Postal Strike Imminent

[Smallc]

The government should have not written half the shit into the legislation that they did.

The union was being unreasonable, and so, the government, in turn, was unreasonable.

[bloodyminded]

The union was being unreasonable, and so, the government, in turn, was unreasonable.

And the government being unreasonable is unfathomably worse than a union being unreasonable.

[cybercoma]

Just what I want... an uncontested majority government that is completely unreasonable.

[Smallc]

And the government being unreasonable is unfathomably worse than a union being unreasonable.

Well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. There are realities that Canada Post and the government have to consider. The union doesn't have to, and doesn't even try. I mean, the corporation has to cut costs. Why shouldn't the workers share in that?

Edited June 28, 2011 by Smallc

[bloodyminded]

Well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. There are realities that Canada Post and the government have to consider. The union doesn't have to, and doesn't even try. I mean, the corporation has to cut costs. Why shouldn't the workers share in that?

Your view is that, in a battle between government/corporations and unions, the former will always be correct?

If so, I think you need to clarify and expand on it, becauser it sounds like a pretty wild theory.

At any rate, you just said that the government acted "unreasonably"...but you support that, because they were responding to another "unreasonable" agent.

In short, the government "had no choice"--if that was the case, they wouldn't be acting "unreasonably," by definition.

I'm saying that government acting "unreasonably" seems to me worse, far more fraught with problems for democracy, then when a union does so.

Hardly a controversial opinion.

[Smallc]

Your view is that, in a battle between government/corporations and unions, the former will always be correct?

Not always, but definitely in this case.

At any rate, you just said that the government acted "unreasonably"...but you support that, because they were responding to another "unreasonable" agent.

That's right, I think that the government should have went with Canada Post's last offer, but I understand their position given falling mail volumes and increasing costs.

In short, the government "had no choice"--if that was the case, they wouldn't be acting "unreasonably," by definition.

I guess you're right, the government wasn't being unreasonable.

I'm saying that government acting "unreasonably" seems to me worse, far more fraught with problems for democracy, then when a union does so.

I'm not sure why that's a problem. They're a democratically selected government, and in this case, they had the people on their side. They didn't do anything illegal, as far as I can tell.

[cybercoma]

That's right, I think that the government should have went with Canada Post's last offer, but I understand their position given falling mail volumes and increasing costs.

I don't think it was the government's place to decide at all. If they wanted to force it to go to binding arbitration and an arbitrator decided on Canada Post's last offer or even on the PSAC agreement that the Conservatives put into the legislation, fine. However, I don't think the government should have gotten its hands dirty by taking discretion away from the arbitrator and legislating wages.

I find it pretty ironic that the supposed socialist party was the one that was trying to prevent a conservative government from legislating wages.

[mikedavid00]

I don't think the government should have gotten its hands dirty by taking discretion away from the arbitrator and legislating wages.

For once the gov't did something that it shouldn't be doing in the interest of Canadians.

We could sit here all day and talk about what the gov't shouldn't be doing.

The way to avoid this is to stop collective bargaining. You can allow it, but keep the gov't out of it. Let the companies re-hire new employees when the salaries become unsustainable.

It's compulsory to join the union. That is sick and corrupt.

[sharkman]

Mail delivery in our area resumed on Tuesday. Two envelopes. Today nothing. Where's all of the backlog of mail that's been adding up? I hope they're not acting like bitter children and doing little or no work in the mail handling depots. If they want to be bitter at anyone, they should be bitter at themselves for not accepting the last offer. All they had to do was look at their last strike in which they were again legislated back to work.

I have nothing against them, some have called posties overpaid paperboys. That's nonsense, people depend on mailed government cheques and important documents. When has newspaper delivery affected the national economy? But if you're on the job, then do your job. It's your own bloody fault you got forced back to work, now man up and take your losses.

[cybercoma]

Mail delivery in our area resumed on Tuesday. Two envelopes. Today nothing. Where's all of the backlog of mail that's been adding up? I hope they're not acting like bitter children and doing little or no work in the mail handling depots. If they want to be bitter at anyone, they should be bitter at themselves for not accepting the last offer. All they had to do was look at their last strike in which they were again legislated back to work.

I have nothing against them, some have called posties overpaid paperboys. That's nonsense, people depend on mailed government cheques and important documents. When has newspaper delivery affected the national economy? But if you're on the job, then do your job. It's your own bloody fault you got forced back to work, now man up and take your losses.

Actually, they wanted to be back to work. It was the company's fault the mail stopped. So, the company locks them out, creates a backlog and now they won't allow overtime to get it cleared. Once again, your anger is misdirected.

[Bryan]

Actually, they wanted to be back to work. It was the company's fault the mail stopped. So, the company locks them out, creates a backlog and now they won't allow overtime to get it cleared. Once again, your anger is misdirected.

If they really wanted to work, they would not have started doing rotating strikes.

