eBay

fort2b · ‎08-24-2016

Just in case others have been lulled into not following the CP Strike threads, like I was, I thought i'd bring this to everyone's attention.

CUPW will almost certainly be issuing a 72 hour strike notice Thursday before midnight. CP will no doubt immediately respond with a 72 hour lockout notice. This means the postal system will shut down as of Sunday midnight.

Trudeau is still saying the Gov't will not intervene. This could go on for a very long time.

I see now why Palecek doesn't want binding arbitration.....an arbitrator for the Rural Postmaster Union has recently decided in CP's favour and against a defined benefit pension plan for new hires.....CUPW would no doubt receive the same ruling..

CUPW is now the only union working at Canada Post that is holding out.

nojusticenopeace · ‎08-24-2016

That's because CUPW is one of the few business unions left in this country with the balls to stand up for workers and defy the lemming march to neo-liberalism. A lot of people forget that the reason postal workers have such excellent benefits is because they fought long and hard, and Jean-Claude Parrot even went to prison, defying the worst the capitalists could do to break the workers' spirit.

Direct action gets the goods.

satyaloka.shop · ‎08-25-2016

There's an important difference between the CPC-Rural Postmaster's arbitration and the arbitration proposed between CPC-CUPW.

The arbitration between CPC-Rural Postmaster's was final offer selection. Both parties put a final offer on the table and a decision was made on which one to accept in it's entirety. No mixing, no revision. CPC's offer was selected.

The proposed arbitration between CPC-CUPW is binding arbitration. This allows both offers to be mixed, and revised based on the evidence provided. Suppose that both parties provide substantial evidence of how each offer would be of mutual benefit, and that the evidence is in favour of CPC's mandate. Both parties stand to benefit in this case by getting a decision that is mutually beneficial.

The reason Palecek doesn't want binding arbitration is because the union lacks the evidence to support their pension mandate. You can see the evidence in the subtle change of wording the union leader uses. Originally pensions were at the forefront. Now pensions are at the end of paragraphs, which pleas to the Government to intervene as a footnote. They're now in a position where everything else must be the focus.

Notice also how the union claims CPC won't provide the figures used in creating financial forecasts. This is simply because CUPW are not management and this information is confidential. Imagine going to your boss and demanding this data. In binding arbitration the evidence, this data, will be dealt with confidentially. The union also generalises the arbitration process as taking years or decades. This might be true to normalise all union demands but is absolutely false regarding keeping the postal system working.

I wish CUPW luck. Just don't expect a bailout from the Government without some type of arbitration first. Binding arbitration is still better than final offer selection.

lukey9 · ‎08-25-2016

I was just reading on the CUPW site " Today’s press conference has been postponed until further notice. More information will be out shortly." Good News or Bad news

widgetc · ‎08-25-2016

The link to this is:

https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/08/25/postal-union-cancels-news-conference-as-strike-deadline-...

Seems something has changed...but who knows what.

cumos55 · ‎08-25-2016

The union has to understand that no matter what it says.... CPC is in control of the money.

One of the objectives of CPC as per the CPC Act states

--------------------------------------------------

"While maintaining basic customary postal service, the Corporation, in carrying out its objects, shall have regard to.....

......the need to conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis while providing a standard of service that will meet the needs of the people of Canada and that is similar with respect to communities of the same size;"

------------------------------------------------------

The union has chosen to ignore what CPC ...must .....do...... and for a total of nine months of negotiation...

mr.elmwood · ‎08-25-2016

@cumos55 wrote:
The union has to understand that no matter what it says.... CPC is in control of the money.

One of the objectives of CPC as per the CPC Act states

--------------------------------------------------
"While maintaining basic customary postal service, the Corporation, in carrying out its objects, shall have regard to.....

......the need to conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis while providing a standard of service that will meet the needs of the people of Canada and that is similar with respect to communities of the same size;"
------------------------------------------------------

The union has chosen to ignore what CPC ...must .....do...... and for a total of nine months of negotiation...

CPC has zero regard for that.

.
.
.

fort2b · ‎08-25-2016

@widgetc wrote:
The link to this is:

https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/08/25/postal-union-cancels-news-conference-as-strike-deadline-...

Seems something has changed...but who knows what.

curious for sure.....maybe it's just that Palecek is sick or hungover or something.. 🙂

It could mean nothing as the news conference is not required to issue the 72 hour notice. But it does suggest something is up.

