Retail Trend: If They Give One to Loblaws...
Retail Trend: If they give one to Loblaws, then they must give one to everybody. And they are!
Inquiring members of UFCW Local 1518 want to know a few things about their contract settlement. But it is unlikely they will get an opportunity to find out before being asked to ratify the tentative agreement reached between UFCW 1518 and Overwaitea Food Group (OFG) earlier this week. After putting negotiations with the Overwaitea Food Group on hold in B.C., Local 1518 switched its talking heads back on and a deal was done shortly thereafter. The talking heads are recommending acceptance of the deal. Maybe we're just not seeing it the right way, but from any angle it looks a lot like a backroom deal done in Ontario earlier this year.
Recently UFCW members in Ontario found out the hard way that a deal had been cooked up in the backroom with retail giant Loblaws. The deal would allow the retail giant to open new stores under "new banners" eliminating the cost of fair wages and benefits to long term employees. In return UFCW would receive voluntary recognition and all would be well UFCW told the members, after the fact.
UFCW is currently recommending acceptance of a similar agreement to Local 1518 retail members in B.C. If the deal is ratified, the employer will be free to open new stores or slap a new banner on an existing store, unimpeded.
In addition, to help create growth opportunities that may not otherwise be available, the Employer has invested in the development and acquisition of alternate banners. The Employer voluntarily recognized UFCW Local 1518 to represent these banners and the Union and Employer have negotiated collective agreements for them in accordance with Letter of Understanding #17.
One of the retail labour partners is all goosebumpy about the prospect: "This job security language is among the strongest ever seen in the retail food industry, and is a landmark accomplishment." says Sundin, but the take from the reps, trying to make it palatable to the members, was just a tad different: "It isn't the best but it's all we are going to get in this labour climate.".
UFCW's recent giving nature in retail, accompanied by voluntary recognitions by the large "contributing employers" (who just last year agreed to huge increases in their contributions to UFCW Canada's troubled pension plan), raises a heap of questions for us. Job security for sure, but for whom?
Be afraid... Maybe Wal Mart, the UFCW's own great-satan-of-retail, is coming? Or does the UFCW owe the large contributing employers a favour or two? Or is it just the next lap in the race for the bottom? When you give one gang of corporate bullies a break, the next gang shows up with an even bigger stick. Maybe UFCW machineheads should be keeping their eyes on their fries, or were they?
Might this current OWFG deal have been cut in December of 2000? That's the date when a new contract was cut supposedly to save six stores:
quote:
Deal saves Save-On-Foods:
Richard Watts. Times - Colonist. Victoria, B.C.: Dec 22, 2000.
Neil Johnston got one Christmas present early this year.
Johnston, 37, of Victoria, got word he will be able to hang on to his job at Save-On-Foods -- one he has held for the past 14 years. It's good news for him, his wife and their three kids.
'It's sort of like an early Christmas present,' he said.
Save-On-Foods announced Thursday it has reached a deal with its union and will not be closing six stores around the province.
Those six stores included the one in Saanich at 3510 Blanshard St.where Johnston works as a clerk along with 250 other employees.
Last September, the company announced it was closing stores in Prince Rupert, Sparwood, Nelson, Nanaimo (two stores) and Saanich. The company said the stores were no longer competitive. The stores were set to shut down on Jan. 15, 2001, and about 600 people were going to lose their jobs.
On Thursday, Overwaitea spokesman Darrell Jones said the company had managed to negotiate an agreement with its union that allowed the stores to stay open. Jones was reluctant to comment much further.
'I can only say we are very pleased that our stores are going to continue to stay open,' he said.
But union spokesman Tom Fawkes, of Local 1518 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, said the deal is not perfect and some people will lose their jobs through layoffs. How many has yet to be determined.
Fawkes said negotiations revolved around company plans to open a low-cost store under a new banner.
The union's old contract stipulated any new store, whatever its name, would be governed by the existing collective agreement and the company wanted off that hook.
The union contract sees the most junior level employees paid about $8.50 an hour. But wages can go as high as $21, depending on seniority and job classification.
When the union refused to waive the contract for any new low- cost store, the company announced it would close the six stores.
In the end, the union agreed to allow the company to negotiate new contracts for employees at a new low-cost store. And it agreed to allow the company to expand hours for low-paid, junior clerks at existing operations.
In return, the company agreed to keep all its stores open. It agreed not to convert them to low-cost stores and it agreed not to open low-cost stores near existing operations.
Fawkes said it was a tough contract for the members to swallow. The agreement was only ratified by about 70 per cent of the membership, which he said is not a strong endorsement.
Nevertheless, he defended the deal.
He said the retail-food business is changing. Ten years ago, big- name grocers ruled. Now the market has fragmented and is serviced by everything from high-end, urban stores catering to hurried professionals to big-box bulk stores serving young, cash-strapped families. Unions have to take note of the market change.
'The unions that have refused to adapt, at the end of the day are the ones that end up killing their own members,' said Fawkes.
