this, all are deemed to have voted against it.
2. If the members approve early negotiations and a Memorandum of Settlement is reached, the members of all locals must separately vote to ratify the settlement . If the members of one local vote to turn it down, all locals are deemed to have turned it down.
3. If the settlement is turned down, the current collective agreements remain in force until they expire in the summer of 2006.
4. There will be no strike or lockout if agreement cannot be reached in early negotiations. The current collective agreements remain in force until the summer of 2006, and negotiations will take their normal course. The right to strike or lock out remains, in accordance with Ontario labour law.
Having posted the quote that indicates the employer proposed early negotiations, I have to echo the sentiments ... why would the employer make that proposal unless they were looking to get an even better deal at the expense of the members?
I do not could it be as they have done in the past after realizing that paying crap means you get crap and are now maybe willing to offer more money to those at the lower end?
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
Ontario's minimum wage is going up to $7.45 on Feb. 1/05 - so the minimum wage earning UFCW members at the RCSS's will be getting a raise of just over 4%!
quote:
posted by Info:
I do not could it be as they have done in the past after realizing that paying crap means you get crap and are now maybe willing to offer more money to those at the lower end?
Yes, those on the lower end will be paid more but it was not Loblaw's idea.
The only real tool in the box is the right to strike.
Why give it up? .....whether you plan to use it or not.
Oh I see - they have said the agreements will be ratified. Thanks for pointing that out Duff.
That, again, is all part the program - to make it appear that the whole sell out (and it will be a sell out) was something that was done democratically and agreed to by the members.
The UFCW guys are counting on the members - those who turn out at the votes - buying whatever is put in front of them based on the fatalistic assumption that there's nothing they can do about it anyway. They're pretty experienced at getting the members to ratify stuff that really reeks. Sometimes more than one vote has to be held, but what the hell. If at first you don't succeed, try try again.
Members who will be voting on whether or not to negotiate in 2005 need to ask the UFCW why the company wants to negotiate now and not in 2006. If there's no answer that makes any sense, don't go there. The company has the UFCW by the balls. Let those guys into the negotiating room and what they come out with won't be good for you.
If the are positives to this rv will you come on and say so?
I mean I expect you to find fault with it, that is what you do, but for once I would love to see you post something that is positive and who knows if you do put something up that points to the good that is done maybe you to can be a little happier.
quote:
posted by Info:
Why not wait until the meeting to find out instead of thinking the worst?
If it turns out to be bad then complain, but if it does not then you look like fools for all the complaining you did ahead of time.
One definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results.
Info, do you really believe that Loblaw Companies wants to open the contract early to give more?
Think about it. What's this all about? This is about Loblaws wanting concessions at a Zehrs store. They said either cough up or we'll close the place. The Union and Loblaw went to mediation and hatched and agreed to the present deal.
What happened the last time? Loblaws did a dirty deal and insisted that the members wouldn't have a vote. Ben took the UFCW on at the Labour Board and was told that the UFCW and Loblaws can make just about any deal that they want without member ratification--except for changing the dates.
Remote isn't being a fatalist, she's being a realist. It would be insane to expect anything else from the UFCW and Loblaws.
quote:
posted by Info:
If the are positives to this rv will you come on and say so?
I mean I expect you to find fault with it, that is what you do, but for once I would love to see you post something that is positive and who knows if you do put something up that points to the good that is done maybe you to can be a little happier.
There are absolutely no positives in this Info and it would be irresponsible and misleading of me to suggest that there might be. If you want to visit a web site that serves up happy crap about things that are certain to make people most unhappy, I suggest that you visit any one of the numerous UFCW official sites.
One of the standard techniques of propaganda is to suggest to the audience that there might just be something good waiting for them, if they just have faith and let people who have let them down continuous do their fine work behind closed doors.
Teaching people to puy blind faith in leaders who have a long history of screwing them - just isn't my thing, Info.
Give the forum participants one good reason - given the UFCW's long history of rolling over for Loblaws and everything that is known about the genesis of this latest development - that should compel any member to believe that the union is going to negotiate improvements to their contract. Now remember - it has to be a reason backed up with some facts and rational arguments. It can't just be an exhortation to have faith and think happy thoughts.
BTW Info, it actually makes me quite happy to be able to explain to people how corrupt union guys operate and the kind of snow jobs that are created to fool the members into going along with their schemes. You don't have to worry about me being unhappy. I'm not! Thanks to the UFCW I have so much to share with others now that I am almost always walking around in a state of sheer bliss. It's really a good feeling to educate and inform - and shed light on dark places where a lot of ugly things are hatched. Thanks for caring though. 
Typical response from a corporate stooge.
Question for you, how much does wal mart pay you to bash unions that stand up to it?
keep up the job you have of disenheartening union members and potienal union members I am sure there is a big fat check in it for you.
If you would like something to read here you go
http://www.ufcwlocal1977.on.ca/zl/article.php?cat=141
INFO. Anyone else catch the irony in this guy's name?
I'm flabbergasted (calm down Info, just look it up) by the amount of type spent on this guy... including my own here.
At least his posts are being responded to with some pretty informative and thought out ones (skip my own if you'd like). The contrast is amazing and not lost on the readers. He's even scared and shamed away the religious types from weeks ago.
Honestly Info, how about some info on yourself? I've met brain-dead union members and union officers before, but I'm in awe of your 'level'. We're in Toronto. Which category do you fall under, and where are you from? Straight simple questions for a simple mind. I have faith in you bud.
Try your best.
Me I am a union a member (not brain-dead) from Guelph.
As far as me scaring anyone away that would not be likely, if it were to happen it would be an accident, but it may be to their benefit to not have to read some of the disinformation put forth by those who write here under the guise of having union members interest at heart.If I am wrong about rv then fine but to me someone who is afraid to tell what they really do all the while bashing unions gives me the creeps.
