Members for Democracy Archive

UFCW's slide show: The case for concessions
Manufacturing consent biz-union style

A couple of years ago I was having lunch with the president of a certain UFCW Ontario local. As we were chowing down, I commented on the bargaining power of his local. "With thousands of members and virtually every worker in a large retail chain in the same bargaining unit and covered by the same contract, you've got the company over a barrel", I said naively. Oh not so, the local pres responded. The union had to keep up good relations with this employer. It really wasn't in any position to take on the company, he explained. If it did, that would jeoparize the voluntary recognition agreements with the company and those agreements were really important for membership growth.

I had never thought of this guy as someone who was destined to set the world on fire for service industry workers, but I was stunned at the admission, how frankly it was offered up and at how earnestly the words rolled off his tongue. In his view, this was a perfectly legitimate consideration for a union leader. Refraining from using the power of the members, for a steady stream of new members. He must have wondered why, for just a moment, I stared at him as if he had a tree growing out of his head.

I had the same reaction earlier this week while reading over a copy of a slide presentation that was given to members of UFCW Local 1977 and - we now believe also - members of Local 1000a - who are being asked to give their Local Presidents a "mandate" to sign off on a package of concessions that will amend their collective agreements with supermarket giant Loblaw Companies in mid-term. The employers are threatening store closures, widespread layoffs and the introduction of a new non-union grocery chain if they don't get their way. They want a low wage part-time workforce that will give them a competitive advantage over non-union retailer Wal-Mart.

The union is encouraging members to bow to the employers' demands. If the deal goes down, it stands to set off a "race for the bottom" in Ontario's retail food industry. Neither the union nor the employers are saying anything about that. Why would they? If the workers can be persuaded to say yes, the employers stand to set new records in profitability and the union will get voluntary recognition for workers at the new supermarket chain.

The purpose of the UFCW Presidents' slide presentation is to persuade members that they must agree to the deal that was hammered out behind closed doors between company and union officials. It's a slick, professional piece of work. My initial impression is that it looks like the kind of slide shows that managers put on for people whom they want to convince of something that may be hard to swallow.

A wide range of strategies are used to manufacture consent - to present a proposed course of action in a way that will get people whose approval must be obtained to say "yes", even though the proposed course of action may do them little if any good. Throughout the slide show, we see text book examples of scare tactics, information which may or may not be true presented as fact, less than clear promises of job security if members support the deal and threats of job loss if they don't. Generous use is made of war jargon. The "Wal-Mart threat" is presented as a fact, the employers' business strategy is laid out as tough-but-unavoidable response to "the invasion", the concessionary deal is presented as "job security" or "protection" for the workers. Troubling concepts are redefined: The "race for the bottom" that this deal is likely to set off is called the "transition to the new world of retail", the concessionary deal is proclaimed "an unprecedented breakthrough in bargaining".

Members who have already experienced the slide show can be forgiven if they had a gnawing sense that somehow the whole thing just doesn't add up. In my view, the logic presented in this document only works if you accept that whenever an employer makes threats to get concessions there is nothing that a union, even one with enormous bargaining power can do except roll over.

The vast majority of union members don't know what goes on in the backroom, don't understand how businesses operate in a free market (or at least are confused by the myths that are spun for them by the business communty), or how words and concepts can be used to pitch rollbacks and other worker-sacrifices as something good, even desirable.

We've posted the slide show in its entirety for the benefit of union members everywhere. For members of UFCW Locals 175, 1000a and 1977 who are going to experience "the show" in the not-too-distant future, this will provide an opportunity to read it, think about it, discuss it with others, decide whether it makes sense or what they might want to ask their leaders at the "mandate meetings". For those who have already experienced it, this is an opportunity to discuss your reactions to it and debate the merits of the union's proposal and supporting arguments. For the rest of the community, its an opportunity to look inside the process of concession bargaining and concession "selling".

To make the long (41 page) presentation easy to access, we've converted it to an html document. Each bolded heading is a separate slide. We invite you to discuss, debate, question or defend (if you feel so inclined) the proposed deal and the rationale presented by the union. We'll have a few questions of our own too, about things that really got our attention.

Check it out: Loblaws vs. Wal-Mart

What a crock of proverbial do-do.Why bargain if nothing is to be gained?Just stick with the existing contract until it expires and the get the best deal you can. At least the membership would have a ratification vote and decide THEIR own fate.This way the union does the companies bidding, ensures THEIR livlihood and denies the membership of it's democratic rights.Decertification is an option,many members will be upset and the UFCW has little presence in the stores.We would need a contact in every store and aunion willing to take us on.40% of the employees would sign cards...... I think.The OLB says any contract more than 3 years in length is open on it's anniversary. That gives a full year to sign people up find another union and apply.

