eBay

momcqueen · ‎07-07-2016

Good news overnight on the looming postal lockout/strike front. To paraphrase The Godfather, the federal government has made an offer they can't refuse.

https://www.canadapost.ca/web/en/blogs/announcements/details.page?article=2016/07/06/canada_post_pre...

Canada Post Prepared to Submit to Binding Arbitration

Federal Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, MaryAnn Mihychuk, has asked both Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW-Urban and CUPW-RSMC) to submit to binding arbitration to resolve the current impasse at negotiations.

The Canada Post Corporation has already agreed. "It is our hope that CUPW will consider submitting to binding arbitration to end the uncertainty. Canada Post is extending the current 72-hour notice period to Monday at 12:01 am to provide time for the union to consider this option."

It would be suicide for the unions to refuse, although I do expect they will make a show of doing so and wait until the final moments to concede. Binding arbitration is the best we can hope for at this point.

marnotom! · ‎07-14-2016

@mjwl2006 wrote:

There was nothing private about the offer of binding arbitration.

No, but I don't think Elmwood was referring to that as "making a deal" is not accomplished through arbitration.

mr.elmwood · ‎07-14-2016

@marnotom! wrote:
@mjwl2006 wrote:

There was nothing private about the offer of binding arbitration.

No, but I don't think Elmwood was referring to that as "making a deal" is not accomplished through arbitration.

Exactly.

Binding arbitration was doing an "end around" the bargaining process. CP gave the union a take or leave it and then we lock you out attitude. Union had little choice.

Binding arbitration is decided, not bargained, by a third party who has no horse in the race.

Government then called in the president of CP and said "play nice".

Government then called in the union and said "play nice".

The speed at which both sides backed down was fast, like, a third party had stepped in.

.
.
.

momcqueen · ‎07-14-2016

It was likely not be as pointed as that.

Our elected officials would no doubt feel pressure from their electorate but I doubt very much anyone like the PM himself made the call.

I do expect both sides had people representing important people speak to them subtly as to what as expected of the remainder of the process if the offer binding arbitration was going nowhere.

Politics is rarely as straight-forward as people expect. There is an art to influencing people.

rose-dee · ‎07-14-2016

@marnotom! wrote:
@pierrelebel wrote:
" for work of equal value."
Sorry. The answer is NO it is not work of equal value.
I wish you had elaborated on this a bit more. I think we may be defining "equal value" differently.
I don't believe that the work that a rural postal worker does is of less value--on a material or social basis--than on that an urban postal worker does. They're both working to the same ends.

I believe both you and Pierre are right in certain aspects of this question. Equal pay for equal work is different than the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. Defining that term "value" is where the union steps in and talks about value to the community. It is not a measurable absolute, in the way specific tasks, number of parcels, or number of hours can be easily measured. It requires some interpretation. Hence the sticking point.

Now, granted, I'd call this issue a little bit of a red herring because clearly the union also wanted to garner public support by invoking women's rights. That was a rather transparent ploy on their part, and I'm not sure it cemented their bona fides in the public's opinion.

I live in a very rural area. I know my postal delivery lady's workload is nothing like the rather hectic, physically demanding and overloaded job my urban carrier had when I lived in Victoria, BC.

That Victoria postie certainly deserved better pay if you were weighing only task descriptions. But is the rural carrier's value to the community equal (or perhaps higher) than the city worker's?

Is that value enough that it counterbalances the heavier demands placed on the city worker, and therefore justifies an equal wage? Should the fact that women form most of the rural carrier workforce be taken into account in terms of the social and economic fabric of those communities, i.e. the reality of being paid lower wages than an all-male workforce would accept? And so on.

These questions could be debated for a very, very long time by a whole lot of experts. Hence the impasse. Both sides of the argument have merit.

rose-dee · ‎07-14-2016

@mr.elmwood wrote:

Plus? You don't think the government has not talked to both sides, privately, and, hasn't said MAKE A DEAL!"?

That's exactly what I was thinking this week when CP suddenly revoked its 72-hour notice. Anybody who thinks the Minister didn't have a quiet little talk with both parties and read them the riot act, so to speak, hasn't worked in government. What gets said openly, to the press and public, is about 20% of what is actually going on.

momcqueen · ‎07-14-2016

@rose-dee wrote:
@mr.elmwood wrote:

Plus? You don't think the government has not talked to both sides, privately, and, hasn't said MAKE A DEAL!"?
That's exactly what I was thinking this week when CP suddenly revoked its 72-hour notice. Anybody who thinks the Minister didn't have a quiet little talk with both parties and read them the riot act, so to speak, hasn't worked in government. What gets said openly, to the press and public, is about 20% of what is actually going on.

