CP strike

[Topaz]

Once move another national strike is about to take place and most of the problem is over take aways from workers pensions. I really think that for workers who have spend most of their working years for one company, that the company can't take away their pensions or reduce them. After all, if workers pensions are taken away or reduced, then social programs will have to kick in when these people retire. Since the MP's themselves haven't touch THEIR pensions as yet, why should other workers within this country have to? I understand with the strike and the affect to the economy, but why is it with this government that its the workers than make the sacrifices and not the companies? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cp-rail-engineers-conductors-strike-050251022--finance.html

[Smallc]

I really think that for workers who have spend most of their working years for one company, that the company can't take away their pensions or reduce them.

And yet you have no problem doing the same to MPs, no matter how long they've served, no matter what was agreed to.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

THIS IS DISGUSTING!

The Conservatives are already saying they might put back to work legislation through...

Huge bonuses for CEO's? No problem.

Raises for the average worker to cover the ever rising cost of living? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

How can anyone support this corporate cronyism?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-considering-back-to-work-bill-in-cp-strike/article2440706/comments/

[Guest Manny]

I think what Topaz is saying is that she would accept it more easily if it was done fairly, where everyone is seen as having to tighten their belts to help out to some extent. But as it is now, it's simply the have's vs. the have nots.

[madmax]

And yet you have no problem doing the same to MPs, no matter how long they've served, no matter what was agreed to.

Sounds like class struggle to me.

Therefore what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Success will be achieved when workers no longer have a pension.

[Smallc]

Sounds like class struggle to me.

Therefore what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Because two wrongs always make a right .

[Smallc]

The Conservatives are already saying they might put back to work legislation through...

One of the largest freight haulers in the country (not to mention VIA rail service between Toronto and Ottawa) is now at a stand still during a time when we really can't afford for one of the real drivers of the Canadian economy to be at a stand still.

Do you have any idea what the Canada Post strike did to Canada Post? There's a reason they're now running a loss. They lost several massive clients. CP and Canada can't afford this right now.

[punked]

One of the largest freight haulers in the country (not to mention VIA rail service between Toronto and Ottawa) is now at a stand still during a time when we really can't afford for one of the real drivers of the Canadian economy to be at a stand still.

Do you have any idea what the Canada Post strike did to Canada Post? There's a reason they're now running a loss. They lost several massive clients. CP and Canada can't afford this right now.

So then they better get their butts to the table and figure something out with their work force because those wildcat strikes are killing Air Canada right now lot of good the government did there.

Edited May 23, 2012 by punked

[Smallc]

So then they better get their butts to the table and figure something out with their work force because those wildcat strikes are killing Air Canada right now lot of good the government did there.

Air Canada would be doing badly either way. There are many factors at play there. The wildcat strikes aren't helping, but then, they're illegal, so that isn't Air Canada's fault, or the government's.

[TimG]

DB plans are not sustainable and need to be moved off the company books. If a union wants a DB plan they should fund them 100% from employee deductions and assume responsibility for managing the plan. Same goes for MP pensions.

[Smallc]

DB plans are not sustainable and need to be moved off the company books. If a union wants a DB plan they should fund them 100% from employee deductions and assume responsibility for managing the plan. Same goes for MP pensions.

I agree with you...except that I don't think it's fair that workers (or MPs) who were promised those pensions don't get them. Going forward, I definitely agree.

[Canuckistani]

DB plans are not sustainable and need to be moved off the company books. If a union wants a DB plan they should fund them 100% from employee deductions and assume responsibility for managing the plan. Same goes for MP pensions.

Why. All it is is trading off one part of a wage package with another. If the employees want the employer to pay for all or part of a DB plan, that is part of the overall negotiations. I don't understand why DB plans are not sustainable if they are sufficiently well funded and the employers don't play silly buggers with them and withdraw the "surplus" as so often happens. There's a book about all this chicanery, unfortunately I can't remember the title. But it's basically massive theft of these plans by employers or corporate raiders.

Here's a link about it tho: Retirement Heist

Edited May 23, 2012 by Canuckistani

[TimG]

I don't understand why DB plans are not sustainable if they are sufficiently well funded and the employers don't play silly buggers with them and withdraw the "surplus" as so often happens.

The law governing pension plans prohibits employers from running surpluses. All surpluses must be eliminated by increasing benefits or reducing contributions. Also, if the company is on the hook for deficits it is entitled to any surpluses. An employee run DB plan would make the employees responsible for deficits and surpluses.

Tying a pension plan to the future health of a company is amoung the stupidist retirement plans that I can imagine. The unions leaders who agreed to such a plan many years ago screwed up badly and should bear the brunt of the blame for the problems today.