Wal-Mart labor costs are lower, Rates go up to $9.65 after TEN years ($10. in Toronto), Most "associates" quit within two years, Workers pay for most of their own benefits,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Hmm this is what the RWU signed up EV logistics for (NEW OVERWAITEA WAREHOUSE) and its a 10 yr NO increases deal.Why doesnt Wally world get the RWU to sign them up to a nice bendover contract. they already have experience, and now that unions can negotiate a LESSER than labour standards contract, they should be able to sign them to less than Minimum wage deal and get them to PAY for the opportunity to work for the company fee Kinda like buying a cosco card... No This was quite a COMICAL read and that its UFCW engineered does NOT suprise me. THE UFCW has gotten TOO big they dont give a damn bout the average joe anymore. I will re-iterate what I have said to every UFCW member I meet Now, DECERTIFY. These clowns wont wake up and smell the coffee till their is nothing left to sell. The CLOWNS here in BC have safeway on the brink of strike to protect the Mcjob's they have created, they should strike to protect clerk II 's ?, WHY??? Most last 4-6 months and then go get a higher payin job at Mcdonalds. why should the 15% who are left at a decent wage strike when the union has already given the company everything they want in a back room deal. They will never recover the money they lose in pay. And the clerk II
's who voted strike( beacuse they are Young and its kinda a new thing to do, and No -mindedly folow the unions dictates) MOST will have moved on to 7-11 , Burger King, wendy's, Tim Hortons, Subway ,And gotten a RAISE by the time the strike is over.

Things have not changed nor will they. Two and two adds up to four. Companies sit down with the union. Negotiations are held in secret. Union proclaims that they are only talking issues. A few months down the road, the slick PR campaign hits along with coordinated consessions from the unionized workers.

The UFCW has always carried the companies water. Our union was built by the brave veterans of WWII. Our good contracts were forged by their steely determination. Once they retired and died off, the slimball attornies took over to help the weak-kneed slimeball opportunist union leaders who entered into the vaccum of leadership.

Without complete and total rebellion of the membership, we are destined to their final solution, three steps above forced labor and twenty steps below decent wages and working conditions.

Thought you all might be interested to hear that after all the votes where in, it came out to 91% yes from Zehrs sheeple.

Bill - This is why there is so much anger on this side of the border about the lack of democracy in unions. Not only is there no meaningful democracy, but when you have local presidents like these 3 blind mice telling members that they've been having secret meetings like it's a completely natural, defensible thing for union leaders to do, the enormity of the problem becomes apparent.

This is the organization that Cliff Evans built. These are the guys he and his cronies put in place to lead - or should I say - to control their largest and most important (for various reasons) locals.

That the national office has been involved in this secret deal all along (and the slide show tells us that it was) and allowed this to happen, in secrecy, to be presented to members only after the deal was done, speaks volumes about the extent of the rot.

In addition, I do not believe that all of these local presidents have even been elected! Yet they make these enormous decisions that affect thousands of people because they are the peoples' representatives! Figure that one out!

I am left wondering whether this is even a "union" anymore. If you define a union as an association of workers, I'm not sure that UFCW Canada meets that definition in any meaningful way.

When I was having my enlightening lunch with the UFCW local president (who shall, for the moment at least, remain nameless), I asked some questions about the absence of grass roots democracy in his union. The answer blew me away. Here's what it was (and this is pretty much verbatim):

We're a big union. We have a lot of money, a lot of investments and some very important relationships with employers. We need people in leadership positions who understand the union and where it's going and have the expertise to manage those. If you let the members make major decisions, there's no telling what they might do. It's way too dangerous.

Is this a union?

You are such a vamp rv. Did ya think you could throw out the bait and i wouldn't bite? I'm way too easy.

Been having discussions with folks who think members don't have the expertise or understanding of the system, therefore, the non-participation. I would agree, members have divorced themselves from the day to day. Hell, it's not unusual to have 10% to 15% of the membership turnout to ratify a contract. Where Unions actually have elections every three years (the law in the US btw), those voting could be counted in numbers averaging in the 20 to 25 percent range.

It would be easy to say workers are satisfied, but that would sound like mainstreamers justifying. In Paul Clark's book Building Stronger Unions, he made the case statiscally Unions needed to open up and engage members at a whole different level. I think he is right. The business Union mentality has driven members away, and that has allowed leaders to do as they pleased.

