The Lively Seven fight the Steelworkers Union

[Riverwind]

Has tobacco advertising made you smoke? If it has then you have to be pretty gulliable if you believe enough to buy an item just through advertising.

I don't think you give people enough credit for making choices that they do.

Various companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars on advertising very year because they know that it sells more product. They would not spend that kind of money otherwise. Maybe this is a sign that the vast majority of people are gulliable, however, you should not dismiss the effectiveness of advertising.

Tobacco companies try to sell their products by making it seem 'cool'. Phillip Morris introduced the Marlboro Man in the 60s because they wanted to get more men to smoke what was a 'ladies' cigarette at the time. The ad campaign was a resounding success and probably suckered many teens into starting smoking because they related to the 'Marlboro Man' image.

The SUV market was also a creation of advertising. The Big 3 were screwed when the gov't increased the pollution and fuel efficiency standards in the 80s because they were so far behind the Japanese car makers. So they found a loophole: light trucks were not covered by the new rules so they decided the they could make money selling light trucks instead of passenger cars. The only problem is they had to convince the American public that they wanted these kinds of vehicles. The Big 3 did exactly that through advertising that associated a lifestyle with an SUV that people wanted to have. The fact that the vehicles have no rational connection with the lifestyle depicted is not relevant. The fact that most SUV drivers would never live that lifestyle is not relevant. It was the advertising that made the connection between the SUV and that lifestyle.

[err]

The auto companies made this deal in return for cutting 500,000 jobs.

Where do you get this from?

Your link....

(You can say that it is the purchasers' fault only, just like the tobacco companies have nothing to do with teens smoking)

Teen smoking is hardly relevant to buying big ticket items. Has tobacco advertising made you smoke? If it has then you have to be pretty gulliable if you believe enough to buy an item just through advertising.

There are a lot of gullible people sitting on front of television sets... Adveritising sells... I don't think you can realistically dispute that....

I don't think you give people enough credit for making choices that they do.

Because you don't like SUV doesn't mean you can impose your rationale to prevent others from wanting to buy them.

The market will determine what will sell.The high cost of gas will change the market,just as the market changed the Van craze of the 70's.

People make the choices they do for all kinds of ridiculous reasons... A terribly effective advertising campaign convinced an incredible number of people that they needed these big mombo manly trucks for driving around in the city... not off-roading... for in the city.... The vehicles are impractical city vehicles because they are so large... They are dangerous vehicles to have around the city because the driver's visibility is impaired by the height and sheer volume of vehicle around him... They are harder to park in the city.... They get horrible gas mileage... They pollute umpteen times more than cars...

where's the up-side... Well, your neighbour will think you're really successful to drive one of these expensive vehicles... They'll be impressed by your frivolous nature, not buying a practical vehicle, but a "fun", sporty, prestegious, not to mention very expensive one... You must be pretty successful if you just pull up to the pumps and fill them up every week without flinging...

So millions of people who want to appear to be successful to their neighbours bought these big macho gas guzzlers....

So Canuck, if you want one, the Auto Trader is jam packed with these vehicles now (and so are the new car dealer's lots) because people found that they couldn't afford to appear so successful anymore....

[err]

Doesn't it make good sense (for the automakers) to steer the public in a direction that you don't have competition in....

There is lots of competition,just look at your choices from all the car companies.

Your few reasons are only your opinions.Foreign vehicles still sell well regardless of the import duty,people feel safer in SUV's,Higher sale prices?Yes, everybody wants to pay more for a SUV because it makes them a manly man. Give me a break, who wants to pay more for anything?

Well, yesterday's losers (the people who bought the econo cars, mini-vans, and foriegn "rattle-traps") are now looking to be a little smarter in the eyes of a lot of SUV owners....

Hopefully they learn from it next time....

They will learn,they will learn that other places are far cheaper to produce cars without the excesses that they have to pay in North America.Cars will go the route of cameras,tV's, stereos, and the latest is appliances that will soon be made in Mexico instead of the US or Canada.So will the unions learn, when more of these jobs are eliminated and lost to places that will produce them cheaper and better.

And if nobody has manufacturing jobs in America... who's going to have the money to buy these "cheaper cars" that will be made in Mexico ???

It's too bad for them that they couldn't prevent the majority of workers in their offices from getting their way, isn't it... but I guess that's democracy... Most of the workers voted for the union...