Oh golly.

Isn't that what I just said but minus the mean part about everyone else being ill-informed?

rose-dee · ‎07-14-2016

@mjwl2006 wrote:

Isn't that what I just said but minus the mean part about everyone else being ill-informed?

Actually, your earlier post implied that such discussions wouldn't come from the highest levels of the federal government. I think they would have, and that the Prime Minister was involved in directing behind the scenes. Why wouldn't he want to be, given his government's earlier public announcement of non-interference via legislation? He still has a duty to serve his electorate.

As for the remark you consider so mean, it's not a question of being ill-informed (which is a person's own fault), but of simply having had access to first-hand experience of top-level government process (which others here may have had as well, I'm sure). You resent my stating my own experience, so I won't, but I think you might find it convincing. Unless not considering my views has become a matter of principle.

In a word, this volte-face by CPC had all the hallmarks of backroom, top-level "suggestion".

rose-dee · ‎07-14-2016

By the way, don't worry, I won't be around here on the boards much longer anyway. I was using the postal impasse as an excuse to take a bit of a break.

mr.elmwood · ‎07-14-2016

@rose-dee wrote:
@mr.elmwood wrote:

Plus? You don't think the government has not talked to both sides, privately, and, hasn't said MAKE A DEAL!"?
That's exactly what I was thinking this week when CP suddenly revoked its 72-hour notice. Anybody who thinks the Minister didn't have a quiet little talk with both parties and read them the riot act, so to speak, hasn't worked in government. What gets said openly, to the press and public, is about 20% of what is actually going on.

Exactly.

Trudeau called the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation the Honourable Judy M. Foote and said: "Make these two sides get along, or else. Now, I have a parade to walk in.", and it happened, just like that. Harper could not do that, Trudeau can.

Regardless of your political beliefs, Trudeau runs a very tight ship. Everyone does precisely what they are told to do. Both the union and CP found that out.

.
.
.

momcqueen · ‎07-14-2016

@rose-dee wrote:
By the way, don't worry, I won't be around here on the boards much longer anyway. I was using the postal impasse as an excuse to take a bit of a break.

I'm not worried, nor do I desire to make you feel unwelcome. The opposite is my intent; my desire is for everybody to be able to feel they have something of value to contribute to any Discussion without fear of being made to look or feel stupid which, though I honestly don't think is your intent, is the way you periodically come across.

Opinions are something we all share. How they are put to words is a where we have an opportunity to either enlighten and/or persuade, or to offend and/or put off.

Like I said earlier, persuasion is an art.

rose-dee · ‎07-14-2016

@mr.elmwood wrote:
Trudeau called the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation the Honourable Judy M. Foote and said: "Make these two sides get along, or else. Now, I have a parade to walk in.", and it happened, just like that. Harper could not do that, Trudeau can.
Regardless of your political beliefs, Trudeau runs a very tight ship. Everyone does precisely what they are told to do. Both the union and CP found that out.

Yes, I'd put money on that being the case.

I think Trudeau has another motive as well. Having boxed himself (and his government) into a corner in advance by announcing there would be no direct government intervention à la Harper, he does not want to have to come out of that corner.

He still has credibility with Canadians, for the most part, even a lot of the grudging ones. This is his first really national issue test. It has the potential of back-firing on him, whether the public thinks his government is doing nothing, or whether they become furious if he reneges on his promise not to legislate a resolution. He's walking a tightrope right now, so he has every reason to get involved behind the scenes.

Better to use back room pressure as long as he can. He can take credit later if he wants to, after the dispute is resolved.

momcqueen · ‎07-14-2016

@mr.elmwood wrote:
@rose-dee wrote:
@mr.elmwood wrote:

Plus? You don't think the government has not talked to both sides, privately, and, hasn't said MAKE A DEAL!"?
That's exactly what I was thinking this week when CP suddenly revoked its 72-hour notice. Anybody who thinks the Minister didn't have a quiet little talk with both parties and read them the riot act, so to speak, hasn't worked in government. What gets said openly, to the press and public, is about 20% of what is actually going on.
Exactly.