Which is a great chance to ask the question back: do you think todays crop of leaders is corrupt, or are they just doing what they have been taught. Snicker if you will, but i know one hell of a lot of leaders who are good, decent people. The shits of it is, they blindly follow the direction set by the International. Virtually anything foriegn to us is a learned behavior. As they were being groomed for the position, don't you think they were taught to be good little soldiers? I know one of the reasons i was never very popular was because i would raise my hand and ask, "why are you doing it that way?"

You only have to look at your front page story Backroom Chronicles to see the thought process of those in the top leadership of the International. Anyone that could do that kind of a deal has obviously become obsessed with the preservation of the structure, rather than the preservation of the members. Leadership at that level becomes an act of simple survival.

The tragedy is, it won't work. These guys have to see the end is coming. Someone pointed out so succinctly, when there is nothing left to give back, their partners (employers) will kick them to the curb without a second thought. If the members are smart enough to see it, why can't the braintrust? Blinders? Faith? Just hoping they get to the point where they get theirs?

Here's a news flash, you won't. Every benefit the International provides for staff and officer is predicated on maintaining membership numbers in the 1.3 to 1.4 million range. As we speak, those numbers are dropping. It will only get worse as members get pounded at the bargaining table. We are on a collision course with collapse.

Clark's book does a great job of describing how to overcome some of these problems. As we bantered about in the past, adopting a transformational leadership style could produce long range changes in how we deal with the problems that face us. That begs the obvious question, are they (the leadership at any level) willing or able to make that leap?

What is most troubling is their fear to come here and debate, discuss or clarify their positions. Is there not one of them with balls big enough to do that? Hell, i remember all to well how i ended up here, someone (Siggy) challenged me, and i was damned if i would back down. Where's the boys with their convictions, the belief they are on the right track.

See, the real problem for them is twofold. The web isn't going away, and in fact is growing faster then they can imagine. The leadership can't hide. They can play like the three monkeys (hear, speak and see no evil), but their actions are witnessed by all who want to find it, and more are doing so everyday. What is even more disasterous are the outcomes. We are taking a shitkicking. If you follow the questions on Ask The Rep on YAWM, workers are getting pounded. Unions are responding by trying to take more control. Talk about a recipe for failure, doing more of the same, only better.

Workers aren't looking to be controlled. They are tired of getting screwed. They want answers to the shit that is rolling over them in waves. There was a comment in the Forum section on YAWM last week, and they asked, why don't Unions see the enormous potential in retail? Did they fall asleep? For an answer to that, go to the new RetailWorker website, and see how workers view the labor movement. If we can't be the solution, we won't exist, at least not like we are today. Given some of the events in recent months, you have to wonder if that is a good thing.

So come on boys, who'se got balls big enough to defend their actions, gotta be at least one of you. Pound down a couple of those double Crown Royals, and have your spin doctors hammer out another press release. It's okay, you can sign it, we don't even care that you can't write your own rebuttal. The truth will set you free.

The cancers of power, greed, and corruption have destroyed UFCW and this is but one more symptom. There is nothing to say in defense so why would they? The facts speak for themselves. Like so many organizations that oversee vast sums of money, with an equally large political component, there are those who may have started with the best of intentions but at some point arrived at the critical decision: choose integrity and ruin any chances of going further or be a lackey for those who can ensure an easy ride.

Out here in the wilds of the Canadian west coast, Brooke Sundin and Ivan Limpright provided a classic case for these dynamics. In the OFG/Loman warehouse scandal, they appointed several of their underlings to soak up the anger and frustrations of the membership but did not give them any power to alleviate it. I grant you that some of these underlings were good people - people who would have helped us if the decision would not have impacted their comfy positions. But the fact is, had they taken a stand for what was in the best interests of the memberhsip, had they chosen to make a real fight of it, they would have incurred the rath of those who kept them in those comfy positions. Without exception they chose to cover for the lies of their cowardly bosses.

No doubt the slimy baby face cherub, who can look so hurt by any accusation of wrongdoing, will have a gaggle of such willing hangers-on when he stands for election this fall. These people will be busy maintaining his cover for that election not because he will be good for the membership, but because if they don't, Ivan will see to it that their future with the union ends. This is how UFCW operates. As BP pointed out, asking questions about leadership's decisions is not a good career move. The United Fraud and Corruption Weasels strike again - protected the whole way by the almost useless dyanmics of the Failure to Represent Sections of the various labour relations boards, and with the members own money to share with the legal firms that are only too happy to sing their song.