Yes it is too bad that seven people who work in one small bank in a small town outside Sudbury who are happy with their working conditions and their employer now have to get involved in a union that they don't need or don't want. And you rant about equality for people.

And it's too bad that the NDP that I voted for didn't get in... but that's democracy, isn't it....

[fellowtraveller]

In a non-union workplace, what do you think happens to individuals who walk into their bosses office to demand raises, "fairness", equality, time off, etc... A good Capatalist enterprise will make a good example of this kind of employee, to make sure the others stay in line. With a union, workers can demand unreasonable things like raises, equality, time off, and security.... that the individual most often cannot.

I know exactly what happens, having been on both sides of that desk. As an employer, I assess the labour market, the corporate balance sheet and the value of the employee. As an employee, I do exactly the same thing. Only a mentally retarded employer would 'make an example' of somebody asking for a raise. How idiotic is that concept?

Of course, as an employee under Rand and Canadian law, I'd never have the chance to better myself.......

Tyranny.

That is why I'm self-employed and hope fervently to remain that way.

[err]

In a non-union workplace, what do you think happens to individuals who walk into their bosses office to demand raises, "fairness", equality, time off, etc... A good Capitalist enterprise will make a good example of this kind of employee, to make sure the others stay in line. With a union, workers can demand unreasonable things like raises, equality, time off, and security.... that the individual most often cannot.

Only a mentally retarded employer would 'make an example' of somebody asking for a raise. How idiotic is that concept?

I guess there's a lot of mentally retarded employers out there....

[PocketRocket]

Good morning, ERR.

With all due respects, there is much I must address in your post.....

Free the Lively Seven

Their unanimous opposition didn’t matter to the Union or the CIRB. There was no vote. There was no hearing – just the way unions like things to go.

The CIRB forced unionization on these women in their workplace because over 50% of employees in eight branches in and around Sudbury signed union cards.

They aught to check the definition of UNANIMOUS!!! If the MAJORITY of employees wanted to join the union, it is a bit of a stretch to say that seven (out of hundreds) constitutes a MAJORITY. It is a bastardization of the truth.... no... it's an outright LIE.

This argument does not hold water. Consider the recent attempts to unionize a branch of Wal-Mart in Quebec (I forget the name of the town).

Notice I said "A branch".

If a single branch of a large corporate business can unionize, then by the same logic, a single branch can choose to NOT unionize, unless the employer itself has determined that ALL her "shops" are to be union-run.

In this particular bank branch, 100% of the employees were AGAINST unionization.

These courageous women want the law to protect their Charter Right to Freedom of Association, which includes the right to freely choose to associate with a union -- or NOT!

They can look for a job at a non-union shop if they don't want the rights and benefits that the union will guarantee them.....

Which is exactly what they did. They all got jobs in a non-union "shop", ie; the bank branch in which they are currently employed.

Their "shop", as you call it, voted AGAINST inclusion in the union. 100% against.

There is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide, so why should all branches in a particular region be forcibly included???

They want the law to protect them, as members of a free and democratic country, from being pressed into unions, forced to pay dues and be subject to discipline for not toeing the union line. They want the law to protect their wishes and their privacy at home.

Like the law will protect them in event of a bank merger that throws half of them out on the steet.....

Like the union will???

Consider the aforementioned Wal-Mart branch in Quebec. The workers unionized. Wal-Mart immediately closed the branch down, throwing ALL the workers "out on the street".

Please explain to me exactly how the union protected these employees???

Here's another little related story. The Mine Mill Union managed to talk members of a local call center (Yes, I live in Sudbury) in to unionizing.

They promised job security and higher wages and pensions etc etc etc.

The call center immediately fired almost 60% of its staff, and replaced them with non-union employees.

The union went on record as saying "We are not pleased and will be pursuing this matter".

That was almost 5 years ago.

Nothing has been "pursued".

Apparently the union is still not pleased. Of course not. Less members to pay dues.

Since that time, the remaining employees have quit the union, which made the union even less "pleased".

The Steelworkers also tried to unionize my workplace a couple years back. I experienced some of the same intimidation tactics, being bothered in the workplace, phone calls and visits at home, etc.

But I don't get pushed around easily.

I attended a union meeting and made myself heard (emphasis on "made", because they didn't want me to speak, but being loud, I could be heard quite clearly from where I stood, and I didn't need a podium or microphone).