[sharkman]

Actually, they wanted to be back to work. It was the company's fault the mail stopped. So, the company locks them out, creates a backlog and now they won't allow overtime to get it cleared. Once again, your anger is misdirected.

Okay, so says you. The management says one thing and the workers another. I don't care about all that. I am simply waiting for my mail. Tell me why, since there would obviously a back up of mail, very little has trickled out the last 3 days? It doesn't add up.

[fellowtraveller]

It's compulsory to join the union.

No, it is not. You cannot be forced to join a union.

Under the Rand formula, you are obliged to pay union dues to the union whether you are a member or not. Under check off, the employer is either obliged by law or collective agreement to deduct same from an employees pay and send it to the union as if you were a member.

[cybercoma]

Okay, so says you. The management says one thing and the workers another. I don't care about all that. I am simply waiting for my mail. Tell me why, since there would obviously a back up of mail, very little has trickled out the last 3 days? It doesn't add up.

Because they started sorting Monday night and aren't allowed overtime.

[Sir Bandelot]

You cannot be forced to join a union.

Under the Rand formula, you are obliged to pay union dues to the union whether you are a member or not. Under check off, the employer is either obliged by law or collective agreement to deduct same from an employees pay and send it to the union as if you were a member.

Can you elaborate on this? What does it mean to be paying union dues and yet not be in the union? How would one accomplish this. What advantages/ disadvantages does it give you?

[sharkman]

Because they started sorting Monday night and aren't allowed overtime.

Sorry, it doesn't add up. I would normally get about 50 pieces of mail in the 2 weeks or so of the work stoppage. Today I got one single piece of mail. That's 2 pieces of mail in three days. They are doing an unofficial work slow down on purpose.

Again, they have no one to blame but themselves for the contract they ended up with. Typical union attitude, and I should know as I've seen this attitude in my union. Grow a pair and start working, I say.

[Sir Bandelot]

Darn! Now I have to pay my bills again...

:angry:

[RNG]

No, it is not. You cannot be forced to join a union.

Under the Rand formula, you are obliged to pay union dues to the union whether you are a member or not.

Then Rand and whoever approved this are idiots. What a travesty.

[cybercoma]

Sorry, it doesn't add up. I would normally get about 50 pieces of mail in the 2 weeks or so of the work stoppage. Today I got one single piece of mail. That's 2 pieces of mail in three days. They are doing an unofficial work slow down on purpose.

Again, they have no one to blame but themselves for the contract they ended up with. Typical union attitude, and I should know as I've seen this attitude in my union. Grow a pair and start working, I say.

You're not going to get extra mail. They still need to sort through the backlog. They can only sort as much mail as they did before they were locked out of the sorting facilities. You will continue to get the same amount of mail until Canada Post allows overtime.

[Jack Weber]

Then Rand and whoever approved this are idiots. What a travesty.

Money grubber and a union buster...What a shocker...

I suppose you prefer RTW and the "Right to be Poor" "But I'm still free" canard of the NAM???

Edited July 2, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

No, it is not. You cannot be forced to join a union.

Under the Rand formula, you are obliged to pay union dues to the union whether you are a member or not. Under check off, the employer is either obliged by law or collective agreement to deduct same from an employees pay and send it to the union as if you were a member.

Not precise enough...

We have what is called "Agency Shop" laws in this country.This means that one can work in a union shop but can have their dues sent to a charity of their choice if they have an issue with organized labour.

Having been a steward,I can tell you at a certain local we had Mennonites who wanted no part of the the union local and wanted their dues sent to their church...The trade off of this is that they get absolutely no representation if they get into trouble with the company...No free rides here,unlike the sorry RTW states in the the US...

These people were made quite aware of this and they agreed...End of story...

[RNG]

Not precise enough...

We have what is called "Agency Shop" laws in this country.This means that one can work in a union shop but can have their dues sent to a charity of their choice if they have an issue with organized labour.

Having been a steward,I can tell you at a certain local we had Mennonites who wanted no part of the the union local and wanted their dues sent to their church...The trade off of this is that they get absolutely no representation if they get into trouble with the company...No free rides here,unlike the sorry RTW states in the the US...

These people were made quite aware of this and they agreed...End of story...

In Alberta, if you work for the government, you have to join the freaking union. Oh, sorry, they don't call it a union, they call it the freaking "association" or whatever. What a joke.

[Jack Weber]

..

Edited July 2, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

In Alberta, if you work for the government, you have to join the freaking union. Oh, sorry, they don't call it a union, they call it the freaking "association" or whatever. What a joke.

Poverty inducing,RTW loving,free marketeering putz's,such as yourself...Are the real joke!!!!

[mikedavid00]

Poverty inducing,RTW loving,free marketeering putz's,such as yourself...Are the real joke!!!!

Ummm.. Socialism and Communism breed poverty. Read up on it.