I strongly support BP's admonition that members need to take more interest in their union. I believe that UFCW is well aware that this realization is spreading, partly through the internet. Again I say that there is a race on within the UFCW - to bargain away those who have and will continue to take an active interest in the union's decisions - full-time members - and replace them with those who will have little interest in such - part-time members. I also support TS in his advice to look very carefully at seeking an alternate union for representation. This is very difficult as well but, depending on the circumstances of your bargaining unit, may well be worth a look. At the very least it may serve notice that your bargaining unit will not take their shit quietly.

The new UFCW Local 1000A site is now online.

quote:

---

This special site is for members of UFCW Local 1000A who work in conventional Loblaws food stores. Its purpose is to explain the great change now underway in Loblaw Companies Inc. as it prepares for the coming Wal-Mart Supercenter invasion, and how the union is responding to this challenge.

---

See The Slide Show in all it's glory!

WWW.UFCWREALCANADIAN.CA

DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO PUKE ?

Does anyone know how the meeting went in London today?? I am curious to know if the members got a chance to ask the questions that the rest of us would have liked to ask at our meetings? And if the questions were asked did they in fact get any answers from their union leaders?

We all know that this is all but a done deal and not a thing can be changed , but , I hope that this membership meeting was at the very least demanding a response from the powers at hand as to what exactly happens from here to the end of this fiasco.

If the leaders are aware of this site and happen to log into it I am sure that they know full well how the majority of its members feel about being sold down the river by their decision. Now the question is " DO THEY GIVE A DARN " ??????

I had to eat 2 grams of shrooms to stop from cryin when i saw the slide-show.It reads like a lampoons version of our leaders at work!!!!!

Watch the Toronto Star there should be an article either thursday or friday the 18 of july

The UFCW really knows how to help a friend in need.

quote:

---

July 17, 2003
Loblaw Q2 profit rises 22% to $182M

FROM CANADIAN PRESS

Loblaw Cos. Ltd. has rung up a 22 per cent increase in second-quarter profit on a 9.2 per cent rise in sales, and said today that it expects continuing strong growth for the rest of the year.

Canada's largest supermarket chain said sales were just under $5.8 billion in the 12 weeks ended June 14, up from $5.31 billion in the year-ago quarter.

Net earnings swelled to $182 million, 65 cents per diluted share, from $149 million, 53 cents a share.

Operating income increased by 15.7 per cent to $317 million as ``all regions across the country experienced sales growth consistent with expectations," a company statement said.

Loblaw's operating profit margin was 5.5 per cent, up from 5.2 per cent.

The company reported 5.8 per cent growth in sales at stores open a year or more.

During the past year it has opened 71 stores while closing 55, for a net gain of 2.2 million square feet of retail space. In the quarter it opened 12 new corporate and franchised outlets and closed eight, for an increase of half a million square feet.

Sales in the first half of the year were $11.2 billion, 8.9 per cent ahead of last year's pace, with same-store growth of 5.6 per cent.

Loblaw noted that "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."

The company (TSX: L), which ended the quarter with $980 million in cash, up from $786 million a year ago, said growth in sales and profits is "expected to remain strong, supported by a solid financial position, good cash flow generation and the continuation of its capital investment program."

---

Opening and closing stores has been going on for decades. The stupid argument swallowed by the UFCW and puked on its members is business as usual--not a new event sold as a crisis.

Originally posted by remote viewer. Reposted so it doesn't get lost in the thread.

This is going to be a very lengthy post but be that as it may, we wanted very much to share some of our reactions to the information presented in the UFCW slide presentation. Maybe this will help you formulate your own questions if you are going to be voting on this deal or maybe it will just help you understand how to analyze presentations of this kind. Our apologies for the length of this post but then again - there was just so much to comment on![/i]

It's an intriguing document and a good study in how business unions persuade their members to take concessions. We welcome your comments.

The title: Loblaws vs. Wal-Mart:

Yeah we're with you so far. That's what this is about Loblaws vs. Wal-Mart. Loblaw's competing with Wal-Mart to be more precise.

The Union Takes a Stand

Takes a stand on what? The edge of a cliff? Why does the UFCW need to "take a stand" for the employer? Is that what members pay dues for?

Protecting UFCW jobs,wages and contracts, Now and in the future.

What you're protecting is your dues base and the company's profit margin.

1: RETAIL INDUSTRY IN TRANSITION

Industries are always in transition. Quit spinning a crisis.

Wal-Mart is aggressively expanding its retail food sales. Has its sites on southern Ontario, Canadas biggest market place.

Very observant. You guys are masters of the obvious. Retailers are always aggressively expanding (or thinking about it), have sites in southern Ontario, which you correctly point out is Canada's biggest marketplace.

Loblaws is Canadas largest retailer, the only one that can take on Wal-Mart.

How is Loblaws the the only one that can take on Wal-Mart? How did you arrive at that big bold conclusion? As Canada's largest retailer, Loblaw's is in the best possible position to take on Wal-Mart.

Loblaws has decided to take on Wal-Mart and accelerate industry transition to super stores.

There we go with that transition crap again. There is no transition. Businesses always compete with other busiensses. One outfit does something different, the others follow, nothing's tranitioning it's just more of the same old same old.

Many UFCW members will be affected and soon.

How many UFCW members will be affected and how is an open question since it's quite unclear what the company actually has in mind. By agreeing to the company's deal you've just guaranteed that one hell of a lot of members will be affected now and in the future.

Here's the situation...
2: WHAT IS HAPPENING ?
The company is no longer going to build large conventional Loblaws, Zehrs and Fortinos stores.
In December 2002, announced a business decision to move to Real Canadian Superstore (RCSS) or other non-union format, with deferent wage rates, benefits & working conditions with or without union agreement.

Where is this announcement? We can't find it anywhere. It's not in Loblaws news releases or in its Annual Report. A change in busienss strategy of this magnitude, the company is being pretty low key about it.How do you know the company isn't bullshitting you?

3: WHY IS IT HAPPENING ?
Company is responding to the threat of Wal-Mart Supercenters (WMSC) invading the food retail business, as has happened in the U.S.

What's with all this war jargon? Threats? Invasions? Who are you guys, George UFC-Dubya Bush? Wal-Mart is doing what businesses do. We don't see the CAW rolling over for GM because they've just discovered Ford is in town.

They believe that WMSC will have a major competitive advantage over existing Loblaws/Zehrs formats.
Wal-Mart already has 5% of retail food sales in Canada and wants much more.

Holy cow! 5% of the market?! What a monopoly! Give us a break fellas. Loblaws has the major share of the Canadian grocery market and it can't compete? Give your heads a shake. That's not what Loblaws is telling its shareholders. How do you explain that?

4: WHO WILL BE AFFECTED ?
- All employees in conventional banners are potentially affected.
- A significant number of store closures/conversions are expected, beginning this year and continuing for several more.
- There will be considerable employee movement due to bumping.

How do you know this and, if you don't know it for a fact, why are you presenting it as a fact? If there is a concrete plan to close stores, lay off workers and you've seen it with your own eyes, why aren't you telling the members about it? If you haven't seen it, then present it as a threat not a fact.

5: WHEN WILL IT HAPPEN ?
It's happening now ! (Oh yeah? Where?) The following stores were going to be large conventional stores but have now been put on hold:

Put on hold is not the same as "closed".

In most of these locations automatic successor rights are not guaranteed.

Why not? The law is the law or have you given some kind of undertaking that you won't make use of the law to protect the members (like in the secret partnering agreement you guys did with with Provigo Foods)?

6: WHAT IS THE UNION DOING ?(1)
We've been meeting with the company since the December announcement.

Thanks for telling the members. Why the secrecy? Did the company guys say it was "confidential"?.
.
All affected UFCW Canada Local Unions and the National Office have worked together on a unified response to the company's position on the future.

What role did the National Office play in this deal and what is the "unified reponse"? It wouldn't be "unified capitulation" by any chance would it?

We are challenging the company's plans to unilaterally impose drastic changes on existing employees and contracts.

The hell you are. You're not challenging them in any meaningful way. You're going along with the company's plans from what we can see. What you're proposing are drastic changes that, in one way or another, will have a major effect on current and future members.

7: WHAT IS THE UNION DOING ? (2)
We've been demanding strong job security and income protection for our existing members throughout the transition period, however long it takes. Looking at legal challenges on successor rights and related employer rights

Geez, and what about those rights?. It would seem to us that successor rights would apply in any stores that were converted to RCSS's, that an employer threat to close a unionized buisness and open a non-union buinsess unless a union makes concessions in the middle of a contract is an unfair labour practice and that new RCSS stores could be folded into the existing bargaining unit unde rthe common employer provisions of the Labour Relations Act. These are not farfetched arguements. Unions have fought and won these kinds of cases going back a long way. Of course, filing these kinds of charges won't do much good after you've rolled over. Maybe instead of "looking" at legal challenges, you should be "filing" them.
.
We will be communicating with activists and all members to keep everyone up to date on the situation.

When? Once the deal is done? We thought you only talk to activists through your lawyers?

8: HOW WILL THIS AFFECT ME ?
The company will not be opening conventional replacement stores for those stores slated to be closed.

Do you know this for a fact? Convince us. What business plans and documents have you seen? What process of due diligence have you followed before accepting what the company guys are telling you? Is it possible that the company is bluffing? Is it possible that if you took a stand against this deal, they'd have to reassess their plan? If you've basically just taken the company at its word, how is it that this is good enough to justify the impact this deal will have on members, current and future?

Different workers will be affected in different ways, Impact on you will depend on the following factors:
-Whether your store is closing
-Your level of seniority
-Your status (part-time or full time)

If you're so sure about the effects, tell the members exactly what they are going to be. They deserve that much don't you think?

9: THE WAL-MART THREAT
Wal-Mart's retailing methods and relentless anti-union policies have cost tens of thousands of union retail food jobs in the U.S.

Scary Wal-Mart. Their anti-union policies are no different from most other non-union companies. Why don't you try to organize the Wal-Mart workers instead of dragging members' wages and working conditions down to their level? Hey, what's up with the International's great War on Wal-Mart? If you're saying you can't organize Wal-Mart is the war over? Is the International hoisting the white bed sheet?

Wal-Mart labor costs are lower, Rates go up to $9.65 after TEN years ($10. in Toronto), Most "associates" quit within two years, Workers pay for most of their own benefits, when eligible, Unpaid overtime a daily reality at Wal-Mart.

The same could be said about some of your members. Tell us about the Local 777 agreements, or the two tier deals Local 1518 has with Safeway and OFG. What do Swiss Chalet workers earn in their first year in Ontario? The scale of your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

10: LOBLAWS RESPONSE TO THE WAL-MART THREAT (1)
Put a hold on all new store development under conventional Loblaws/Zehrs banners.
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 YIG ( YOUR INDEPENDENT GROCER).

11: LOBLAWS RESPONSE TO THE WAL-MART THREAT (2)
- Advised the locals ( 175, 1000a, 1977 ) that all new replacement stores planned for 2003-04 are not going to open under the current collective agreements.
- The above include 31 Loblaw/Zehrs/Fortinos.
- Over half are replacements of current stores, but on new sites. { Successor rights not guaranteed}
.
So what? Let them sling whatever banner they want over their stores. Doesn't the law say they can't do that just to bust a union? Why aren't you charging them with unfair labour practices? Is this union-busting (the same thing Wal-Mart does)? Please enlgihten us as to why Successor Rights are not guaranteed.

12: LOBLAWS RESPONSE TO THE WAL-MART THREAT (3)
- Told the locals that labour costs at these new stores must allow them to compete with Wal-Mart Supercenters.
- Co. is prepared to open these stores under a non-union banner.
- Co. will open these stores whether or not there is an immediate nearby Wal-Mart threat.

So what? Let the company open all the new stores that they want. Then apply to the Labour Relations Board for a "Section 1(4)" declaration - a declaration that these stores should be covered under the existing collective agreement. Isn't it worth going there?

13: WHAT THE UNION CAN CONTROL (1)
- Because brand loyalty is important, Co. would prefer adding RCSS to established banners (e.g. Loblaws RCSS or Zehrs RCSS instead of just RCSS ). BUT...
- If they put the Loblaws/Zehrs banner on an RCSS, union could (and would ) apply the existing collective agreement.
- Control over the Loblaw/Zehrs banners gives us bargaining power.

When did you guys get your marketing degrees? If we had a clue what you were talking about we'd comment but we don't and, we suspect, neither do you.

14: WHAT THE UNION CAN CONTROL (2)
- All contract rights at existing sites are fully protected. (e.g. exercise seniority to bump if there's a closure or conversion.)
- These protections include stores built on abutting property or in the same mall.

Good, so let's sit tight and see what happens when scary Wal-Mart comes to town. If members rights are fully protected, that's as good a situation as anyone can hope for. If the company is bluffing and there are no massive closures, nobody gets hurt.

15: WHAT THE UNION CANNOT CONTROL
- Company has sole control over which stores it closes and opens, and the banner under which new stores open.
- Co. has the ability to impose terms and conditions in new ( non-union ) RCSS and YIG stores and hire all new employees.