Also, I've noticed that CP is not threatening to retaliate with a 72 hour lockout notice. That is the one that really matters. If CUPW strikes at all it will be rotating strikes for at least a while. So maybe we'll see another stay of execution.

Going to REAL glad when this is all settled.

satyaloka.shop · ‎08-25-2016

Seems something has changed...but who knows what.

It is the 1 month anniversary of a man killed in Ottawa and the Black Lives Matter movement has been holding events across the country related to this event. Including Ottawa. Over night vandalism occurred in Ottawa near the location where the CUPW news conference was to occur. A piece of artwork was vandalised and includes the words "No double standards. You have been warned".

Given the choice of union words recently I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to avoid Ottawa "until further notice". It would be a bad time for them to use such words. The Black Lives Matter movement has recently been seen as becoming more radical.

mr.elmwood · ‎08-25-2016

From CBC news:

The two sides appeared to be on the brink of a labour stoppage in July, before agreeing to two more months of intense negotiations. At the time, the union had a strong strike mandate from its members, before the two sides mutually agreed to extend it by 60 days.

That time frame is set to expire at midnight eastern time on Thursday.

Canada Post management drops lockout threat for now

If a strike isn't announced by then, the union must seek a new mandate from their membership for a job action.

That process could take weeks, which would push any union-led job action into the fall. Alternatively, the company is already in a position to lock out its workers as they have been without a collective agreement for months.

What I am reading is that if a strike is not called by midnight, that option is out without a new mandate from the union members. Management retains the unilateral right to lock them out, at any time.

.
.
.

around_again_records · ‎08-25-2016

@mr.elmwood wrote:
From CBC news:

The two sides appeared to be on the brink of a labour stoppage in July, before agreeing to two more months of intense negotiations. At the time, the union had a strong strike mandate from its members, before the two sides mutually agreed to extend it by 60 days.
That time frame is set to expire at midnight eastern time on Thursday.
Canada Post management drops lockout threat for now
If a strike isn't announced by then, the union must seek a new mandate from their membership for a job action.
That process could take weeks, which would push any union-led job action into the fall. Alternatively, the company is already in a position to lock out its workers as they have been without a collective agreement for months.

What I am reading is that if a strike is not called by midnight, that option is out without a new mandate from the union members. Management retains the unilateral right to lock them out, at any time.

I'm curious as to what the "strong mandate from its members" was. What were the original numbers for and against going on strike?

I also don't understand why they don't just get another vote from the union members. If they vote to strike then strike. If not then this is settled. Shouldn't it be the members who make that decision. If the time limit for the original membership vote is over, it seems to me that they should be obligated to having another vote. That just seems like common sense to me, but I'm sure there are reasons that things are not going that way. Could anyone explain these reasons to me. Is CUPE worried that they will no longer have a strike mandate? If I was a member, I would be outraged that I did not have an opportunity to have a say in my future.

satyaloka.shop · ‎08-25-2016

The Government, with it's so called review, at a most convenient time, is basically saying we're not getting involved until January. Maybe they'll get involved sooner but that's the message they're sending indirectly. If the union really wants to make their point they won't use a regional strike and instead just go for broke. Maximum damage before January.

I don't think CPC wants a lockout, they want final offer arbitration. They've said as much. They want the union to incur the costs for obtaining a new (final?) mandate, along with the time required. Which just coincidentally is associated with date the review is completed. Suggests at least some truth in the union claim of CPC/Government delay.

I don't like to take sides, but neither do I like the facade of choice based on "input from Canadians". Which also conveniently prolongs the process of a task force I had no say in choosing.

mr.elmwood · ‎08-25-2016

@around_again_records wrote:
@mr.elmwood wrote:
From CBC news:

The two sides appeared to be on the brink of a labour stoppage in July, before agreeing to two more months of intense negotiations. At the time, the union had a strong strike mandate from its members, before the two sides mutually agreed to extend it by 60 days.
That time frame is set to expire at midnight eastern time on Thursday.
Canada Post management drops lockout threat for now
If a strike isn't announced by then, the union must seek a new mandate from their membership for a job action.
That process could take weeks, which would push any union-led job action into the fall. Alternatively, the company is already in a position to lock out its workers as they have been without a collective agreement for months.

What I am reading is that if a strike is not called by midnight, that option is out without a new mandate from the union members. Management retains the unilateral right to lock them out, at any time.