Oh great, another thread derailed by the happy UFCW Minister of Information. 
quote:
"In an age of spin, Info offers feeling and authenticity. His message is consistent -- unshakeable, in fact, no matter the evidence -- but he commands daily attention by his on-the-spot, invective-rich variations on the theme. His lunatic counterfactual art is more appealing than the banal awfulness of the Reliable Sources. He is a Method actor in a production that will close in a couple of days. He stands superior to truth."
Must be something in the Guelph water:
Cliff Evans: Guelph
Nephew Mike Fraser: Guelph
Nephew Gene Fraser: Guleph
John Boy Evans: Guelph
Info: Guelph
Well truth be told I live here but was not born here, but intersting to learn I share a city with those in who take a lead in labour.
When you're in the city we'll meet up for a beer at Woody's on Church St.
Wilde Oscar's ain't bad either, although better during patio season.
You'll at least meet some real men, Info. And they'll teach you a thing or two about 'labour'.
Watching this thread is fascinating. I think the end game will be another attempted bailout of the pension plan. It appears the boys are in trouble and need an infusion of new monies to help them get by.
Anyone who has followed my posts know i am a huge fan of multi-employer trusts. I have worked with several that have been the difference for a worker surviving or not. DB's are essential if a person is ever to retire.
Having said that, there comes a point where they become unreasonable. Until 1999 in the US we had 10 year vesting which meant the breakage was staggering. I threatened to sue our UFCW plan in Milwaukee for failing to use the monies in the best interest of our members in St Paul.
The idea that a small number of members benefit from huge contributions is foolishness. This funds actions have made it even more questionable. In fact, some of the investment decisions made by the trustees from the CCWIPP would have gotten them thrown in jail in the US. I truly hope the leadership of these three unions aren't going to go begging for still more money into this failing fund.
Sadly, the UFCW is notorious for playing the same old game, thinking members will never get it. Unfortunately for them, sites like this are helping members understand and see just what is going on.
Stay tuned, this is pretty easy to see coming.
Thanks for the invite but I'm not really into the gay bar scene.
quote:
Sadly, the UFCW is notorious for playing the same old game, thinking members will never get it.
I truly believe that ufcw1000a have pushed too far and are about to find out how pissed the members are and the fact they do get it and are willing to stand up and fight.
The first test will be the vote this week, We know how the reps will vote but I don't believe the store stewards will necessarily tow the line.
I think the boys are in for a rough ride this time.
I have weighed out my options and have come to the conclusion that I am going to move over to the RCSS, not because it is a good move. I stand to loose too much in the next contract, with this union going to bast for us. I will get over $60,000 to move over as well as getting what is left from my CCWIPP. Does anyone know if I terminate my employment with this employer, will I have a reduced pension amount from all my almost 20 years or is this reduced amount only starting in 2005? My understanding from CCWIPP is that in 12 months from my termination I can move what is left from this pension to my locked-in RRSP. I would like to stick around but I stand to loose too much money and I need this pension as I don't have much other retirement savings. I have another trade to fall back on so it's not like im taking a big gamble. I have started explaining to the staff in my store how important it is to go vote and turn it down because they stand to loose the most. As much as I would like to believe in our Democratic society and strongly feel it will get turned down, This union will tamper with the votes anyway. BB, REMOTE VIEWER, WEISER what do you think?
Here is the information regarding the pension,
Faced with that reality, CCWIPP has announced that the pension benefit Plan members will earn for hours worked in 2005 is being reduced by 20 per cent compared to 2004. This change does not affect pension credits earned in 2004 or any previous year.
What the reduction means in terms of dollars and cents depends on how many hours a member works – and how much their employer pays into the Plan per hour worked. If all other factors including hours worked remain the same, a person who during 2004 earned a monthly pension of $45 per month will earn a pension of $36 in 2005.
http://www.ufcw832.mb.ca/spec6.shtml
I am sorry and nothing personal to you emunster but why would you tell people to turn something down, when it is not tabled yet?
Why bother telling people to vote one way or another if you feel the union exuctives will be the one to decide what happens?
I mean I know why people make the sort of statements, but come on people do some research, and those of you who are going to start topics try posting the other side of the coin also and not just the angle that make your point of view seem right.
Anyone can find the negative in anything, it takes intelligence to look at everything and then make a decision.
emunster, make the decision that you feel comfortable with.
I cannot say that I would not take a transfer to an RCSS along with the buydown.
My issue is democracy within our union. Members can make choice and every bit as capable as the leadership we have.
lets quickly recap the last 3 contracts and 1 bastard "amendment"
1992 95 cent raise over 4 years, superstore clause
1996 no raise for 4 years, superstore clause deleted
2000 1.50 over 6 years and lump sum of 4500.00 over 6 years
2003 RCSS amendment lower wages and no more conventional stores
2005 lets negotiate early???
That is a sad track record info.
Let me state loud and clear. VOTE NO, dont let them negotiate now.
There is nothing to gain, we have a contract.
The Divisional Court will rule on the validity of the RCSS contract before the loblaw contract expires.
Maybe loblaw rates will apply to all RCSS
quote:
posted by Info:
Here is the information regarding the pension
Nice to see you embrace the UFCW Minister of Information title. 
quote:
Faced with that reality, CCWIPP has announced that the pension benefit Plan members will earn for hours worked in 2005 is being reduced by 20 per cent compared to 2004. This change does not affect pension credits earned in 2004 or any previous year.
What the reduction means in terms of dollars and cents depends on how many hours a member works – and how much their employer pays into the Plan per hour worked. If all other factors including hours worked remain the same, a person who during 2004 earned a monthly pension of $45 per month will earn a pension of $36 in 2005.
http://www.ufcw832.mb.ca/spec6.shtml
This home page at the CCWIPP website, although temporary I expect, is telling on the state of CCWIPP. 
quote:
I am sorry and nothing personal to you emunster but why would you tell people to turn something down, when it is not tabled yet?
