What's up with all the strikes lately?
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
The fact that one group of a few thousand wields that kind of power and leverage over 35 million is what is of real concern here.
The Cons need to address that tremendous imbalance and there are not a whole lot of alternatives that will bring the equation back into balance.
Yes, the corporation was extremely greedy and selfish in the way they responded. But at the end of the day, they were rewarded by the government, so the message is that it's okay for corporations to take advantage of Canadian citizens.
You are going to have to be a little more clear on this... By the 'corporation being extremely greedy', are you referring to the legal entity known as CUPW?
I should have posted my comments in purple to indicate sarcasm.
The big irony here is that the use of the word "Corporation" is being employed to create an illusion that this action is about a union vs. capitalism... Fact is, the corp is in fact a Crown Corp. which is (theoretically speaking) an extension of the gvt and therefore of the population at large.
With this in mind, perhaps the best solution is to attach referendum questions on the next federal ballot that seeks the advice of Canadians on whether the Crown Corps. deserve defined, indexed pensions and/or wholesale raises... I wonder how CUPW/CUPE would feel about that kind of democracy in action?
I recall the exchange on pensions, and as far as the 'myth' goes, the pension- issue wouldn't exist if it was a straight contribution of $X by the employer and $Y by the employee.. In the end when it comes time to collect, there is X+Y+interest.
The days of a defined pension plan generating a 'wage' ad infinitum regardless of the actual amount paid-in are long gone.
It is tax payers money paying for the pensions... I will assume that the argument here is that the "Corporation" pays for pensions out of profits, but again, this is a Crown Corp and has a mandated monopoly. The cost of the stamps (that can only be issued by the Crown Corp/Gvt) is where the money originates.
On that note, assuming that you are referring to 'profits' paying for the pensions, how about we claw-back those profits to account for those decades where Canada Post was losing money annually?
All costs are carried to the customer, CP doesnt see moneey from the government, just legislation.
Canada post management.
Canada post management set wage increase at 1.9%.
Canada post management locked out their employees thereby inducing this 'economic crisis' the conservative government bellowed.
The conservative government then set wage increase at 1.3%, thus rewarding canada post management for inducing the same economic crisis they were complaining about.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND TEH CRAZINESS NOW?
Last edited:
... And the union didn't accept that, correct?
Remember; Offer and Acceptance?
I know, it was pretty heavy handed to do so after the union engaged a program of rotating strikes.... Boy-O-Boy, does the CP management ever have some gall!
(psssttt... pretend that the above comment is written in purple)
I suppose that the take-away for the union was that they looked a gift horse in the mouth.. Now they're wishing that they had accepted the initial offer, eh?
I have had a reasonably clear understanding from the beginning.
cranky; they are a Crown Corp that has a legislated monopoly in the mail delivery game wherein the only "currency" that can be used to engage this service is allowed by gvt... It's like any other gvt body, they live exclusively off the tax payer and have no alternative service available.
No one is saying the union is innocent.
But the government sided with one of the parties. This is undeniable and actually backed by a metric. And the irony is that the cause of the 'economic strife' was being rewarded.
Management was well within their right to lockout. But that is the move that ironically caused what the conservatives were clamouring against.
It's self-defeating.
Last edited:
I suppose I will never understand your point, because if I don't buy stamps, I don't contribute to their revenue. My taxes at the end of the year don't pay to support them.
The way I see it, gvt IS the management in this scenario.. They sided with themselves - I'm not saying it is right, but I think it is reality.
I don't disagree with the above, however, I can see the logic in the move to legislate back to work... If the gvt didn't lock them out and force the 'economic' issue, this disruption could have moved in a variety of directions; potentially ending up as a full blown strike.
I can see the merit is bringing the whole issue to a head as opposed to letting it play out over many weeks and possibly ending up in a strike position anyway.
Uh oh...
Union claim could chart 'new territory' in Canadian Labour Law: Expert
Kevin Banks, a Law professor at Queen's University, said, "this is a new area of the law and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out."
He said the claim will likely be based on a 2007 Supreme Court decision about "B.C. Health Services."
In that decision, the court found the charter right to freedom of association protects collective bargaining. It also says the government must not "substantially interfere" with the ability of the parties to consult and engage with each other in order to settle their differences.
Banks, who specializes in labour law, said the 2007 ruling "creates a bit of space for collective bargaining" because the Supreme Court struck down legislation forcing health workers back to the job, saying it was unconstitutional. Parties were then given time to work out their own bargain.
The issue for the courts will be to determine if the government substantially interfered or not.
CUPW said the court challenge will target one of the main sticking points over the bill — the wage settlements. The government legislated a wage increase of 1.57 per cent, which is lower than the 1.9 per cent that Canada Post had put on the table earlier this month in negotiations with its workers.
"Clearly the government had its own ideas about what should be happening and has given effect to them through legislation — so that doesn't leave a lot of room for bargaining," said Banks.
Union claim could chart 'new territory' in Canadian Labour Law: Expert
Kevin Banks, a Law professor at Queen's University, said, "this is a new area of the law and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out."
He said the claim will likely be based on a 2007 Supreme Court decision about "B.C. Health Services."
In that decision, the court found the charter right to freedom of association protects collective bargaining. It also says the government must not "substantially interfere" with the ability of the parties to consult and engage with each other in order to settle their differences.
Banks, who specializes in labour law, said the 2007 ruling "creates a bit of space for collective bargaining" because the Supreme Court struck down legislation forcing health workers back to the job, saying it was unconstitutional. Parties were then given time to work out their own bargain.
The issue for the courts will be to determine if the government substantially interfered or not.
CUPW said the court challenge will target one of the main sticking points over the bill — the wage settlements. The government legislated a wage increase of 1.57 per cent, which is lower than the 1.9 per cent that Canada Post had put on the table earlier this month in negotiations with its workers.
"Clearly the government had its own ideas about what should be happening and has given effect to them through legislation — so that doesn't leave a lot of room for bargaining," said Banks.
cool find. I was aware of what BC did to their healthcare workers, but I wasn't aware of the SCC rulings. This changes how I feel about the proposed legal action. I think they have an excellent chance at winning this. The lower than offered wage increase was a greedy and fatal mistake for the government, it creates a situation that will be easy for the union to win.
The postal system has been underwritten by the federal gvt for many many years. The cost of infrastructure, facilities and equipment was bought and paid-for via taxes.... Just because CP operates on a profit today, doesn't mean that those capital components were not funded by the tax base as well as postage rates.
CP making money is a relative recent phenomenon, but don't let that fool you into believing that the postal service has generated a profit overall.
Ok, thats fair enough. What you are saying seems reasonable. there are few points I would follow up on if I had more energy. like how long have they been a crown corp? how long have they turned a profit? when was the last influx of government money?
It's a moot point now anyway, since the strike is over I've received the grand sum of three bills, all of which have already been drawn automatically from my account. :lol: