Hehe, why must the ufcw rely on "guides" all the time?
That's too funny. 
ufcw1518-safeway-overwaitea negotiation updates
Call 1866-383-1518
How much for a special phone no#? Choose up to 5 #'s; if the number is available $50 and if not available you pay $25 just for the search;
Good bargain, it does two things. It's easier for the those members who forget which union they belong to. Oops that's only one thing.
I called the number and listened to the recording which will be updated as things progress.
Hello:
ufcw1518 ... Blahh blahh ... to the recorded information line.
This message recorded on Mon Feb 10th (now we know where Tom Fawkes is; sitting by the message machine waitin for brooke to call )
Blah blah .. to provide info regarding negotiations blah blah.
primary purpose is to provide information regarding negotiations and the employers actions blah blah blah ...
Safeway back to the table Feb 12/13/14
Save-on final dates in process.
Zone 1 will receive planning guide for action.
Zone 1 is the target zone for bargaining.
The planning guide to help members make plans.
expected time of action late spring to early summer blah blah blah ...
I'm not kidding, according to the recording that's our plan to fight back the concessions.
Maybe Brooke and Ivan will get out the Ouija board. Hell, you'd probably get better results this way than what the Loman guys got. I think they used the twister game for that dispute: once they both realized they were too fat to play, they just said "to hell with it, lets go to lunch."
Seriously, the posts above sound very scary. I hope retail members are prepared to get more involved in what is really going on, what decisions are being made and who is making them. Writing registered letters to the leadership is one way to test how interested they are in what you have to say. Keep phoning UFCW1518 leadership and your business agent with questions and comments. These people are supposed to be working for you. See how often they get back to you and, more importantly, if the information you receive actually tells you anything, ie. the quality of the information. 
None of this sounds like a plan. It sounds like some gibberish on voicemail. How pathetic. I'll bet you that we could put together a better plan in this thread than these idiots could devise with all their money and lfoty titles. (Hmmm...might be worth a try.)
What is Zone One? Is that the stores that will be allowed to bargain and strike? What stores would be in Zone One? Where is Zone 2 (the "no strike" zone)?
Strike Zone 1 Bargaining Unit (includes the geographic area from Hope to Whistler):
Save-on and Overwaitea stores # (ofg chains)908,912,913,918,926,936,945,952,
960,963,969,974,979,984,986,990,994,997,
998,999. Total of 20 stores.
Some of these store no longer bear these numbers due to relocation or whatever other means of corporate manuevering that took place since the agreement.
No-strike Zone 2 (the rest of British Columbia ) total of 37 stores.
Please note: while 20 stores are directly involved in any dispute, the company is still open and profiting in 37 store. And the dues will keep ... O sh*t I won't even go there. 
I got this off the 1518 site on the OFG negotiations.
quote:
In short, these seven points prevent Overwaitea/Save On from opening a new low cost banner store across the street from your store and slowly driving your store out of business and ending your job.
I don't know what bug's me more...that the UFCW keeps spilling this crap...or that members keep lapping it up!
The law is clear.... if OFG (or any other business) built another store across the street regardless of the name and put their existing store out of business the courts would declair it a "transfer of business" and force the employer to transfer the employees of the old store over to the new one. Just like the LRB forced Safeway to transfer over employees from the Maple Ridge store that closed to the new one. (another instance where 1518 tried to renage on their obligations before a section 12 was waved in front of them)
The fact is the employer wants to cut deep into your pockets and the UFCW couldn't care less as long as they get to increase their member base. So they hide concessions in some phony "we promise not to build a new store beside an old one in exchange for...." clause in the hopes members skip past it to the promise of job security.
Maybe Sundin could trade away your ato's in exchange for the right to refuse unsafe work? perhaps he can even get OFG to agree to provide members with a safe work environment in exchange for a roll over in wages? or how about a "respect and dignity" clause that stipulates no member can be discriminated against on the basis of religious belief, sex or sexual orientation, disabilities or ethnicity? Please!
People had better start reading between the lines during the next several months unless you want to find yourself totally screwed. 
quote:
People had better start reading between the lines during the next several months unless you want to find yourself totally screwed
What people? The GMM was held on the 19th. If there was 10 members attending, besides the exec keeners, I'll ... I'll wear my ufcw 'No concessions button".