My interpretation is that the poster emunster plans to vote down the [company] proposal to start early contract negotiations.
quote:
Why bother telling people to vote one way or another if you feel the union exuctives will be the one to decide what happens?
Past practice/behaviour on the part of the union executives?
quote:
I mean I know why people make the sort of statements, but come on people do some research, and those of you who are going to start topics try posting the other side of the coin also and not just the angle that make your point of view seem right.
Pot...meet kettle. (I always wanted to say that.)
quote:
Anyone can find the negative in anything, it takes intelligence to look at everything and then make a decision.
You can then be rest assured that the people emunster talks to will use their intelligence to look at everything and then make a decision. 
David Noonan is the son of Brian (Race Car) Noonan. Info is starting to talk like a machine head's relative:
quote:
Loblaws Debateable Deal
David Noonan, UFCW member and Zehrs Markets worker.
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.
What's really interesting is that the UFCW locals and their national office have been totally silent on the millions that Loblaw paid for "education and communications". Why the silence? You'd think that if the millions paid to the UFCW by an employer was really a great thing for the members that the UFCW would be crowing from dawn to sunset about squeezing millions and millions from Lobalw.
Hmmmmm.... Just what might "education and communications" entail? Who might control the millions? Who has access to the millions? How much has been spent and what has it been spent on? Have any "travel" expenses been paid out of the funds? Is a set of books detailing the expenditures available?
quote:
Hmmmmm.... Just what might "education and communications" entail? Who might control the millions? Who has access to the millions? How much has been spent and what has it been spent on? Have any "travel" expenses been paid out of the funds? Is a set of books detailing the expenditures available?
As a former treasurer of a UFCW union local, I can tell you that it is likely the millions would disappear into a "General" account within each local, along with the dues receipts and any "Administration and Training" funds that already come off of members' pay. Details of expenses would likely only be available to the extent required constitutionally and by jurisdictional labour laws. Financial statements can certainly be lacking in detail in some instances, to put it politely.
I think UFCW members should also wonder if "education and communications" are that much different from "Administration and Training", another popular fund which, which with my employer at least, does not even appear on employee pay statements. The A&T Fund can be from $0.05 to $0.10 per hour (or more) for all hours worked. The UFCW International Union takes a cut of that right off the top. It would not be surprising to me if Washington took a cut of the E&C Fund as well. Perhaps it could be used to help support the ex-presidents society within the UFCW.
What's interesting Duffman is that the Locals already get money for the "Education and Training" fund from the employers. However, this money from Loblaw was given in addition to those monies. What's really odd is that Loblaw would pay the International money when the International has no contract with Loblaws. Loblaws contributions to the locals is smelly enough as is, but the one to the International is the really smelly one.
Me the relative of one of the labour leaders in the UFCW?
Sorry no, but hey I guess I should thank you guys, I mean I have been everything from a paid rep to a relative, I never knew you thought so highly of me.
By the way there Duff that pot meet kettle, you should tell that one to finnamore, I wonder now that he is a secretary for his wife does he still pad his exspense account?
BB,
Tomorrow is the start of round 2 of the major shafting of the members and the continuation of the company and the union getting alot closer in their relationship at the expense of the members. Shame on them (the union) to play with the members livelihood. These guys really forgot where they came from. Especially Kevin Corporon who I can remember years ago telling the members that he was going to fight to make things better for the members, shame on us to continue to believe this clown as he sells us out. The sentiment in the store is getting worse and this time around the members are going to really lash out at these guys. If they think the last meeting they had where they were trashed for 3 hours straight with the RCSS deal was bad, they've got another thing coming. Our backs are against the wall and we are going to push back. Kevin did promise to go after a substancial raise at that meeting and the members haven't forgotten that went to that meeting. Wake up, sorry I was dreaming again, he has a perfect record in screwing the members so why would he change now as he has the same mandate as the company. I think Kevin and Lederer went to Sleep Country to pick out their new bed as their old bed is too small for those two f**** and they charged it to the members. Shame on you Kevin.
Hey Info, or should I call you disInfo?
Why the attack on me? Info, are you trying to drive the discussion away from the millions that Loblaws paid to Locals 1977, 1000a, 175 and the $1.5 to the International? Come to think of it, I think this interview may cover what this attack is about.
Info, it looks like you'd eat poop if Mike told you it was ice-cream. Here's a napkin and some mouthwash; wipe your mouth and freshen your breath.
The only padding that was ever done by me was at the specific instructions of my pal TK. As International representatives, we were explicitly told to claim a daily per-diem when we were at our annual get together in Muskoka. We weren't supposed to claim the per-deim because the meals were provided, but way back in Cliff's days, he apparently said it was the thing to do because we were paid less than our American counterparts. It probably still goes on to this day.
Was it wrong? Yup! Does it involve tax evasion? Yup! Does it defraud the International? Yup!
Other than that, I think I was just about the only rep (other than Brian a Local 401 rep in Edmonton) who reported my personal usage of the UFCW vehicle. I reported 85% business usage while most others claimed 100%. I paid taxes on my personal usage. I can't say that for many of the others.
If you must know, Gib Whitlock once made fun of me because I always kept up-to-date expense sheets. I never used the union card for personal use like some others did.
Info, you have any evidence other than your bowl of frozen poop, cough it up or shut up.
Oops! Sorry sleK. I fed the troll, now didn't I? I won't do it again.
Finn, love the attitude. Info needs a golden shower.
An honourary ISDU membership for ya.
Don't worry, you can never be too offensive/opinionated enough for us. Website coming soon. We'll give ya 'Hugh's Corner' a la Don Cherry. Ron McLean will be replaced by Paris Hilton.
Damn we're good with these ideas.