I asked a lot of questions to which they either had no answers.

They really did try to shut me up by dealing out meaningless platitudes, and after a bit, by more intimidation.

The drive to unionize went on for several months, but eventually they gave up in the face of sensible employees who realize that they are being treated fairly and equitably by their employer.

I could go on about this for quite a while as there were several incidents and tactics I have not mentioned here, but for brevity sake, I'll stop here. (Brevity??? Hah)

Why are there no rights to NOT join unions?

If it offends them so much to be part of a union shop... they do have choices... Too bad for them... they couldn't force their values on the majority of employees who chose to become a union shop....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, you're right.

If they don't want to be part of a union "shop", they have every right to not apply to work at a union "shop".

Which is exactly what they didn't do. They didn't apply to a union "shop".

They applied, successfully, at a non-union "shop", and have worked there for quite some time.

Now the union is trying to force itself down their collective throats by unionizing a "shop" which clearly does NOT want to be unionized.

If the other "shops" (ie: branches) want the union, thay can have it, and do, but this "shop" has clearly fought unionization from day one, and should be allowed to carry on with their non-union jobs.

[Canuck E Stan]

PocketRocket,

Well put,

the unions desire to be the saviours of the downtrodden becomes somewhat overbearing to the point they will force you to be downtrodden whether you are or not.

[err]

Good morning, ERR.

With all due respects, there is much I must address in your post.....

Free the Lively Seven

Their unanimous opposition didn’t matter to the Union or the CIRB. There was no vote. There was no hearing – just the way unions like things to go.

The CIRB forced unionization on these women in their workplace because over 50% of employees in eight branches in and around Sudbury signed union cards.

They aught to check the definition of UNANIMOUS!!! If the MAJORITY of employees wanted to join the union, it is a bit of a stretch to say that seven (out of hundreds) constitutes a MAJORITY. It is a bastardization of the truth.... no... it's an outright LIE.

This argument does not hold water. Consider the recent attempts to unionize a branch of Wal-Mart in Quebec (I forget the name of the town).

Notice I said "A branch".

If a single branch of a large corporate business can unionize, then by the same logic, a single branch can choose to NOT unionize, unless the employer itself has determined that ALL her "shops" are to be union-run.

In this particular bank branch, 100% of the employees were AGAINST unionization.

It's awful how slave labour hates unions, isn't it....

These courageous women want the law to protect their Charter Right to Freedom of Association, which includes the right to freely choose to associate with a union -- or NOT!

They can look for a job at a non-union shop if they don't want the rights and benefits that the union will guarantee them.....

Which is exactly what they did. They all got jobs in a non-union "shop", ie; the bank branch in which they are currently employed.

When they were looking for employment, did they only look in "non-union" shops, or were they happy to be gainfully employed....

Their "shop", as you call it, voted AGAINST inclusion in the union. 100% against.

There is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide, so why should all branches in a particular region be forcibly included???

I think you said that you were from Sudbury... Maybe it wasn't you, but anyways, Sudbury voted NDP in the provincial election. They voted differently than the majority of the province.... Why then must they have to endure a Liberal government in Queen's park..... You said that there is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide... so why should all branches be forcibly included.... Maybe it is unionized "region-wide"...

Consider the aforementioned Wal-Mart branch in Quebec. The workers unionized. Wal-Mart immediately closed the branch down, throwing ALL the workers "out on the street". Please explain to me exactly how the union protected these employees???

The union (UFCW) attempted to put a union into place to serve the empoyees.... who are paid slave labour rates... Actually, it did the town a favour... If you'll hunt through previous Wal-mart threads, you'll see how the community subsidizes Wal-mart and their slave-labour practices.

PocketRocket,

I can empathize with your tales of woe. Just because the unions were unsuccessful in the cases that you have described does not make unions "bad" or "wrong". The number of cases where the unions have improved working conditions, protected workers in various ways far exceeds the few negative stories that are sure to exist.

err.

[Riverwind]

The union (UFCW) attempted to put a union into place to serve the empoyees.... who are paid slave labour rates...  Actually, it did the town a favour... If you'll hunt through previous Wal-mart threads, you'll see how the community subsidizes Wal-mart and their slave-labour practices

Err,

Would you actually address the arguments Rocket raised. There are thousands of TD Canada Trust branches in Canada. The UFCM arbitrarily decided that the Lively branch should be included in the union against the wishes of its employees at that branch! How is that fair or reasonable? It is as logical as the UFCW saying that the TD Canada Trust head office in Toronto is now unionised because a few branches in Sudbury signed union cards.