I'm curious as to what the "strong mandate from its members" was. What were the original numbers for and against going on strike?
I also don't understand why they don't just get another vote from the union members. If they vote to strike then strike. If not then this is settled. Shouldn't it be the members who make that decision. If the time limit for the original membership vote is over, it seems to me that they should be obligated to having another vote. That just seems like common sense to me, but I'm sure there are reasons that things are not going that way. Could anyone explain these reasons to me. Is CUPE worried that they will no longer have a strike mandate? If I was a member, I would be outraged that I did not have an opportunity to have a say in my future.

The strike mandate expires at midnight. Without that "tool" they cannot do any job action. CPC retains the "right" to lockout the employees at any time, however. Union members give their leaders the right to call a strike, the members themselves do not have that power.

The strike mandate vote back in June:

Urban Operations unit: 94.19% YES

Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers unit: 91.26% YES

.
.
.

rose-dee · ‎08-25-2016

@satyaloka.shop wrote:

I don't think CPC wants a lockout, they want final offer arbitration. They've said as much. They want the union to incur the costs for obtaining a new (final?) mandate, along with the time required. Which just coincidentally is associated with date the review is completed.

I don't like to take sides, but neither do I like the facade of choice based on "input from Canadians". Which also conveniently prolongs the process of a task force I had no say in choosing.

The review as a whole isn't scheduled to be completed until December of this year, and any legislation or final changes won't take place until early 2017. The task force's job is finished in September once it presents its discussion paper; it's work is not prolonged past that point.

The process goes forward with open public consultation, continued invitation for public input, and ultimately a parliamentary committee report, which may choose to accept, reject or revise the proposals provided in the discussion paper. It's not clear to me why anyone would object to the opportunity of having input into a process designed specifically for public comment.

As for the question of suspect timing, the Liberal government ran partially on a platform of review of our postal services. They would have been open to severe criticism had they not begun the formal review within a reasonable time after the election.

Starting the review in May 2016 was probably the quickest the Liberals could manage to get the new Minister up to speed, design the review procedure, and find and appoint task force members. The fact that the CPC/CUPW impasse has dragged on is simply an unfortunate coincidence.

around_again_records · ‎08-25-2016

@mr.elmwood wrote:
@around_again_records wrote:
@mr.elmwood wrote:
From CBC news:

The two sides appeared to be on the brink of a labour stoppage in July, before agreeing to two more months of intense negotiations. At the time, the union had a strong strike mandate from its members, before the two sides mutually agreed to extend it by 60 days.
That time frame is set to expire at midnight eastern time on Thursday.
Canada Post management drops lockout threat for now
If a strike isn't announced by then, the union must seek a new mandate from their membership for a job action.
That process could take weeks, which would push any union-led job action into the fall. Alternatively, the company is already in a position to lock out its workers as they have been without a collective agreement for months.

What I am reading is that if a strike is not called by midnight, that option is out without a new mandate from the union members. Management retains the unilateral right to lock them out, at any time.

I'm curious as to what the "strong mandate from its members" was. What were the original numbers for and against going on strike?
I also don't understand why they don't just get another vote from the union members. If they vote to strike then strike. If not then this is settled. Shouldn't it be the members who make that decision. If the time limit for the original membership vote is over, it seems to me that they should be obligated to having another vote. That just seems like common sense to me, but I'm sure there are reasons that things are not going that way. Could anyone explain these reasons to me. Is CUPE worried that they will no longer have a strike mandate? If I was a member, I would be outraged that I did not have an opportunity to have a say in my future.
The strike mandate expires at midnight. Without that "tool" they cannot do any job action. CPC retains the "right" to lockout the employees at any time, however. Union members give their leaders the right to call a strike, the members themselves do not have that power.

The strike mandate vote back in June:

Urban Operations unit: 94.19% YES
Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers unit: 91.26% YES

Yup, that's a pretty strong YES, actually I'm quite surprised.

But back to where we are now. If the June strike mandate expires at midnight, why not just let it expire and take another vote as to whether the members want to give their leaders the right to strike in the current situation (I'm sure the postal workers themselves are much better informed at this point in time, as are all the rest of us) That is still the only thing that makes sense to me. The individual members should have that right. Yes? No?

mr.elmwood · ‎08-25-2016

But back to where we are now. If the June strike mandate expires at midnight, why not just let it expire and take another vote as to whether the members want to give their leaders the right to strike in the current situation (I'm sure the postal workers themselves are much better informed at this point in time, as are all the rest of us) That is still the only thing that makes sense to me. The individual members should have that right. Yes? No?