Hey emunster, I can't wait to see what happens in round 2 tomorrow. I can smell the stink coming out from the barn when the stewards go to this meeting. I must agree that we have to push this union out to pasture. We as members have to fight tough and not let this early negotiations go through. Let's stick it hard up their asses and let them feel the pain. They might like it. I hear Sleep Country has good sales on this week. Maybe the smell will linger over there too. Giddy up
Nope no interest in driving this thread elsewhere, but if you are going give the whole world your point of view as to anything my local or any local does then the whole word should learn a little about you, and we did by your last post. I was only following orders is not excuse, it is the reply of cowards who did not have the back bone or the conscience to say no that is wrong for fear of the consequences.
I will always love it when supposed whistle blowers who sat by and did nothing think they are doing the world a favour by telling us all how corrupt other people are or were and how in the end they were not that bad. You got into the game out of greed and don't deny it.
Now back to the thread if you have a contract and the company wants to open it why not see what they have to offer?
If it is worse than what you have then you can say no and keep what you have, if not you may gain something. I mean hey the ORLB already said it was okay to do it without member's consent but you are now being asked. If you say no and it turns out there was a good offer to be made how are you going to feel?
Yes, Info whisteblowers always do us a favour by exposing corruption. It's the only way to stop corruption and prevent it from recurring. I'm glad that we finally have some common ground.
I must say though, that you visitors from UFCW officialdom always give me a warm feeling. I know when we're really striking a nerve with you when you try crapping on Finnamore. You're as predictable as clockwork on that.
There's no point in telling us to stop exposing corruption though. You're really wasting your breath on that. There's way more exposing coming up around the corner - and it's going to make you cringe. See, Finnamore isn't the only guy whose got some really interesting inside "info" on the UFCW. There are a few others of us out there and we've got some truly hair raising stories to tell. Stay tuned because the worst is yet to come. I myself have seen your leaders prostrating themselves before management - and it wasn't a pretty sight lemme tell ya.
I notice that you still haven't answered my earlier question. You've got to be more responsive or you will paint yourself out to be an obfuscating, propagandizing machine head. And you wouldn't want that now would you?
BTW, are you part of the "Info" and communications program that all those Loblaws millions are buying? Just another question that's waiting for an answer.
It's always fun to have a real live UFCW propagandist in this forum. They always give themselves away. Info's comment about Finnamore is like a UFCW undercover communications man's coming out party.
I've done some digging. It looks to me like Cliff Evans is the guy who turned the UFCW into a corporate patsy union. The current leaders should be really angry with him. What are they going to do about him I wonder?
quote:
It's always fun to have a real live UFCW propagandist in this forum.
In this case he's a devote Christian who fears hell if he lies, and so can't answer the simplest of questions given to him without the fear of the wrath of god, or if he answers honestly the reality of the lie he lives is just to painful to deal with.
It really gives me a warm feeling for you to think I am paid to be here, it must really make you guys think your something that anyone would pay a person to post here. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am here of my own free will, does that answer your question?
And your earlier one that you felt I did not answer was?
You know rv your boy we here are going to post something that is going to have them shaking in their boots is getting tiring. I am sure whenever your writers block has worked it's way out and you have dreamed up some new things to write you will post them.
By the way the only time a whistleblower is to be respected is when they blow the whistle before the foul is commited, not after they after profitted also.That is what cowards do.
quote:
posted by Info
By the way there Duff that pot meet kettle, you should tell that one to finnamore, I wonder now that he is a secretary for his wife does he still pad his exspense account?
Really what is your purpose in libelling Finnamore?
Do you have any firsthand knowledge of padding of an account?
I would assume that you dont as you are from Ontario an Finnamore is not. Along with the fact that Hugh is retired and you are not, especially considering that Hugh retired years ago.
This leads to the conclusion that you must have come accross this unfounded allegation from someone else, perhaps an older UFCW official?
Please explain the purpose of your post.(not that I expect a coherent answer)
This site seems to focus on the character of so many i the ufcw even at times wondering about me that I though it only fair that those who point the finger should have one pointed back at them.
If it bothers you and them then my answer is quit pointing fingers if you do not like the image in the mirror.
I find it so funny that most of those who post here believe they are so above all the corruption that all humans suffer from, bring up finnamore's wrong doings or that of brighton and the site is sent into a tizzy of defence. Here is an idea admit you do things wrong too, and maybe those of us who read and post here may take you a little more seriously but until then when you post people like me are just going to
Wonder how you can blow the whistle on something "before the foul is committed"? Only a UFCW machine head could say something like that and sound like they think it's intelligent.
The bottom line is Info, you're a UFCW propagandist and you know it. It's fun to have you hear. I enjoy analyzing UFCW officials' posts because they always reach for new heights in lameness.
As far as the Finnamore factor goes, you guys have done more to draw attention to your corruption and sleaze by trying to blame all your problems on him than anything else. It's pretty ridiculous - and only a devout believer could accept - that this guy engaged in the kind of behaviour that is being alleged and the UFCW continued to employ him and use his consulting services right up to the year 2000.
Come on Mr. Info, let's hear why they did that?
As for revealing the juicy details of what UFCW guys do when they're hanging out in the backroom, no writer's block there at all. All the sordid detasils will be disclosed in a forthcoming creative project that I am currently well into. You'll get to see a side of your bosses that you'd rather not know anything about. So don't be too anxious for the release date. You'll wish it had taken longer.
One more question for you Info:
What exactly are you referring to when you talk about "wrong doing" on Finnamore's part? I'm not aware that any of the UFCW's allegations about him were ever substantiated and that they were in fact withdrawn a long time ago.
Can you shed some light on what you mean by "wrong doings"? You must mean something. Help us to understand what that is.
quote:
Wonder how you can blow the whistle on something "before the foul is committed"? Only a UFCW machine head could say something like that and sound like they think it's intelligent.
Info must be a fan of Minority Report where Tom Cruise is the head of the "Pre-Crime Unit."
In the words of Bugs Bunny, "They're maroons, they're all maroons."
Machine Head heck I can't even play guitar nevermind have a whole band. But here is my question for you if you really saw things being done wrong you could have warn others before the deals affecting them took effect could you have not?
