if city workers strike...how will we notice?

who the hell is Emmanuel Goldstein?

AND....I said it before and I will say it again. The union heads should roll anytime the union collective votes against their recommendations, it should be automatic.

BUT... there is lots to gain from CUPE striking..politically.

Try google Deank.....

I googled Deank but all I got was pictures of this drop dead handsome guy


I then thought... oo I bet he means google that emmanuel guy...so I did.. not sure why I would hate him though.. he seems like a genius!

grumpyrom wrote:You guys are always so fast to jump on the anti-union bandwagon without knowing any of the facts first.

Sorry to interupt, please continue you regular 2 minute hate directing at all things union....or Emmanuel Goldstein. Whichever you prefer.

Grumpyrom, you KNOW many peeps here are just as passionate about their union opinion and feelings as you are. Knowing that why do you feel the need to sh1t on them/us every time they express their views?

I note that most people that dislike unions don't sh1t on you when expressing their opinions. So maybe consider giving that part of your diatribe a rest when responding.

Otherwise your post was a great view of the issue that I'd not read/heard and was inviting with my initial post on the issue today.

Common GOM, you know you guys have poked at me and others plenty of times regarding unions etc. To call it union bashing would not be inappropriate IMHO. Need I remind you and others about all the commie, comrad and other remarks? I'm a big boy, I can handle a bit of teasing. So, how come it's not ok to poke back?

Glad you found some of my post somewhat enlightening. I'm done with it for today. Not really much else to say untill Friday anyways.

" So, how come it's not ok to poke back"
Because the leader said it aint? all hail the leader?

And I choose to poke at the union, not at you and when I poke at the union it is because I too have personal knowledge/experience but from the other side. I used to belong to a strong union but because I choose not to strike I was shunned and eventually lost my job (financially could not afford to, had a young family to feed). When you see your colleagues out there picketing but never see the union brass picketing along side, still sitting in the fancy office, collecting the big pay cheque while others lose a lot more than just their weekly pay, I feel justified to "bash" as you call it. The only thing a union leader has to lose is possibly their job with union A but most will go on to become leader of another union or on to another, equally well paid position. I have seen first hand, members of unions, the rank and file, loose their homes because although they couldn't afford to strike, were "compelled" to strike for fear of loosing their jobs in the end if they became "scabs". Just my humble thoughts and opinions.

" The only thing a union leader has to lose is possibly their job with
union A but most will go on to become leader of another union or on to
another, equally well paid position"

Usually..a political one. Either elected or appointed....far too often appointed.

I have concluded that the majority of pro-union people (i.e. those willing to strike) are horribly bad at math.

I remember watching Telus employees striking for a 1-2% wage increase for a few weeks. I guess they were unaware that their strike action (even if they were to win) would leave them with even less money at the end of the year. I also apparently had no clue that the easiest way to get a 1-2% wage increases would be to just get rid of their union and not pay exorbitant union dues anymore.

sputnik wrote:I have concluded that the majority of pro-union people (i.e. those willing to strike) are horribly bad at math.

I remember watching Telus employees striking for a 1-2% wage increase for a few weeks. I guess they were unaware that their strike action (even if they were to win) would leave them with even less money at the end of the year. I also apparently had no clue that the easiest way to get a 1-2% wage increases would be to just get rid of their union and not pay exorbitant union dues anymore.

That may be correct if the case is only about a marginal wage increase, but that's rarely enough be the sole reason for a strike. Usually it's a combination of factors generally involving loss of benefits/increased cost to benefits, and/or job security issues, and/or pension changes or reductions. I don't know too many people crazy enough to strike over 1%/. Generally if there is a strike it's because people ARE good at math and can see that what is being taken away will cost them thousands compared to what they currently have.

holly golightly wrote:And I choose to poke at the union, not at you and when I poke at the union it is because I too have personal knowledge/experience but from the other side. I used to belong to a strong union but because I choose not to strike I was shunned and eventually lost my job (financially could not afford to, had a young family to feed). When you see your colleagues out there picketing but never see the union brass picketing along side, still sitting in the fancy office, collecting the big pay cheque while others lose a lot more than just their weekly pay, I feel justified to "bash" as you call it. The only thing a union leader has to lose is possibly their job with union A but most will go on to become leader of another union or on to another, equally well paid position. I have seen first hand, members of unions, the rank and file, loose their homes because although they couldn't afford to strike, were "compelled" to strike for fear of loosing their jobs in the end if they became "scabs". Just my humble thoughts and opinions.

