@cumos55 wrote:
A site was found where the President of CUPW was interviewed ...
https://marxist.ca/labour/17-labour-news/1425-postal-workers-prepare-for-strike-interview-with-cupw-...
The question...Do you see the postal workers strike as an opportunity to revive the militant traditions of class struggle unionism?
The answer ... I think that every potential strike has the potential to do that. For me, this goes back to some of the ABCs of trade unionism. I always say that there are two rules in the labour movement. Rule #1: You don’t get anything unless you fight for it. Rule #2: You don’t get to keep anything, unless you keep fighting. So abandoning the struggle is surrender.
Mike Palecek was President of CUPW in 2011, when CUPW last went on strike.
I'm someone who is married to a lifelong union member (now retired). I understand the arguments in favour of unions, and what they've accomplished over the last 100 years or so for all workers, men and women.
My issue with CUPW is that they're out of tune with the abilities of a modern Crown corporation to meet all their demands. Instead of coming to the table in a bargaining spirit, understanding that compromises need to be made, they come with a belligerent, confrontational attitude toward "the company", as if they were still back in 1910 dealing with a draconian robber baron, sitting on millions while his workers made a near-starvation wage.
Those unions of 100 years ago were indeed courageous, because they had everything to lose by their actions (including their very jobs, sometimes even their lives in the worst struggles). It was a clash, which ultimately levelled the playing field. You want workers? Give up some of your riches to pay a living wage, ensure workers aren't killed or seriously injured because of your neglect, and give them reasonable working hours.
Now every time a contract ends, we have a war by CUPW with a constrained corporation over what are relatively small, incremental improvements. I'm going to sound anti-union saying this, but I believe the government needs to better define, in advance, precisely which services in this country are essential, and place a time limit by legislation on how long the parties have to resolve their contract issues in those services. You have, say, 3 weeks to sort out issues and come to an agreement, or the government will intervene. I think it's time for certain unions to wake up and realize they are operating in the 21st century, and negotiate not only in good faith, but in good understanding of the bigger picture. They are not just hurting the employer (or themselves) anymore, but an entire sector of the country's population.
If they don't take a different approach, unions are not only going to lose all public support, but jeopardize the existence of the very corporations to which they are so antagonistic -- leading to massive job losses. Does that really serve the union's long term best interests?
You mentioned on today's Wednesday chat the concept of a class-action suit by online sellers against CUPW. While I abhor American style hair-trigger litigiousness, from a legal standpoint the idea has some merit. From a political or practical standpoint, the shock to the system of a whole sector of Canadians suing CUPW might be effective in its message, even if not entirely successful in court (i.e. only partial awards of damages). As in, next time, bargain in good faith to reach a prompt resolution of your grievances, or we'll do it again. Maybe we can hold them over a barrel.
This is something eBay Canada could look into, i.e. representing Canadian sellers in a formal suit. There are certainly damages that can be proven, and certainly a direct causation. Quantifying individual damages would be complicated, but eBay has the global figures at hand. I'm sorry the Wed. chat was closed before I could ask whether this is in fact being considered.
w~~_7.JPG "pjcdn2005"){kind=avatar}