The ceo of 1518 said some stuff about ofg I've never heard before so maybe Scott your recollection is better then mine. I hope so 'cause if not then I fear it's a clue as to our demise, I mean agreement(s).
Mr. Sundin said that tho ofg will mostly be sitting on the sidelines watching and craving what safeway gets, there is one issue that ofg has always brought to the table that could still be a thorn in ofg/1518 negs; Apparently ofg has been banging on the machine to get three separate agreements for it's chains. 1 for the lower mainland, 1 for the Island and 1 for the rest of B.C.
Bad, badder and worst would describe best what brooke says the company wants.
quote:
posted by siggy:
Apparently ofg has been banging on the machine to get three separate agreements for it's chains. 1 for the lower mainland, 1 for the Island and 1 for the rest of B.C.
I said a long time ago not to be surprised with a "cost of living" or duel structured style agreement. Cost of living in this province along with market competition and distribution costs differ from region to region. It makes sence that the employer wants a deal that reflects that.(Although I'm certain their retail price's are not going to reflect any savings) You can't blame the employer for using it's head here, that's just good business and higher wages in the lower mainland would deter senior people from posting into the Island and Okanagan killing their wage %. There are countless other benefits for the employer as well.
I think this is a good move for OFG and serves people right. In '97 people had absolutely no problem screwing the new hires out of a decent living and making them work weekends and evenings without any benfits or any chance of getting them. Instead of a "united we stand" mentality it was a "just let me keep mine to to hell with the new people".
So now here we are 5 years down the road and the lower mainland gets to vote...for everybody! Looking at this locals history does anyone actually believe JC's and even pre rad's are going to sacrafice themselves on an elongated strike to protect the wages and benefits of the rest of the province. They'll rationalize just about anything to justify keeping what they got and screwing everybody else. Pretty sad excuse for unionism if you ask me and precisely why trade unionism is on it's way out.
As for OFG sitting on the sidelines.....give me a break. They just tossed away 250 loyal and longstanding warehouse employees and 1518 did nothing about it other than what they were legally obligated to do. To turn around just a few months later and stick it to 6000 more employees would risk substantial public backlash. So the UFCW is more than content to let Safeway (who in this province is has been rather quite of late) play the "bad cop"
Besides, Safeways "take it or we're leaving for good" routine is down pat and people cave. Look at Thunder bay...I said they wouldn't walk away from that market and sure enough they didn't. They're back aren't they? The only reason they ever left in the first place is because they knew before hand the UFCW would prostitute itself to no end just to keep their greedy little hands on what ever bone the company threw them.
Bottom line.....You, and David and I in particular as well as other MFD people busted our ass's to wrestle this local away from the slimy hands of UFCW champians like good 'ole B.S. and the members didn't think a couple dollars donation was worth it to protect their democratic rights. A group willing to cheat is willing to do just about anything. That's what we told them. They made the choice not to listen. So who's to blame here? the employers? the UFCW? no...sorry. they're just doing what they've always done and they're not even trying to hide it. 10 people at a GMM eh? good luck in June.
P.S. what's my password??? I forgot.
quote:
P.S. what's my password??? I forgot
Try clicking on this Scott and then follow the promps, the automated genius will see you through.
You're pro'lly right on Scott. I have never heard these rumblings before and this particular proposal that brooke says he's been battling and avoiding since time began ... is no-where on the official sites' list of ofg's proposals. Has brooke been keeping negotiating secrets from us?
Being a cynic, fatal_ist and a 1518 member I can safely assume it's our fate, it's been 1518 history, when members finally hear about something ... it's probally already happened.
In short, these seven points prevent Overwaitea/Save On from opening a new low cost banner store across the street from your store and slowly driving your store out of business and ending your job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what bug's me more...that the UFCW keeps spilling this crap...or that members keep lapping it up!