Edited May 23, 2012 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

The law governing pension plans prohibits employers from running surpluses. All surpluses must be eliminated by increasing benefits or reducing contributions. Also, if the company is on the hook for deficits it is entitled to any surpluses. An employee run DB plan would make the employees responsible for deficits and surpluses.

Tying a pension plan to the future health of a company is amoung the stupidist retirement plans that I can imagine. The unions leaders who agreed to such a plan many years ago screwed up badly and should bear the brunt of the blame for the problems today.

You should read the link I provided. It is about the US tho, and I admit I don't know that much about the Canadian system.

But good point - the company should not be involved in the plan. So I guess you're right - negotiate for higher wages then make union member pay into a union plan. Comes to the same thing as far as cost to the employer/employee.

[dre]

I agree with you...except that I don't think it's fair that workers (or MPs) who were promised those pensions don't get them. Going forward, I definitely agree.

The difference is politicians can just arbitrarily give themselves whatever pensions they want. Workers have to bargain for them.

In any case the government should ENFORCE voluntary contracts, not help people get out of them. Thats one of the only usefull things government does. If two individuals cannot enter into a voluntary contract and expect it to be honored, then the economy will really fall apart.

If these companies dont think that the CBA's they signed are fair than too fuckin bad for them. I dont think my mortgage rates are fair either! But I signed the deal, so I gots to pay.

We already have a mechanism in place to allow companies that have put themselves in impossible economic positions to restructure their obligations... Its called structured bankruptcy.

[TimG]

But good point - the company should not be involved in the plan. So I guess you're right - negotiate for higher wages then make union member pay into a union plan. Comes to the same thing as far as cost to the employer/employee.

Not quite. Because under this system the union would have to be honest with the employees about the cost of the pension benefits. This would mean employees would likely settle for a lot less than they expect now but the upside is the funds would be sustainable because the would be designed to provide pension benefits rather than they current situation where they are designed to provide political cover for union leaders. Edited May 23, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

We already have a mechanism in place to allow companies that have put themselves in impossible economic positions to restructure their obligations... Its called structured bankruptcy.

So the company goes bankrupt and the unions get nothing. It is in the unions interest to negotiate a new deal that protects their interests without forcing a company that is otherwise profitable into bankruptcy.

[punked]

Air Canada would be doing badly either way. There are many factors at play there. The wildcat strikes aren't helping, but then, they're illegal, so that isn't Air Canada's fault, or the government's.

Yah we get it. You can say "back to work legislation will save customers" and then when it is pointed out it wont do that with a recent example you will dismiss that argument. A guy can't win with you.

[punked]

So the company goes bankrupt and the unions get nothing. It is in the unions interest to negotiate a new deal that protects their interests without forcing a company that is otherwise profitable into bankruptcy.

That is what we have been saying. Which is why this legislation is stupid. Let both sides work this out together.

[TimG]

That is what we have been saying. Which is why this legislation is stupid. Let both sides work this out together.

Nothing is stopping them from talking as long as the trains keep running. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Labour disruptions that cause harm to a large number of innocent bystanders cannot be tolerated. Edited May 23, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

So the company goes bankrupt and the unions get nothing. It is in the unions interest to negotiate a new deal that protects their interests without forcing a company that is otherwise profitable into bankruptcy.

First of all bankruptcy restructuring doesnt let you off the hook, and your creditors wont necessarily get nothing. But companies that qualify WILL get limited protection from creditors and the ability to restructure some of their obligations.

As for the unions, if they want to negotiate a new deal then that is up to them. Usually they will stick to their guns until they have not much choice though, but in the end they will compromise.

The company forced THEMSELVES into this position by signing contracts that were not possible to maintain. Bankrupcty is a tool thats meant to help them in this case.

[dre]

Nothing is stopping them from talking as long as the trains keep running. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Labour disruptions that cause harm to a large number of innocent bystanders cannot be tolerated.

Yes they can be tolerated, and they quite often are. If you are angry about a service not being provided your recourse is to hold that company accountable if they are in breach of some contract with you.

[TimG]

Yes they can be tolerated, and they quite often are. If you are angry about a service not being provided your recourse is to hold that company accountable if they are in breach of some contract with you.

Two wrongs don't make a right. It makes more sense to prevent the wide spread disruption from occurring in the first place.

[punked]

Two wrongs don't make a right. It makes more sense to prevent the wide spread disruption from occurring in the first place.

Well then they better actually talk to the union in good faith. You yourself said it is in the unions best interest to take a reasonable offer.

[Smallc]

Yah we get it. You can say "back to work legislation will save customers"

Not customers, the economy.