Holly, how did you expect your coworkers to feel towards you after you chose to cross the line? I haven't been in the situation yet (luckily) but guaranteed I ould feel huge resentment for anyone choosing to take the EASY route and continue to work, while expecting someone else to do the heavy lifting for their benefit. I understand that financial issues play a big role, but you know ahead of time working in a "strong union" as you put it what the consequences of your actions are.

I'd also like to know how you feel that the union forced you out of your job? Last I checked you don't work for the union, they can't fire you. If you left because you didn't like the way your coworkes felt about you that's your own choice.

Sorry but there's consequences to all actions in life. I don't feel any remorse for people who choose their path but blame others for their feelings towards them. There are always other options that don't involve betraying your coworkers.

grumpyrom wrote:Holly, how did you expect your coworkers to feel towards you after you chose to cross the line? I haven't been in the situation yet (luckily) but guaranteed I ould feel huge resentment for anyone choosing to take the EASY route and continue to work, while expecting someone else to do the heavy lifting for their benefit.

This is where I struggle with the join the union/don't join the union militancy. What if I never ever wanted to be a part of the union? I'm compelled to join even though I am against it.

One might rebut "then go work elsewhere". Heh heh. How does that argument work when the shoe is on the other foot? You know. The one where I tell people if they don't like the wages or working conditions at company A then find a job elsewhere...

And to be frank, I'd say crossing the picket line because they have a different set of priorities is not the easy way out. Not when they have to deal with hostile workforce who think it's okay to bully their fellow workers.

grumpy old man wrote:

grumpyrom wrote:Holly, how did you expect your coworkers to feel towards you after you chose to cross the line? I haven't been in the situation yet (luckily) but guaranteed I ould feel huge resentment for anyone choosing to take the EASY route and continue to work, while expecting someone else to do the heavy lifting for their benefit.

This is where I struggle with the join the union/don't join the union militancy. What if I never ever wanted to be a part of the union? I'm compelled to join even though I am against it.

One might rebut "then go work elsewhere". Heh heh. How does that argument work when the shoe is on the other foot? You know. The one where I tell people if they don't like the wages or working conditions at company A then find a job elsewhere...

And to be frank, I'd say crossing the picket line because they have a different set of priorities is not the easy way out. Not when they have to deal with hostile workforce who think it's okay to bully their fellow workers.

Agreed completely GOM.

I remember the Telus strike in Alberta a couple of years ago, and on the union website forum strikers were posting pictures, addresses, kids names of "scabs".

Pathetic. Unions definitely bring out the worst in people.

grumpyrom wrote:

holly golightly wrote:And I choose to poke at the union, not at you and when I poke at the union it is because I too have personal knowledge/experience but from the other side. I used to belong to a strong union but because I choose not to strike I was shunned and eventually lost my job (financially could not afford to, had a young family to feed). When you see your colleagues out there picketing but never see the union brass picketing along side, still sitting in the fancy office, collecting the big pay cheque while others lose a lot more than just their weekly pay, I feel justified to "bash" as you call it. The only thing a union leader has to lose is possibly their job with union A but most will go on to become leader of another union or on to another, equally well paid position. I have seen first hand, members of unions, the rank and file, loose their homes because although they couldn't afford to strike, were "compelled" to strike for fear of loosing their jobs in the end if they became "scabs". Just my humble thoughts and opinions.

Holly, how did you expect your coworkers to feel towards you after you chose to cross the line? I haven't been in the situation yet (luckily) but guaranteed I ould feel huge resentment for anyone choosing to take the EASY route and continue to work, while expecting someone else to do the heavy lifting for their benefit. I understand that financial issues play a big role, but you know ahead of time working in a "strong union" as you put it what the consequences of your actions are.