Langley-based Save-On Foods/Overwaitea owns 89 stores in B.C. and Alberta and is part of Jim Pattison's multimillion-dollar empire. The company's 5,500 employees went on strike in 1997 before signing a five-year contract.
I just about barffed when Tom boy said:
quote:
'The unions that have refused to adapt, at the end of the day are the ones that end up killing their own members,' said Fawkes.
He sure as hell can't be referring to the UFCW. The UFCW has "adapted" to just about every concession that employers have asked or in Canada for the last quarter century.
"Adapt" has one meaning while "capitulate" has a completely different one. Perhaps the UFCW should pull out its dictionary and either act according to a proper interpretation or adopt a more accurate lexicon for use when they puke out their lame excuses.
Ya, the OWFG deal was probably cut in 2000. Has anyone seen the entire signed deal from December 2000?
quote:
'The unions that have refused to adapt, at the end of the day are the ones that end up killing their own members,'
The only choice here seems to be whether you wish to be killed quickly or slowly.
This is the thread that broke my back when it comes to the UFCW and a belief that they could somehow be reformed, its now my opinion that I must convince my fellow members that they Must adapt by decertifying!
But for who ? CLAC at least responds on this site.
Hey Buzz are you out there ?
Voluntary recognition on the part of the supposedly democratic machine is deplorable, with constitutions making it a nightmare for members to wade through.
Why not another angle?
Voluntary recognition reeks of discriminatory practice on the part of employers: They won't hire me unless I believe what they believe? I can't get a job with them unless I change my representation color? 
That can't be right.
The key to higher wages comes from organization of workers and fear of their unions. You have to have both parts to be successful.
A strong union contract in a significant part of a sector keeps wages and working conditions up in all parts--union and not.
Non-union employers keep close watch on union contracts and react with higher wages and better working conditions to keep the union out.
The UFCW has focused on "market share" and then adopted a monopolistic "low-price" philosophy to achieve market share.
Monoplies aren't conducive to a healty sector. Monopolies don't give a shit because they don't have to. The UFCW developed a monopolistic mindset (mostly with the help of the CLC and AFL/CIO) and its members have suffered as a result.
The first time I heard "Market Share" pass Doug Dority's lips, I thought, "Strange, that's business jargon. Why would he use such a term?"
Tommy Douglas wrote Mouseland years ago and the UFCW produced a pulblic offering of it.
I wonder if the UFCW machineheads ever thought that if they hung with the cats long enough that they too would turn into cats?
Today, the house of labour is nothing more than a "Cat House".
quote:
In return, the company agreed to keep all its stores open. It agreed not to convert them to low-cost stores and it agreed not to open low-cost stores near existing operations.
... "until 2003 when the existing agreement expired". Tom forgot to say until the existing 1518 agreement expired.
Oh and Tom Fawkes FYI, it wasn't swallowed by the membership, it was intravenous, the concessions were administered intravenously, they all are, there is no way in hell members would knowingly swallow poison.
The real question is should some employees be laid off (possibly) or should current rates be maintained for current members?The future member has no vote and should not be considered.Let the present membership decide one way or the other.At what point do concessions end?On the UFCW Local 1000A website it says if walmart does not come then increases can be negotiated.On what basis , the employer is profitable now and somethig else might happen.MIGHT,MIGHT, MIGHT....what a crock.
quote:
Might this current OWFG deal have been cut in December of 2000? That's the date when a new contract was cut supposedly to save six stores:
Here is where the banner changed hands, and yep it was in 2000.
quote:
II.BACKGROUND
2 The collective agreement between the parties includes a letter of understanding ("LOU 17") which sets out a procedure for negotiating a collective agreement where the Employer opens a store operating under a new banner that is different in size or type of operation from its conventional stores. Any items in dispute are referred to a final offer selection ("FOS") process. The Employer wrote to the Union in March of this year referring the disputed issues with respect to its "New Banner" and "Price Banner" stores to arbitration under LOU 17. The Union responded by objecting to the referral and stating its position that the stores are not "new banner" stores, but rather conventional stores and, accordingly LOU 17 did not apply.
3 The Employer subsequently applied to the Director of the Collective Agreement Arbitration Bureau ("CAAB") for the appointment of FOS arbitrators under LOU 17. The Union objected to the jurisdiction of the Director to appoint what were, in their view, interest arbitration arbitrators. The Director determined that it was appropriate to proceed and appointed Messrs. Ready and Munroe. The Union argued at both arbitrations that the Director had acted without jurisdiction and consequently the arbitration panels were not properly constituted and should not proceed. In both cases the Union's preliminary jurisdictional objections were dismissed.
4 The Board has since been advised that further dates to hear the matter have been set by Mr. Ready for September.
This is really incredible, these guys are a puke a minute.
Here we have the machine pleading to the Director of the Collective Agreement Arbitration Bureau ("CAAB") that perhaps there might be some funny business going on and that the union may not be get an unbiased process: "interested arbitration arbitrators" (Ready and Munroe). Oops that mr. ready is one busy labour arbitrator eh, who's side is he on again?
(whatever the hell is "CAAB" and why do we need one?)