Yes, employers always control what stays open and what closes. So should every union roll over and bargain backwards whenever a threat of closure is made? There are laws against this kind of corporate behaviour. Why don't you use them? If new stores are opened non-union, why don't you ask the Labour Board to order the new stores rolled into the collective agreement? If that doesn't work, organize them.

16: AFTER PROLONGED NEGOTIATIONS, A BALANCED AGREEMENT IS CRAFTED (1)
- No loss of existing full time jobs. Guarantee of employment extended to all FT hired prior to Jan. 1 2003.
- Affected FT & PT have wide range of options.
- A DSTM Appendix to current (parent collective agreement will apply to new Loblaw/Zehrs RCSS sites.

If these were "negotiations" why were members not informed about them? Why was a mandate to enter into negotiations not sought from the membership? What's a guarantee of employment? Does that mean members will never be laid off, fired, demoted, transferred? Forever? Who will be the "affected FT and PT"? If most FT will have a guarantee of employment, how will they be affected?

17: APPENDIX FEATURES ( NEW RCSS)
- Essentially same as Fortinos agreement (wage/benefits/language) with some variations.
-Maintains several features of parent agreement.
- Non-union Dept. mgrs. (& Asst. DM's) can only perform bargaining unit work in there own dept. Penalty applies.
- Example: Certain seniority provisions have right to post, transfer, bump, from one RCSS store to another) same as in parent agreement.
FT & PT pensions retained from parent agreement.

Let's cut out the generalities. What do the "Appendix" people get and what don't they get?

18: RCSS TOP RATES ( NEWLY BUILT SITES )
Refer to presentation document

How many members will ever get to the top rates? What are the bottom rates?

19: Existing rebuilt/renovated sites:
At existing conventional sites, following a rebuild/renovation, DSTM PT wage rate applies only to DSTM departments, and only if:
- Square footage of store is expanded by at least 50%
- Square footage of store is greater than 100,000
- 35% or more of the area of selling floor is dedicated to DSTM.
- All three criteria must be met. Conventional agreement applies in all other matters for both DSTM & non-DSTM workers.
- Wages/benefits of non-DSTM workers are not affected.

So you're going to have two classes of members working under the same roof? One group that will get lousy wages and who-knows-what benefits and another group that gets a better deal. That's going to make for a pleasant working environment and lots of solidarity.Please explain how this will make the union stronger?

20: A BALANCED AGREEMENT (2)
There will be displacements, but all existing employees (FT & PT) maintain full seniority rights under parent agreement.

Hey wait, you just said that all FT workers were guaranteed employment? That's not qauite what you meant right?

No one will be required to transfer more than 40 km to keep there job in a conventional store (provided there is a store within 40 km. )

21: A BALANCED AGREEMENT (3)
Generous relocation allowance for those who agree to transfer over 40 km. and choose to relocate.

40 Km?! That's about 25 miles. That's the distance from downtown Toronto to the outer limits of the GTA. Who's going to take a move like that? What happens if you decline a transfer? Are you still guaranteed a job?

Generous early retirement option (ERO) for those 55 or older: Four weeks pay per year of service. Max: FT. $75,000 PT: $10,000.
Excellent severance package same as ERO (PLUS). Covers both FT and PT. Min for FT $10,000. Also PT minimum ( see next )

Is this available to everybody or is there a hidden cap? How does getting rid of members with high seniority and full time jobs help the union?

22: A BALANCED AGREEMENT (4)
Six-month RCSS trial transfer gives existing employees (FT or PT) right to return to conventional store without penalty.
For those who choose a trial transfer, severance is held until decision to remain is declared.
Generous RCSS Transfer Package: 3 weeks pay per year of service. Then you work under RCSS agreement. Min. $10,000 for FT.
Even short service PT are eligible for severance and RCSS transfer package. Min. $500.00 for under 12 months, $1000.00 for 12+ months. PT max in both cases: $10.000.

Why is the company trying to push existing workers out the door and why are you going along with it? What do you think workers who take severance should do with the rest of their lives? Go back to work at RCSS for $7.00 an hour? Or does it matter to the union what happens to them? What is "balanced" about this agreement?

23: MOST IMPORTANT UNION WIN: LONG TERM WAGE/BENEFIT SECURITY:
The union has negotiated a guarantee that the company will not propose wage or benefit concessions in the next contract negotiations and the next collective agreement will not contain any wage or benefit concessions.
This means: No wage/benefit concessions regardless of the length of the contract beyond 2006. An unprecedented negotiating breakthrough.

Yahoo! No more concessions next time around! That's great. Is that because by then there will be nothing left to give? How many more mid-term deals are going to be done in a backroom before the contract expires? Unprecedented breakthrough in selling out is more like it.

24: STICKING POINT: RATIFICATION
- Company refuses to offer the agreement if Union requires a formal membership vote. Worried about legal complications of negative vote.
- Union says: "Members have the right to approve such a significant change in their collective agreement."
- Company adamant. Will not budge from their position.

OK, so what you're saying is that members have a right to ratify these changes. It's a right, like a legal right or a constitutional right, is that it? So if this is a right and the company is trying to circumvent this right, why are you helping the company to do this? (Note to members considering a DFR complaint: Take special note of this statement. It may help you. This is your union telling you - in writing - that this is your right!)

What do you mean by "company refuses to offer agreement"? Now the agreement is something good? Why don't you tell them to take their agreement and stick it?

25: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT ?
- Company would be free to impose Wal-Mart wages, benefits and conditions throughout any new non-unionized RCSS/YIG stores.
- Workers affected by store closures would not have job offers at RCSS.
- No enhanced severance package, early retirement option or transfer packages.
- Company/Union would inevitably enter a long period of labor strife.

Or maybe nothing much would happen. Why don't you file unfair labour practice charges? Isn't threatening to close stores if the union won't re-open a contract a potential violation of the law? Why are you so afraid of a little labour strife?

26: COMPROMISE ON APPROVAL MECHANISM
- Each local will seek a "mandate" for the President to finalize the proposed settlement.
- Each local will use its own consultative/democratic mechanisms to determine if the President has the required mandate.
- No local can bind another. Each will make its own decision.

See 24 above. If the members have a right to ratify this deal, why are you getting in the way of this right? What kind of democratic mechanism is at work here? Make a deal in a backroom, present it as a "done deal" and tell everybody to vote "yes" or the company will throw them out of work? What the hell kind of consultative/democratic process is that?

What's this about each local making its own decision? We heard a little earlier that there was a "unified approach" of some kind by the locals and the national office. Or was that a unified approach to saying yes to the boss?

27: COMPANY GETS WHAT IT NEEDS
- Lower labor costs in new RCSS stores that will go head-to-head with Wal-Mart
- Ability to expand existing conventional stores with lower DSTM costs.
- "Labor peace" for several years
- A smooth transition to new era in retail sector.

Why are you so sure that Loblaws' needs lower labour costs to compete with Walmart? In another slide - one with a sinister-looking picture of a Wal-Mart store in the background - you say:

"UFCW does not believe lower labour costs are Wal-Mart's most important competitive advantage. But Loblaws management does that this and has structured its response accordingly."

So out of one corner of your mouth you're saying that you don't believe lower labour costs are essential to competing in the retail food industry but out of the other corner you're saying, "But management wants a break so we'll give it to them". Explain how this benefits the members?

Labour peace for several years? What have you guys promised the company? That you won't strike, or speak out or aggitate for fair treatment or what? A smooth transition to a new era of low pay and job insecurity is more like it.

28: UNION PROTECTS ITS MEMBERS
- Complete job/wage/benefit/pension security for existing members.
- Preservation of all collective agreements.
- Full range of union protection & contract rights for new RCSS workers.
- Generous early retirement, severance and transfer options, all voluntary.
- No concessions for several years. Members can plan for the longer term.

Protection? What protection? A lot about this deal will create insecurity and resentment among workers. Knowing that their leaders go into the backroom with the bosses bring them back a done deal can't be giving them a warm feeling either. No concessions for several years? Does that mean there will be more concessions eventually? What is it that members plan for? Another slide presentation from the backroom?

29: END RESULT FOR UNION:
Our members will have a smoother transition to new retail world than any other group of workers in North America.

A smoother "transition"? A "new retail world"? Where did you guys get these expressions? Is that like the "new world order"? The members will transition to the world of non-union wages, benefits and working conditions. If they transition more smoothly into the retail job ghetto than any other workers in North America it will be because their union greased the skids for them.

30: WE'LL RIDE THE TIDAL WAVE OF CHANGE INSTEAD OF BEING DROWNED BY IT.
That's no tidal wave. It's a flush.

We think these are reasonable questions and comments given the implications of this deal - not just for the members who will be affected but for workers in the retail food industry in general. UFCW officials are more than welcome to log on to forum and offer up their views as well.[/QB]