I mean if you were not driven by your greed.
Lets try to keep this thread on topic.
There are a lot of people in southern Ontario with a real interest in the upcoming vote.
The buzz in the stores is that the final "lump sum payment" negotiated in 2000 will not be paid if we decide to allow our Union to negotiate early.
I wonder if we give a mandate to negotiate the 2006 agreement early....can the existing agreement be altered retroactively??
Considering words like "amendment" and "early contract renewal" is the door wide open.
Word from the weiser: Loblaws never gives a dime unless they get 75 cents in return. They are the best at what they do.
Remember, a hand in the pocket may sexually stimulate, but it's real purpose is to remove your cash and any other thing of value. The three seconds of gratification is long gone by the time you realize that you've been robbed.
Anyone have any results to report as to what went down at the meeting.
I have heard that a date for a "mandate to bargain" vote is feb 17 2005. I am not sure if there will be time for open debate before the vote though.
I wonder if there is an opportunity for the Company to make a final offer and force a ratification?
the other big question is ....in light of the "no concession bargaining breakthrough" can the employer take a step backwards?
Is it an unfair Labour practice to make concessionary offer when there is a clause preventing the tabling of the offer?
quote:
I wonder if there is an opportunity for the Company to make a final offer and force a ratification?
Once the agreement is open, aren't all the rules of the negotiating game back in play?
No Concessions in 2006 doesn't mean no concessions in 2005.
As well, there's nothing to stop the UFCW from agreeing to concessions.
Hell, Loblaw can't open negotiations without the UFCW's approval.
It's always about the UFCW saying YES, and they say YES so well.
I hear that some want to change the name from U.F.C.W. to Y.E.S.S.I.R. (Yeilding Elite Sons-a-bitches Slithering In Retreat).
quote:
posted by siggy:
Once the agreement is open, aren't all the rules of the negotiating game back in play?quote:
I wonder if there is an opportunity for the Company to make a final offer and force a ratification?
The only difference is that you can't strike. That makes it a pretty safe bet for Loblaw.
BB,
In talking with my reps that were at the meeting, I really feel like throwing up until my liver comes out. I have been told that the Strathroy conversion can't go through regardless of the vote that took place in favour of the companies wishes to convert that store to an RCSS on the same site.
I think the members voted in favour of it but can't hold until all 3 union locals agree on February 17 to open negotiation early. As well all 3 union locals must accept this new contract in order for it to become ratified.
This must be accepted by June 15/2005, because June 16/2005 is the day the company was given by the mediator to start construction in Strathroy. If this doesn't go through then the company has to forfeit from purchasing the land because Sobey's would like to purchase it next to Walmart. I have also been told that the reason for early negotiations was because the company requested that all 3 unions allow them to build on existing sites because it is cheaper for them. They requested 16 stores to be converted on the same site and apply the RCSS contract. I nearly fell off my chair and I saw part 2 to this circus show come 1 year early. Apparently the union was told that the company could no longer write off the losses to a store closure and write off the cost to a new store off like they use to because ever since the ENRON scandal the attorney general started to look at companies accounting practices. For example, when Loblaws use to close a store it would cost them about 7 million dollars and to build a new store across the street would cost about 21 million, the company was able to merge the 2 costs of 28 million and record it as a loss. Why is this the union and most of all the members problem. As far as I'm concerned that's the cost of doing business. Cry me a river John Lederer, scale back your stock options and there you go you've saved millions for the company.If you feel that your spending too much money on opening these RCSS Superstores then maybe you should come to your senses and admit you've made a big mistake just like the Super Centers and you should have stayed with what has made this company what it is today, your employees and operatating conventional stores. I can just see it, this union will tamper with the votes. Is there any way we can get this vote monitored and counted by an outside party? If this company gets what they want on existing sites then whose to say they won't come to the members and ask us for another 10 stores mid contract to be converted into an RCSS on existing sited which will deplete the number of stores left in a Loblaws contract which would also put a strangle hold on the members because there will be so few of us left. These stores that were requested to be converted on existing sites are all strategically picked in case of a strike. Further more why was the union selling this deal to the members on the companies behalf ? Why was KEVIN CORPORON admitting to the reps that he was discussing this over lunch with JOHN LEDERER, GALEN WESTON, CARMEN FORTINO and DEANNE COLLINSON. I bet you Kevin Corporon got stiffed into paying the bill with the members funds. No wonder the other 2 union presidents can't stand him, his face is full of shit from licking the comporate asses. I am so upset right now I can't even think about it. There is alot more and I will come back when I cool off.
I heard in an open vote (a show of hands) that no steward opposed the "mandate to negotiate".
I hope in a secet vote that the membership votes with their hand on their wallet.
This vote is not about negotiating ...it is about trust....if you trust the company and the union to look after your best interests...go for it.
If members do not trust the union to get them a better deal ....dont give them the mandate to bargain early.
Even if we don't give them the mandate to negotiate early, this union will do what they have to to get a mandate and yes i'm talking about tampering with the votes. As far as i'm concerned the 2000 vote was tampered with because in their eyes it was a secret ballot, my as there was no outside party overlooking this process. We voted in favour to strike and they made sure it didn't come out that way. I hear the appeal came up in the meeting a few times as well as the name on the appeal, stating that this individual was contesting this whole deal. Their getting worried it seems, because they also mentioned that anyone that gets out of line in the next general meeting will get thrown out because they aren't going to let anyone make personal attacks at them. I see screw with our livelihood and the members are supposed to sit back and not say anything. Wake up Kevin you fat fuck, that's why you get paid the big bucks, it goes with the territory, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. I was also supprised to hear that there was mention of the next election vote for president of our local will be voted by the members not the divisional board. Hmm, somethings fisshy, I think by that time Kevin will either be retired before 55? Maybe there was further charitable cash donations made to him by the company in an offshore account? Why change the rules you have broken for so many years in voting in a president of a union? By that time all the changes will have been in place for the company and the union and the members are out on the streets living in poverty while these spineless bastards live like king. It's so true the gap between lower income families are getting futher apart as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Shame on you Kevin, you should be ashamed of yourself, biting off the hand that feeds you.
quote:
If this company gets what they want on existing sites then whose to say they won't come to the members and ask us for another 10 stores mid contract to be converted into an RCSS on existing sited which will deplete the number of stores left in a Loblaws contract which would also put a strangle hold on the members because there will be so few of us left.