I'd also like to know how you feel that the union forced you out of your job? Last I checked you don't work for the union, they can't fire you. If you left because you didn't like the way your coworkes felt about you that's your own choice.

Sorry but there's consequences to all actions in life. I don't feel any remorse for people who choose their path but blame others for their feelings towards them. There are always other options that don't involve betraying your coworkers.

My expectations of people are that this is life and it is a job. Because I felt that I needed to feed my family before I fed the union was my choice but to have been abused by co-workers because I choose my family over a union is not acceptable. It is my opinion and I guess my values and morals, that my family comes first, above and beyond all else, so to say that I took the easy way out, I would say not as I looked after my family first. As for the union forcing me out of a job, when the time came, they found a way to "obsolete" my position, I could have bumped other people but I too chose not to, instead I took an offer of education so that I could provide for my family in a more stable way. Yes there are consequences for all actions in life, but I don't blame anyone for my actions, I take responsibility for them. As for betraying my coworkers, if that is the way you see it, so be it, I would rather not betray my family.

grumpy old man wrote:

grumpyrom wrote:Holly, how did you expect your coworkers to feel towards you after you chose to cross the line? I haven't been in the situation yet (luckily) but guaranteed I ould feel huge resentment for anyone choosing to take the EASY route and continue to work, while expecting someone else to do the heavy lifting for their benefit.

This is where I struggle with the join the union/don't join the union militancy. What if I never ever wanted to be a part of the union? I'm compelled to join even though I am against it.

One might rebut "then go work elsewhere". Heh heh. How does that argument work when the shoe is on the other foot? You know. The one where I tell people if they don't like the wages or working conditions at company A then find a job elsewhere...

And to be frank, I'd say crossing the picket line because they have a different set of priorities is not the easy way out. Not when they have to deal with hostile workforce who think it's okay to bully their fellow workers.

I completely agree with this, my friend that works in justice is a member of the MGEU and had no choice but to join the union. She would much rather not pay the dues, and she does not want to go on strike. However she will be considered essential and will have to work anyway if there is a strike.
Hmm wonder is she gets her strike pay even though she has to work?

No one should be forced to belong to a union if they choose not to. When I was a teacher in the public school system, I had the option of not belonging to the Mb Teachers Society but because of some of the other benefits that they offered, I paid the dues (educational benefits, not health care benefits). Some unions however are very devious in that if you choose not to belong, you also are not entitled to the benefits (medical and dental, etc) that are part of the job if you are in the union. Health/dental benefits should not be tied to your position in a union but rather to the job itself. This is where they have the employee by the proverbial "balls". The only other option an employee would have is to purchase their benefits one their own but it would be much more costly than the dues to the union. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

MGEU works on the Rand formula, which means that employees do not need to join the union, but must pay the dues, on the basis that they get "the benefit" that the union provides. NOt sure what "benefit" that refers to, but thats the theory.

Freeman wrote:MGEU works on the Rand formula, which means that employees do not need to join the union, but must pay the dues, on the basis that they get "the benefit" that the union provides. NOt sure what "benefit" that refers to, but thats the theory.

But you are forced to pay the dues, so you may as well be a part of the union, at least you can then vote.

Mayor accuses Province of meddling in labour talks

Global News: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 11:40 AM

Winnipeg Mayor Sam Katz accused the Selinger government Wednesday of interfering with negotiations between the city and its largest union, CUPE 500.

“I have no understanding why a Minister would interfere with this process,” Katz said.

The city and CUPE have been in negotiations this week, since the union voted to reject the city’s latest contract and authorized strike action earlier this month. During a media scrum at city hall Wednesday morning, Katz accused the Province’s Labour Minister, Jennifer Howard, of trying to impose a mediator on their negotiations, when both groups are negotiating in “good faith” and neither side had asked for their assistance.

Katz said the alleged interference came shortly after the union’s strike vote on Friday, Feb. 18. In the meantime, the union issued a news release Tuesday calling for binding mediation, a request the city immediately rejected.