Trudeau called the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation the Honourable Judy M. Foote and said: "Make these two sides get along, or else. Now, I have a parade to walk in.", and it happened, just like that. Harper could not do that, Trudeau can.

Regardless of your political beliefs, Trudeau runs a very tight ship. Everyone does precisely what they are told to do. Both the union and CP found that out.

Well, I don't agree exactly that he would have done it directly, I think it's more like he would have made known to someone who would have then leapt hurdles to make known to someone else who would have walked over hot coals to make it known to the intended party. All under the understanding it was coming from His office.

I do, however, wholeheartedly agree the PM is doing a fine job of leadership where I was somewhat sceptical this would be the case at the beginning. And I respect him all the more for his accessibility to the Canadian public, which I suppose may be in part a by-product of having grown up in the pubic eye.

rose-dee · ‎07-14-2016

@mjwl2006 wrote:

Opinions are something we all share. How they are put to words is a where we have an opportunity to either enlighten and/or persuade, or to offend and/or put off.

Like I said earlier, persuasion is an art.

I'm afraid all this has persuaded me of is that you feel that experience should be considered more or less irrelevant to any discussion.

If we're exchanging views on accounting, I'd give the advice of someone like Pierre, for example, who has made his background a matter of open knowledge, more weight than a person with no experience in accounting at all. Not all subjects are so black and white, but experience can shed light that simple opining can't.

Why it would be insulting to others to back up an opinion with a statement of practical experience, makes no sense. I'm sorry, but this sounds like the New Age argument that "everybody is an expert and everybody's opinion is equally valid" no matter what the subject. It isn't.

Experience can provide better insight, not always, but on balance. This is something you only realize when you're 60, but wish you'd understood when you were 30.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion of course, and should be able to be heard, but that's another concept entirely. However if a trained musician is telling me I'm off key, I'm inclined to listen.

pierrelebel · ‎07-14-2016

"This is something you only realize when you're 60, but wish you'd understood when you were 30. "

I would like to correct that statement to read (based on my experience)

"This is something you only realize when you're 70, but wish you'd understood when you were 30. "

pjcdn2005 · ‎07-14-2016

You can be experienced and still have opinions on a subject that are different than others with experience so one shouldn't assume that their experience is more revelant and/or more correct.

rose-dee · ‎07-14-2016

@pjcdn2005 wrote:

You can be experienced and still have opinions on a subject that are different than others with experience so one shouldn't assume that their experience is more revelant and/or more correct.

Well of course, but the objection seems to be that anyone with particular experience in an area relevant to discussion shouldn't say so. Doing so is apparently is an affront to the whole community.

I said earlier: "as anyone who has worked in government will know", meaning that there are likely more than a few people here who have had direct experience of seeing the processes.

To follow this logic rationally, am I not entitled to the opinion that I do have experience in areas that may be particularly relevant, and that I say so? Don't you? Don't most people? Why should that anger or insult anyone? I think what really bothers some people is that they don't like the idea of others having expertise or experience that might be wider than their own.

Could we please close this silly tangent and get back to the actual subject of the thread?

lizzier-ca · ‎07-14-2016

Hi everyone,

Please remember to keep the discussion friendly. Hostile comments/interpersonal disputes may result in warnings and/or the thread being locked.

Thank you for helping us keep the boards welcoming for everyone!

LizzieR-CA

pjcdn2005 · ‎07-14-2016

Oops...I meant to hit reply on your post and hit kudo instead.

I doubt that most here care whether someone else has more or less experience in certain matters so I think that you are reading that wrong. I won't bother to expand on that.

My dog is giving me that I want to go for a walk now look so I had best go do that.

cumos55 · ‎07-15-2016

Rural delivery is paid the same for women and men.

More women do rural delivery because their husbands take care of their major enterprise....that is farming....in western Canada

Or... Husbands may have full time employment elsewhere... Rural delivery of mail allows women to be flexible in relation to when the children attend school...

If men and women are paid the same for rural delivery, then there is no discrimination .

CUPW argues women in rural delivery relative to women in urban delivery..... not a viable argument

Rural mail delivery is a unique job, very much different than urban delivery.

If CUPW went to court with their argument... it would never fly based on discrimination

women versus men in a rural situation

or... women in rural situation relative to women in an urban situation

Discrimination, historically, is based on a woman versus man comparison