Furthermore, let's assume that the union actually negotiates an increase in wages that is large enough to replace the cost of union dues and, as a result of the higher costs, the bank decides to reduce hours or close the Lively branch altogether? How is the union doing the town or the current employees a favour?

You are living in fantasy land if you believe that the union could get a wage increase AND have no reductions in staff or hours.

[I Miss Trudeau]

You are living in fantasy land if you believe that the union could get a wage increase AND have no reductions in staff or hours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you honestly believe that the bank is currently employing more people than is absolutely neccessary to keep the branch functioning? If rolling back hours were an option, it would already be done.

[Riverwind]

Do you honestly believe that the bank is currently employing more people than is absolutely neccessary to keep the branch functioning? If rolling back hours were an option, it would already be done.

It would be a straight business calculation. Many smaller branches are probably marginally profitable as it is so a large increase in labour costs would require cuts in expenses elsewhere. If expenses cannot be cut then the branch will be closed (just like Walmart).

[I Miss Trudeau]

Many smaller branches are probably marginally profitable as it is so a large increase in labour costs would require cuts in expenses elsewhere. If expenses cannot be cut then the branch will be closed (just like Walmart).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mmhmm. Like executive salaries. Or maybe, just maybe, take a few pennies out of multi-billion dollar profits. Naaaaaah...

[Riverwind]

Mmhmm. Like executive salaries. Or maybe, just maybe, take a few pennies out of multi-billion dollar profits. Naaaaaah...

You think it would happen? Not in our lifetime. Executives have to be paid obscene amounts of money because they are 'special'.

But that does not change the fact that a union will likely cost some people thier jobs.

[err]

The union (UFCW) attempted to put a union into place to serve the empoyees.... who are paid slave labour rates...  Actually, it did the town a favour... If you'll hunt through previous Wal-mart threads, you'll see how the community subsidizes Wal-mart and their slave-labour practices

Err,

Would you actually address the arguments Rocket raised. There are thousands of TD Canada Trust branches in Canada. The UFCM arbitrarily decided that the Lively branch should be included in the union against the wishes of its employees at that branch! How is that fair or reasonable? It is as logical as the UFCW saying that the TD Canada Trust head office in Toronto is now unionised because a few branches in Sudbury signed union cards.

I think the "Lively 7" article stated "The majority of employees in the company voted to join the union". It seems surprising to me that "a few branches in Sudbury" constitutes the "majority of employees" outlined in the "Lively 7" article. Your blatant alteration of the facts does not make your point credible... au contraire ....

I do believe that I addressed PocketRocket's arguments. Perhaps my response wasn't exactly what you wanted to hear....

Furthermore, let's assume that the union actually negotiates an increase in wages that is large enough to replace the cost of union dues and, as a result of the higher costs,  the bank decides to reduce hours or close the Lively branch altogether?  How is the union doing the town or the current employees a favour? 

Are they under-paid... over worked... treated unfairly... Is there some reason that the union had no trouble getting "the majority" of employees to endorse the union.... Maybe there are problems in this workplace that inspired the majority of employees to vote as they did. Maybe there is no problem with wages, but rather with something else... You have jumped the gun and assumed that the union is after raises.... are they ??? Do you know, or are you just shooting your mouth off .... "

You are living in fantasy land if you believe that the union could get a wage increase AND have no reductions in staff or hours.

And again, do you know that the union is asking for a wage hike, or are you just shooting your mouth off because you can....

[Riverwind]

I think the "Lively 7" article stated "The majority of employees in the company voted to join the union".  It seems surprising to me that "a few branches in Sudbury"  constitutes the "majority of employees" outlined in the "Lively 7" article.

The branches in the sudbury area represent an insignificant portion of the workers in a company like TD bank. A majority of the workers in some of the branches in Sudbury voted to join the union. None of the workers in the Lively branch voted to join - they should be not be forced to join since there was no way a majority of workers in the _company_ voted to join.

Are they under-paid... over worked... treated unfairly... Is there some reason that the union had no trouble getting "the majority" of employees to endorse the union.... Maybe there are problems in this workplace that inspired the majority of employees to vote as they did.