Actually, no. It expires and then they have to re-organize another vote, time and expense. In the meantime, CPC can lock them out. The workers do not know any more than we do. The individuals have no rights, none at all.

.
.
.

satyaloka.shop · ‎08-25-2016

Maybe. Except that CPC may be ~~lying~~ bending the truth entirely about the evidence to support their claims. The union doesn't know because CPC isn't obligated to share outside of arbitration. The independent review will ultimately focus on CPC which makes it useful as a bargaining chip. If CPC is bending the truth, they now have the opportunity to tune a final offer based on the independent review. This would be to the union's detriment.

You think it's a coincidence? As if the current agreement expiry wasn't known in advance. Right. The Liberals made a great number of promises, many of which people complain they don't follow up on as originally stated. Ok fine it's a coincidence. We'll see. I hope I'm wrong too.

A special mediator gets appointed in the final hours. Not days, or weeks ago when the impasse was declared by both sides. What's a special mediator? Contextually that's a fancy word for a psychologist who's sole objective is to convince both sides to empathise with each other. "Oh, hi, I'm from the Government", "Ok, we'll be nice to each other because we both need the Government on our side".

It's a joke. No doubt to convince the union to accept going back to the membership to request a new mandate. Which buys more time for an independent review to support CPC claims. Now I like CPC, and appreciate the union side too. I suppose this special mediator might help but I think the union has a better chance with binding arbitration initiated well before the review is complete. That has nothing to do with legislation.

around_again_records · ‎08-25-2016

@mr.elmwood wrote:
But back to where we are now. If the June strike mandate expires at midnight, why not just let it expire and take another vote as to whether the members want to give their leaders the right to strike in the current situation (I'm sure the postal workers themselves are much better informed at this point in time, as are all the rest of us) That is still the only thing that makes sense to me. The individual members should have that right. Yes? No?

Actually, no. It expires and then they have to re-organize another vote, time and expense.
Time and expense for the Union? It seems the time and expense would be warranted if the Union truly has the workers best interests at heart.

In the meantime, CPC can lock them out.
But why would they do that. CP doesn't want to shut down and loose money. They would wait and see what the outcome of the vote was. If it was still a strong Yes we want to strike then so be it, at least now it would be an informed decision. Either the Union would go out on strike or CP would lock them out, same difference to me and other customers.

The workers do not know any more than we do.
Yes, I would agree with that. I've talked to many of them (well a few) when dropping of my parcels. They have not felt very well informed about this whole situation right from the get go, which is another reason why they should be allowed to vote again.

The individuals have no rights, none at all.

OK, obviously I don't know all the rules here, but the individuals are the Union. If the vote in June had been NO what would have happened then. Would the union have had to accept a contract? I am not being facetious. I really don't know. If the members had voted not to give their union the mandate to strike does that mean the union would have had to accept what CP was offering at that time.

satyaloka.shop · ‎08-25-2016

A strong strike mandate means collectively the union members have given permission to the union leadership to negotiate on their behalf. The membership has strong faith in the bargaining team. If negotiations fail the leadership can call for a strike. Often this is enough to avert a strike in the first place.

Conversely, a weak strike mandate means the union members have little faith in the bargaining power of union leadership, and usually leads to the acceptance of concessions, or weakened benefits.

around_again_records · ‎08-25-2016

@satyaloka.shop wrote:
A strong strike mandate means collectively the union members have given permission to the union leadership to negotiate on their behalf. The membership has strong faith in the bargaining team. If negotiations fail the leadership can call for a strike. Often this is enough to avert a strike in the first place.

Conversely, a weak strike mandate means the union members have little faith in the bargaining power of union leadership, and usually leads to the acceptance of concessions, or weakened benefits.

When you put it that way, it sounds like the obvious thing to do would be to vote Yes to give leaders permission to negotiate. Obviously you want them to negotiate a better stronger contract, so the initial Yes vote makes sense.

However, to my way of thinking, now that all the issues are out on the table (I'm assuming when the first vote was taken, many of the issues that are now up front were not obvious to the voting members), results of a vote might be quite different.

I really don't understand (or maybe I do) why the union would not let its members vote again now so they can take into consideration all that has happened, or new information that they have since the last vote.

I say maybe I do know why, and that is because perhaps the union leadership feel that the vote would not be the resounding Yes that it was in June. If that is the reasoning of the union leadership, then they are not representing their members. They are just playing games and have decided that their egos or whatever are more important than the people they represent.

That's how it looks to me, but as you can tell I like to keep things simple. 😞