A provincial spokesperson contacted by Global News said the Minister denies interfering with the process.

Katz said the alleged interference “flaws the entire process” and could actually “impede a potential solution,” calling the Minister’s alleged actions ‘extremely disappointing.” CUPE 500 represents 4,600 city workers. Talks between the two parties continue, and no strike date has been set.

Why is the minister getting involved? Why would sammy reject binding arbitration?

1) Completely inappropriate for the minister to start shopping around for an arbitrator BEFORE it is requested by either party, but AFTER one of the parties asks, its her job. But completely out of line and inappropriate before. Why?

Minister..: I have decided on grumpyrom as the arbitrator... UNION.. We want arbitration please!... City.. dear lord NO!

or on the other hand:

Minister..:I have decided on Grumpy old man as the arbitrator.. Union Dear Lord NO!. City. We want arbitration please.....


See the problem? I see the problem

2)Why would sammy reject binding arbitration? Because they have not had the chance to do the jobs themselves. It undermines the process to even be thinking of binding arbitration right now. Why even bother having negotiations at all if one group can just say... binding arbitration... without there even being a strike?

USApegger wrote:

Freeman wrote:MGEU works on the Rand formula, which means that employees do not need to join the union, but must pay the dues, on the basis that they get "the benefit" that the union provides. NOt sure what "benefit" that refers to, but thats the theory.

But you are forced to pay the dues, so you may as well be a part of the union, at least you can then vote.

I was "employed" at the provincial government for a while, but, you know, I just couldn't force myself to join the union. Must have been on principles.

Right, using an arbitrator suggested by the NDP government, that would be really unbiased wouldn't it?

How is an arbitrator appointed? Anybody know?

'Cause that would be the key I think. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't an arbitrator choose between two presented positions? Each side gives their best offer and the arbitrator picks one?

Get the right arbitrator and you can screw the union too. Or does the government annoint one?

Labour minister appoints...USUALLY after both sides agree to a suggested person.

Arbitrator actually looks at both sides and can recommend either option.. or ANYTHING else.

Can the arbitrator screw the union? Technically they should not be able to screw anyone. they are there to offer a fair choice.

But think back to 1996. The support staff at many nursing homes went on strike for 2 or 3 months...finally after binding arbitration they were offered EXACTLY what was on the table to begin with.

In this case it seems that binding arbitration is the best way to go for both parties unless the City and Sam are looking to cause a strike intentionally for whatever reasons be it short term cost savings, union busting, Sam's ego being hurt because CUPE didn't support his re-election bid etc. The only thing I see is one party that is doing everything in their power to avoid a work stoppage and one party who is dead set on not backing down from their demands.

Based on Ms.Howards version of the events there was no "meddling" untill March 1st which is a fair bit different from Sam's version of Feb.22nd. In the end it doesn't really matter as Sam seem's to be looking for someone to blame for what at the moment looks like an impending strike.

As Deank notes above, binding arbitration can recommend EITHER parties proposal or something completely different. If CUPE is willing to let a 3rd party decide what is fair, what is Sam so scared of? Both parties have to agree on a potential mediator, I'm sure there has to be someone on the list that would be impartial enough that both can agree on him. Unless Sam and CFO Linda Black feel this offer is completely unfair what are they so scared of?

Whatever outcome happens, I just hope all the union haters are just as in full force when the WPS and WFPS contracts come up later this year. If a 2 year wage freeze is necessary for CUPE, I hope they recieve the same initial offer. Unless Sam decides to play politics and reward the 2 unions that backed his re-election. Will they receive the same negativity if they're offered another 9% increase over 2yrs?

To me this is just Sam pandering to his conservitive followers trying to show how "tough" he is on unions, forgetting the gifts he gave to his friends last contract. I'm also curious if the 2yr CUPE wage freeze is absolutely needed will the freeze be enacted amongst the WAPSO brass who all earn significantly more than the CUPE members? What about Sam himself and the city councillors and exectuive level employees like Ms. Black herself? This behaviour is absolutely shamefull unless it's spread evenly across the board.