I repeat: the union did _not_ get a majority of workers in the company to join. They got a majority of workers in _some_ branches to join. If there are problems in those branches then let them unionize. But _all_ of the people in the Lively branch were perfectly satisfied with their working conditions - so why should they be forced to join a union?

[PocketRocket]

Hi again, ERR:

Consider the recent attempts to unionize a branch of Wal-Mart in Quebec (I forget the name of the town).

Notice I said "A branch".

If a single branch of a large corporate business can unionize, then by the same logic, a single branch can choose to NOT unionize, unless the employer itself has determined that ALL her "shops" are to be union-run.

In this particular bank branch, 100% of the employees were AGAINST unionization.

It's awful how slave labour hates unions, isn't it....

Glib??? Yes, but not really an answer

....They all got jobs in a non-union "shop", ie; the bank branch in which they are currently employed.

When they were looking for employment, did they only look in "non-union" shops, or were they happy to be gainfully employed....

It seems that they were happy to be gainfully employed in a non-union environment.

Their "shop", as you call it, voted AGAINST inclusion in the union. 100% against.

There is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide, so why should all branches in a particular region be forcibly included???

I think you said that you were from Sudbury... Maybe it wasn't you, but anyways, Sudbury voted NDP in the provincial election. They voted differently than the majority of the province.... Why then must they have to endure a Liberal government in Queen's park..... You said that there is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide... so why should all branches be forcibly included.... Maybe it is unionized "region-wide"...

Yes, I'm from Sudbury.

Well, I didn't vote NDP. Not really a good analogy. I've never read or heard where a vote for unionization was either a provincial or a national election or again, that Quebec Wal-Mart could have claimed their results dictated that Wal-Mart should be unionized Canada-wide.

Consider the aforementioned Wal-Mart branch in Quebec. The workers unionized. Wal-Mart immediately closed the branch down, throwing ALL the workers "out on the street". Please explain to me exactly how the union protected these employees???

The union (UFCW) attempted to put a union into place to serve the empoyees.... who are paid slave labour rates... Actually, it did the town a favour... If you'll hunt through previous Wal-mart threads, you'll see how the community subsidizes Wal-mart and their slave-labour practices.

Oh, I'm no Wal-Mart fan. Believe me, I avoid the place like the plague. Rather pay slightly higher prices elsewhere and support local business. Whenever possible, I buy Canadian-made.

But for purposes of this thread, establishment of the union did the EMPLOYEES no favour.

PocketRocket,

I can empathize with your tales of woe.  Just because the unions were unsuccessful in the cases that you have described does not make unions "bad" or "wrong".  The number of cases where the unions have improved working conditions, protected workers in various ways far exceeds the few negative stories that are sure to exist.

err.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unions are not "Bad" in and of themselves. I agree that IN THE PAST unions did much to improve working conditions, protect workers, etc.

But today, in a lot of cases (not all), unions have simply become huge political machines which often bargain from an unrealistic standpoint.

Air Canada workers, demanding more when their employer is on the verge of bankruptcy.

Auto Workers doing the same when the Big 3 are on the ropes financially.

And one of my favorites involves the Steelworkers here in Sudbury....

Several years back (late 80's??? early 90's???) they went on strike against INCO.

They were screaming that because INCO was making record profits, they should be sharing more of the booty.

Then, late 90's, when INCO was in HUGE financial trouble because of their investment in Voisey's Bay, and the lack of return on that investment due to roadblocks with NFLD, same union went on strike, again demanding big pay raises, job security, etc.

Now keep in mind that INCO workers are generally straight out of high-school into a $60k/yr job for doing very little work other than avoiding the shift boss.

In fact, INCO employees have a joke that their job is "A grand a week for hide and seek".

One fellow I know boasted about how he liked the graveyard shift because he'd get a solid 6 hours of sleep on that shift, more than he'd get at home.

Unions, when doing their jobs, are a good thing, but when playing politics, which seems to happen most of the time, are not good at all.

[BHS]

According to an article I just read, non-unionized labour in a unionized shop must pay dues under the Rand formula because they benefit from union representation whether they want it or not.