Bingo - to believe loblaw's recent push comes as a surprise to the ufcw brainlesstrust would be naive. The secret deals seem to always involve reducing labour cost for the employer while maintaining/increasing dues for employer friendly unions - reducing long term employees and eliminating full-time in well thought out stages. Given labour's reputation of late there's no other way to ensure piglike salaries.
Finding out more info from other stores. Rumour has it that the company may increase the severance pay to almost $100, 000, I've heard it from a few sources which have come from the union office. Has anyone heard the same?
quote:
I have been told that the Strathroy conversion can't go through regardless of the vote that took place in favour of the companies wishes to convert that store to an RCSS on the same site.
I think the members voted in favour of it but can't hold until all 3 union locals agree on February 17 to open negotiation early. As well all 3 union locals must accept this new contract in order for it to become ratified.
This must be accepted by June 15/2005, because June 16/2005 is the day the company was given by the mediator to start construction in Strathroy. If this doesn't go through then the company has to forfeit from purchasing the land because Sobey's would like to purchase it next to Walmart. I have also been told that the reason for early negotiations was because the company requested that all 3 unions allow them to build on existing sites because it is cheaper for them. They requested 16 stores to be converted on the same site and apply the RCSS contract. I nearly fell off my chair and I saw part 2 to this circus show come 1 year early. Apparently the union was told that the company could no longer write off the losses to a store closure and write off the cost to a new store off like they use to because ever since the ENRON scandal the attorney general started to look at companies accounting practices. For example, when Loblaws use to close a store it would cost them about 7 million dollars and to build a new store across the street would cost about 21 million, the company was able to merge the 2 costs of 28 million and record it as a loss. Why is this the union and most of all the members problem. As far as I'm concerned that's the cost of doing business.
Well, well, how very intriguing.
A couple of things that you should know. Firstly, the mediator can't make either of the two sides do anything. That is the case even though in this dispute the mediator is the Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board himself. The suggestion that the mediator has given the company a date by which the construction is to start at the Strathroy store is .... bullshit. Kevin Whittaker, the OLRB Chair who was mediating this dispute, knows fully well the limits of his authority as a mediator. He can't order anyone to start construction of anything, under any circumstances. If he did, he would be well outside of his jurisdiction (even if he was presiding over a hearing - never mind mediating a dispute).
A mediation does nothing more than help two side to a dispute make a deal. He does not approve the deal or decide what the terms of that deal will be.
If Whittaker actually did do such things, he would be placing himself in as precarious position and he's a smart guy - too smart to do anything like that.
Having said that, this wouldn't be the first time that a union suggested to its members that "the mediator said we had to" or "said the employer had to". That kind of crap is pretty common. It's done to give deals made between employers and unions an air of legitimacy and discouraging criticism of thoses deals - "The Board said this is how it's going to be, so what can we do?"
More likely, what happened during the mediation was that a deal was made between the union and the employer - the only two parties that can make a deal - that says something like: "The union will hold votes to get a mandate from its members to open negotiations prior to the expiry of the current collective agreements. It will advise the company of the results of those votes by June 15, 2005. In the event that the members decline to give the union a mandate, construction of the store in Strathroy Ontario by June 16, 2005."
This is something that was agreed to between the two sides. The June 16th "drop dead" date is intended to ensure that the votes are held quickly and that the members think that if they vote "no", well then the shovels are going into the ground by the next day and their brothers and sisters in
Strathroy will be SOL. It also - I think - is intended to put the heat on the UFCW for another reason. The final installments on the $1.35 million to the 3 locals and the $1.5 million to the National Office are due on July 1, 2005. A "no" vote may mean that the check might take a long time to go in the mail. That's my guess anyway.
As far as the reasons for the reopening of the deal go (the opportunity for Loblaws to purchase some land and the end of the glory days of creative accounting), your observations are right on emunster. It's the cost of doing business. This is not about "need", it's about "greed". If every corporation thought it could get something for less simply by asking its union to give it a break, we'd all be working for minimum wage by now.
The suggestion that the need to abide by non-Enron-like accounting practices is a justification for concessions is so monumentally stupid that it surprises even me to hear this from the UFCW. The lame assed excuses are getting even more lame assed as the days go by.
It seems that some kind of vote has been held at the Strathroy store? The members there have voted in favour of a conversion of their store to an RCSS but everything is now on hold pending the members of all three locals giving the UFCW a green light to re-open negotiations that will enable more conversions on terms that are more favourable to the company than those that were agreed to in the 2003 RCSS deal.
How manipulative. Tell all the other members that the good folks in Strathroy have already made up their minds and know what's best for them and so how can all the rest of you get in the way of that? Vote yes or they will all be out on the street.
Why don't you consider asking the UFCW National Office and your local president for a copy of the terms of settlement of the deal they reached at the OLRB? If they refuse, write to Kevin Whittaker at the OLRB and ask for a copy. While you're at it, ask him if he told Loblaws that they must commence construction of anything by June 16th - or any other date. I'm sure he'll tell you he didn't, because he can't.
Another way to understand what's happening here is like this:
The company has taken the Strathroy workers hostage. Its saying to the UFCW, give us what we want or we'll blow these guys away.
Eventually the hostages start to get Stockholm syndrome. They start to sympathize with the hostage takers. It's a survival thing. They start to hope that the union gives in so they can survive.
Giving in to the hostage takers' demands means that a whole lot of other workers are going to get screwed. They won't get killed but they're going to be worse off. The UFCW isn't opposed to giving in to the hostage takers demands. They could care less how many other workers get screwed and maybe there's something in it for their union if they go along. The trouble is that if they just give in all the other workers are going to go ape shit and maybe throw them out or something like that. So they have to orchestrate a situation where the the other workers will go along.
So they work out a deal behind closed doors that gives them some time to soften the other workers up. There's a deadline too (June 16) by which the hostage takers will execute the Strathroy workers if they don't get what they want.
Watch for a few months of good propaganda now about how:
- the Strathroy workers are going to get killed if the company doesn't get what it wants.
- Opening the contract early will allow the UFCW to negotiate a deal that will protect the Strathroy workers and the other workers too.
- if the company doesn't get what it wants it might take more hostages and execute them too. It could be any of you.
It's sickening. This is the game they're playing and the UFCW is playing right along.
Instead of calling in the SWAT team as soon as the hostage-taking happened, the UFCW got Officer Friendly. He took the UFCW leaders and the hostage-takers into a back room and said,
"Hey guys, you've gotta work this out between yourselves. Now UFCW guys, you give the hostage-takers what they want. You can tell your other members that I told you to do it. It'll be OK. Hostage takers, you guys are just going to have to be a bit patient so the UFCW can give you what you want and not look like a bunch of weasels. Everybody got it?"
I have to wonder about the OLRB's role in this. It's really strange that the UFCW's in-house lawyer Ian Anderson - the guy who represented the weasels in Ben Blasdell's DFR complaint - is now a Vice Chair at the OLRB and is already doing UFCW cases.
Those of you who smell a rat (or a weasel) might want to contact your MPP's as well as the Minister of Labour and the Chair of the OLRB and express concern about the Board's neutrality. Ask for an explanation of the Board's role and how it manages to ensure that workers' rights are respected when so many of the Vice Chairs are so closely connected to employers and unions.
In case you don't know: Vice Chairs are permitted to moonlight as arbitrators even though they are full time employees of the OLRB. The guy hearing your complaint could be doing business on the side with your employer and/or your union and you'll never know it. Wonder if Mr. Anderson moonlights? or Mr. McLean who dismissed the Blasdell complaint?
Oh, of course he does. Here's Brian McLean on the OLRB's list of Vice Chairs. Here are his moonlighting for moonlighting as an arbitrator. Wow, they sure are generous with the time off at the OLRB.
Wonder if Brian was doing any UFCW business at the time that he was presiding over BB's DFR or its reconsideration? Maybe we should ask him?
The opportunities to do deals abound for Loblaw. Consider that Strathroy is only one of the 50 to 70 stores that Loblaw closes each and every year. The open around the same number.
Why is Strathroy such a big deal? Doing a deal at Strathroy won't change the retail "store inventory" cycle.
The UFCW boys have been around long enough to know the score. The Strathroy closure is simply another opportunity for the partners to milk.
IMHO, the bottom line with all this is that Loblaws is addicted to cutting it's labour costs . Each contract the UFCW signs has either reduced or maintained labour costs for Loblaws. If you listen to the morons who run this company, when they are asked how they intend to increase the HIGHEST PROFIT MARGINS IN THE HISTORY OF CANADIAN GROCERY CHAINS, they consistently state that there is room for more cuts in labour costs. IN ORDER TO INCREASE THEIR STOCK PRICE THEY MUST KEEP INCREASING PROFIT MARGINS to stay with global compeition.
It's sickening to think that the top executives can conspire to pay MacDonalds wages to their workers while they reap huge profits from sitting on their asses. The obvious way to deal with companies such as these is to simply boycott them. Don't work for them and don't buy from them.
To all those who have to make a living at these jobs, you have my sympathies but there is only one thing that these corporations understand and that is dollars.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the conventional stores pricing is too high compared to their other banners. The RCSS banner is actually taking dollars from their own stores, not the competition. Given that Loblaws gobbles up a large share of the grocery market in Ontario, this is not hard to do. Can you spell MONOPOLY?
Galen Weston should be ashamed.
BOYCOTT'EM!
Just when you thought the shit was finished hitting your face from our union another plop comes flying in and hits you flat in the face. I opened my pay stub to check my pay because I don't trust this company as they can always gaurantee they will screw your pay up even though we swipe in for all of our shifts and believe me I don't miss a swipe. You never know if the company will suspend you for time theft. I noticed that my union dues have gone up to $9.25/ week. My understanding was that this dues increase wasn't to take effect until February 1st/ 2005. I can't believe how we constantly get screwed by this union. What a bunch of thieves, these guys are really lining up their pockets. I called my rep and of course he won't answer so I left a nasty message on his voicemail. I'd like to hear the excuse for this early dues increase. "Walmart is coming, we need the funds early to organize". We need to prepare to decertify.
Just be glad your not a new hire the increase in initiation fee was 400%....it went from 5 to 25 dollars.
That for someone, at an RCSS, with no benefits and minimum wage. but they have all the benefits of union protection.
What a bunch of manipulative liars. Kevin's favourite sales pitch to the members is "but we saved jobs". You didn't save jobs, you gauranteed future membership to the local at the expense of current members. Have you no shame.
What do you think the main reason for the large increase in dues and initiation fees is BB?
My thaught is that they have pissed away our money so badly that now they are trying to recoup some of it.
The cost of the last 2 campaigns at maplegrove alone was about a million bucks,that's a lot of damn hat's and buttons
They increase the dues because all the money is accounted for and they smell a restless membership.
The stores may say no to negotiating and if there is no raise in 2006 they will have to pay strike pay ....possibly.
The other scenario is they raised dues because they can and will spend the money any goddam way they want. They sure dont feel like they have anything to explain to the members.
Call Tony Soares and ask for a financial statement.
Yes, I too opened up my pay stub and found that $9.25 had already been deducted from my union dues. The notice on our board said it would be Feb.1,2005 when our union dues will increase. Shame on you UFCW for lying to your members again. You deserve to be decertified and deported out of the country. We work hard for our money and you fat lazy fucks sit on your asses collecting huge salaries. How much union dues do you pricks pay? Well, Feb 17, 2005 is coming and from the talk at our store is that eveyone is coming to vote NO.
Everyone knows how much you screwed with the members and now their voices will be heard. You fat lazy pieces of shit can wait till 2006 to negotiate a new contract. Why put another heartache into the members hearts. We have been srewed more than enough. Shame on you UFCW
It's good to see that I am not the only member who is pissed of on this forum. Hey pussycat the feeling is the same at many stores in this company and even though we know there will be a majority against early negotiation, the votes will be tampered by these crooks. I would like to have the votes monitored by an independant body. It's not the company I am worried about because they are doing what any other company would do. It is the union we can't trust, we are sleeping with the enemy.
quote:
They increase the dues because all the money is accounted for and they smell a restless membership.
if this is true - 1518 membership is about to rise up! Part-time dues for ufcw 1518 retail in B.C are $13.50 per week - that includes the free executive glossies at regular intervals.
quote:
posted by emunster:
It's good to see that I am not the only member who is pissed of on this forum. Hey pussycat the feeling is the same at many stores in this company and even though we know there will be a majority against early negotiation, the votes will be tampered by these crooks. I would like to have the votes monitored by an independant body. It's not the company I am worried about because they are doing what any other company would do. It is the union we can't trust, we are sleeping with the enemy.
At the last vote in 2000 the Union Steward in my store and I sat at 11:00 pm at night and watched the votes be counted.The result was that we turned down the contract by a less than 10%.
The act says that ratification must be a a place reasonbly close .....this is not a ratification.
The details of the vote have not been released yet but London, Trenton and Ottawa cannot be expected to vote in Toronto. the sad part is no open ebate before a vote just speculation.
UFCW Local 1977 members vote YES to early negotiations with Zehrs
quote:
January 20, 2005
Members of UFCW Local 1977 who work at Zehrs Markets and Zehrs Real Canadian Superstores have voted more than 2-1 (67.5%) in favour of commencing early renewal contract negotiations with the Loblaw-owned subsidiary.
Monty Hall, I'll take what's behind Door #3 .
That's no suprise, alot of these members from 1977 have been misinformed, just like 1000a and 175/633 are going to be misinformed. Next contract will have 1. Sundays as part of the workweek
2. Two nights until closing for full time
3. Build stores on existing sites and the
option to build on future existing
stores at their discretion.
4. Maybe a small raise to get us to agree
5. Inflexible schedules, just like the RCSS
Just my gut feeling. Why else would the company want to open the contract? Not to reward us that's for sure. LANGUAGE TO BUILD ON EXISTING SITES, THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT.
It's too bad that they can't all merge into Local 247. That's what Loblaws would like--a "twenty-four-seven" contract. It's open for bargaining 24 hours a day, seven days of the week.
The motto could be:
quote:
Need a change? No Problem. We're always OPEN!
I was just looking over this book ofUFCW Canadian Region Policies and Procedures which we posted quite a while ago.
quote:
Concessions - The union's policy is to increase the economic well being of our members. Concessionary bargaining, when anticipated, should be addressed in an aggressive but informed manner. Where circumstances change making economic accommodations necessary to advance the longer range interests of our members, such accommodations should be accompanied by pre-expiration restoration language and counter-accommodations or quid pro quos. This includes language improvements that enhance the security of our members as well as improvements of a non-economic nature that strengthen the union and ensure its growth.
Members should ask about where they can find the "pre-expiration restoration language" in all the RCSS deal and whatever deal might be hatched next. (We know what the quid pro dough - oops, I mean "quo" - was.)
Local 1977 may have accepted to open up the contract...BUT... we here in local1000a still have our vote on Feb. 17, 2005 and we will vote it down. I must agree with you emunster that it is unfortunate that 1977 have been misinformed along with 175. These people do not understand how corrupt these unions are and that their livelihood is being tampered with. It is imperative to make sure that our union does not get the green light to open up the contract. Screw them. Let them wait and squirm till 2006. Let's see what kind of balls they have in 2006. Most likely they will all run away by then and leave the mess to someone else. Shame on you 1000a
quote:
posted by bb:
There are a lot of people in southern Ontario with a real interest in the upcoming vote.
I hope some of those people work in the stores too.
Maybe once in their life they go to a meeting instead of bitching and feel sorry for themselves
STOPPED VOTING? STOP BITCHING!!
That is how I see it. UFCW and the rest of unions will get away with murder thanx to the structure of the system and the apathy of the members.
MFD is the best thing around, too bad not too many member in the stores know it.
Here in St.Thomas ( Local 1977 ) we had around 30 people voting on January 17th, it was a NO.
Out of about 300 , to me that is a shame, and an invitation for UFCW to rape us again.
Oh well , we have vaseline in the store...
I'snt it funny how when you needed a union rep they never show their face, and when they do show up they come in because someone needs to be disciplined and when they are finished they take off like a thief in the night. They didn't even talk to the members. Lately union reps have been in the store religiously talking to the staff and encouraging them to vote especially convincing the staff to allow the union to open the contract. Why don't they inform the members as to why the company wants to open the contract? Instead they fool them into believing that the union is looking after their best interests and that they are going to negotiate the world. These guys couldn't negotiate shit. Many of my friends are calling me to tell me that the union reps have been showing up with divisional board members at their stores often lately and they are talking to all the members. Another brainwashing tactic by this uselss union. The good thing about the members at my store is that alot are aware of the companies reasons to open the contract. Most of them are going to vote no regardless what these union morons try to feed them. The truth has come out and alot of the members are fed up, asking alot of questions these morons weren't trained to answer by the machine heads. I just hope the votes reflect their true feelings towards their unions sellout plans.
© 2024 Members for Democracy