Question: Under the Rand formula, can a non-unionized worker in a unionized workplace negotiate his own salary with the employer? Or does he automatically have to accept the negotiated salary levels set by the union contract? Becuase if the latter is true, then there is no difference between being a member and not being a member, and his freedom of association has been trameled. Otherwise the term "freedom of association" doesn't have any meaning.

There was a court case in Quebec a few years ago that went to the Supreme Court of Canada, involving construction workers wanting out of the union and claiming that their freedom of association had been trameled. The Court, in a five to four ruling, admitted that a corollary negative freedom (the freedom to not associate) did exist, but that forced unionization of constrution workers was not unconstituional because of the long and byzantine history of the construction industry in Quebec, and the Quebec government's history of periodically updating the law as demand required. Which, quite frankly, sounds like a load of crap to me.

[err]

....They all got jobs in a non-union "shop", ie; the bank branch in which they are currently employed.

When they were looking for employment, did they only look in "non-union" shops, or were they happy to be gainfully employed....

It seems that they were happy to be gainfully employed in a non-union environment.

But when looking for employment, would they have been happy to accept employment in a unionized "shop"... (I know you cannot possibly answer for them, but it does bring up a question) Most people are reluctant to have any kind of change forced upon them, myself included...

Their "shop", as you call it, voted AGAINST inclusion in the union. 100% against.

There is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide, so why should all branches in a particular region be forcibly included???

I think you said that you were from Sudbury... Maybe it wasn't you, but anyways, Sudbury voted NDP in the provincial election. They voted differently than the majority of the province.... Why then must they have to endure a Liberal government in Queen's park..... You said that there is nothing showing that this bank is unionized country-wide... so why should all branches be forcibly included.... Maybe it is unionized "region-wide"...

Yes, I'm from Sudbury.

Well, I didn't vote NDP. Not really a good analogy. I've never read or heard where a vote for unionization was either a provincial or a national election or again, that Quebec Wal-Mart could have claimed their results dictated that Wal-Mart should be unionized Canada-wide.

Did the bank "offer" to unionize nation-wide. I would hardly think so.... so I would imagine that there was a great deal more pressure on the company that a few nickel-belt branches.... The documentation that spawned this thread was clearly one-sided, and most of the people participating in the thread, the same.

Oh, I'm no Wal-Mart fan. Believe me, I avoid the place like the plague. Rather pay slightly higher prices elsewhere and support local business. Whenever possible, I buy Canadian-made.

But for purposes of this thread, establishment of the union did the EMPLOYEES no favour.

I would argue that unionization of Wal-Mart nation-wide would be an excellent thing for the nation... in many ways. The first, and most obvious, is that their employees would have to be paid reasonable wages (and maybe get to shed those God-awful vests)... However, it would force a price adjustment, which would allow Canadian, local businesses to thrive in the same community. Instead, now when Wal-mart moves into your town, tons of jobs are lost at other stores, businesses close down, and lots of people get minimum wage jobs at Wal-mart... But do the N minimum wage jobs at Walmart fully replace the income to the community of the M jobs that were lost....

And if unionization nation-wide made them pull out of Canada completely, that in itself would be a positive thing for Canadian businesses...

Unions are not "Bad" in and of themselves. I agree that IN THE PAST unions did much to improve working conditions, protect workers, etc.

But today, in a lot of cases (not all), unions have simply become huge political machines which often bargain from an unrealistic standpoint.

Air Canada workers, demanding more when their employer is on the verge of bankruptcy.

Auto Workers doing the same when the Big 3 are on the ropes financially.

And one of my favorites involves the Steelworkers here in Sudbury....

Several years back (late 80's??? early 90's???) they went on strike against INCO.

They were screaming that because INCO was making record profits, they should be sharing more of the booty.

Then, late 90's, when INCO was in HUGE financial trouble because of their investment in Voisey's Bay, and the lack of return on that investment due to roadblocks with NFLD, same union went on strike, again demanding big pay raises, job security, etc.

Now keep in mind that INCO workers are generally straight out of high-school into a $60k/yr job for doing very little work other than avoiding the shift boss.

In fact, INCO employees have a joke that their job is "A grand a week for hide and seek".

One fellow I know boasted about how he liked the graveyard shift because he'd get a solid 6 hours of sleep on that shift, more than he'd get at home.

Unions, when doing their jobs, are a good thing, but when playing politics, which seems to happen most of the time, are not good at all.

I agree in principle with much that you say here. There is good and bad with every organization. Without the unions, however, there would be more of the bad than the good for Canadian workers.

When you listen to the news, how many of the stories that you hear are good, heartwarming stoies... Maybe one story at the end of the newscast about saving a kitten stuck in a tree, but overwhelmily, news is "bad news". When you hear stories about Microsoft, Exxon, or General Motors, they are usually "bad news" stories. Similarly, when you hear stories of unions, you only hear the bad stories. The noise about the good stories should be deafening, but we don't hear it... It is the nature of humans... Then, when you get a few extreme-right-wing wing-nuts latching onto these few negative stories, they paint the whole lot (everything about unions and what they do) as bad, bad, bad... When absolutely no balance can be found in their arguments, you have to question their motive, sources, intent, and quantity of brain cells...

Overall, I support unions, but not blindly. I think if you are to balance the good and bad, the good is overwhelming...

[PocketRocket]

Ah, well, we agree to disagree, except where we agree

Definitely have to agree with you about Wal-Mart.

[cybercoma]

The only thing I get from err is that people are complete idiots and need to be told what to do by either the government or a union.

Oh and btw, the Bay/Zellers is unionized and they're not treated any better now that the CAW is representing them. They didn't get a pay increase, they still work sundays and holidays, etc...

Unions have nothing to offer retail.

[err]

The only thing I get from err is that people are complete idiots and need to be told what to do by either the government or a union.

Maybe cybercoma has trouble understanding if there aren't nice colour pictures accompanying the text.

Oh and btw, the Bay/Zellers is unionized and they're not treated any better now that the CAW is representing them.  They didn't get a pay increase, they still work sundays and holidays, etc...

Unions have nothing to offer retail.

They do, and you'd be a fool not to think so... but then again...

In the retail sector, the trend has been to keep employees as "temps", so they can keep their wages down. This also allows the companies to undermine the solidarity between the full-time and temps. The CAW is trying to make changes in this area, to bring up the wages of the temps, extend benefits to temps, and also to have the companies recognize senority rights of employees when it comes to scheduling....

Unions definitely have something to offer employees of retail companies. They have an uphill battle, but somebody has to represent them...

[Semperfi_dani]

I worked at Safeway under UFCW Local 401. We got less after the strike than was offered before hand. The people that crossed the line got the same offer. I who voted for the intial offer felt like I had no choice but to stay out because of the so called "black list" that quite frankly does not exist. I wish i had to choice to belong or not belong. I continued to work for years after, never got anywhere near to full time after 10 years of being at safeway because of senority, despite having a better work ethic than four lazy ass mothers effers above me.

So after about 10 years they offered a buyout which was negotiated with the Union. A buyout that was an embarassment at best...was this the best the Union could negotiate? Not even 6 months wages? Puhleese. But i took it because the union did not protect me from almost being fired. Why? Because i let my mom (who lived in the same household) use my airmiles. It wasn't until i personally spoke to the non-unionized Human Resources manager and explained how i live wiht my mother was I able to protect my job...because the union decided i had no case and would not speak on my behalf. The union i payed dues to. So i took the pathetic buyout....

I am now working for a major financial investment firm in the admin section. I realize that yes, my job is not protected, but neither is it protected in a unionized environment. The union cannot prevent a company from closing its doors and economy going to hell in a handbasket. I am full time. I work regular hours. I have Waaaaaaay better benefits than my fulltime counterpart at Safeway. I get regular job performance bonuses. My manger just recently out of his own pocket gave me a 200.00 Costco card for doing extra work on his behalf. Fair compensation. I do not have to negotiate my holidays based on seniority and I have already been given a promotion after two years....based on my own hard work and performance, not on some set senority wage scale. I am far better off financially than my unionized friend and i just recently was able to negotiate my wages.

Now i realize that not all people are that lucky in a non-unionized environment. And I realize that in non retail environments unions have a benefit. And i also realize that historically, Unions have initiated changes to better improve working conditions for all. And I am greatful.

But what are they doing now? I think Unions need to evaluate themselves in todays society, not some gangster 30's society, and improve their mental approach to employer-employee negotiations.

And i think that if there are employees that do not want to become enabled to the whims of their fellow coworkers and be non-unionized, than they should be able to negotiate their own salary and no be given the benefits of their unionized coworker. Therefore they do not need to pay to the union.