The law is clear.... ( TELL THAT TO THE LOMANITES)
if OFG (or any other business) built another store across the street regardless of the name and put ((((their )))) ( HERE IS THE KEY WORD) existing store out of business the courts would declair it a "transfer of business" and force the employer to transfer the employees of the old store over to the new one. Just like the LRB forced Safeway to transfer over employees from the Maple Ridge store that closed to the new one. (another instance where 1518 tried to renage on their obligations before a section 12 was waved in front of them)
DID you pay any attention to the loman saga. YES THEY CAN DO IT! They just sell it for 1$, change the name and Put in a puppet management crew. The store beomes a Coopers foods for 1-2 YEARS MEAN WHILE THEY WATCH THE NEW STORE BE built across the street. Then The brand New JP Market ( Jimmys NON union Alternative) opens Up. BOOM you have NO JOB.
You are very Naive to believe the Liberal Realtions Board would do anything. Maybe the courts in 3-5 years, But the UFCW would have to hire competent lawyers, and More than 1 would have to show up to match OFG 's10, Not have the assisitant dragged out to handle a petty time clock grievance, leaving 1 befuddled incomp to battle the heavyweights.
What happens when Loblaws buys Overwaitea? Whose contract will apply? Will they run under different contracts? You bet they will.
If you don't think OWFG is in shape to sell, why do you think the distribution contract with EV is so cancellable on a moment's notice?
Westfair has close to 400,000 square feet and the cheapest of contracts sitting at the foot of Main Street in Vancouver.
Will Westfair run its RCSS under the old 777 rag and OWFG as a separate entity using the 1518 contract?
Is Brooke smart enough to nail a contract down that won't allow the purchaser to run OWFG as a separate business and drain the Save-on-Foods business to a RCSS?
Will Local 247's Whitlock be bargaining a rug that could be pulled out from under Brooke with Westfair while Brooke is trying to bargain with Overwaitea?
What happened to co-ordinated bargaining?
quote:
DID you pay any attention to the loman saga. YES THEY CAN DO IT! They just sell it for 1$, change the name and Put in a puppet management crew.
I think it's important to stop spreading this myth that employers can do anything they want. They can't, and telling people they can simply because they've gotten away with something in the past only serves to disempower people, something I understood to be the polar opposite of what it was you were hoping to accomplish. A friend of mine used to say "you can't pave the road to reform litering the shoulders with the dead and wounded."
What happened with lomans was disgraceful. Your rights were not protected and the law only works if it's applied properly and diligently. A court battle may have taken a few years and it may have been expensive but it was the "right thing" to do. Had the UFCW taken up the case 10 years ago while they still had an existing contract 3-5 years woundn't have been as significant.
A great deal can be learned for the loman fiasco and I think it's more effective to teach people the lessoned learned there as opposed to a martyr appoach. Far to many union members view their union as an insurance policy that's there for them if something goes wrong. School of hard knocks ts...your just as guilty. 250 lomans workers walked into the party after the music stopped and now your angry you can't find a chair. Why?
I think that's the leason you can teach millions. Unionism is about workers taking ownership and to do that effectively you have to be informed and involved. It's your union and when it fails the root cuase of that failure always has to come back to the members. We know what the UFCW is all about, we know their track record, so what are you doing about it?
Your point Scott was that the law was clear. My Point is NO , it is not. LAW is never clear , IF it was there would be no lawyers needed. just judges. In this province right Now , yes employers can just about get away with any thing they want, Union shops are no longer covered by the labour standards act, If A law does not suit them they re interpret the way it is understood ( with Gov help) so that it will. Time was of no factor in the loman decision if you read it. Employers are playing more and more in the grey areas, and there are becoming More and more large grey areas, Now that labour standards act no longer applies to Union shops. Union contract language is way behind here, having always had the ability to have the LSA to fall back on as a minimum. employers Know this and are pushing the limits Knowing they have a VERY sympathetic LRB.
Scott, I don't think the Loman fiasco was the case of an employer doing anything it pleased within a system built to facilitate such activity.
The system Loman's operates within is equipped with some pretty effective checks and balances. Knowing how to activate and place the checks and balances is the key to a balanced relationship.
Effective unions prevent such happenings or if they can't prevent it, the company would think several times before attempting it.
Foresight, ferociousness and fortitude are the hallmarks of an effective union. Ineptitude, Incompetence and Indifference are not.
I think Loman and OWFG did only what they were allowed to do. When it came time to stop them, lethargy stepped in whenever the law fell short.
The Loman guys could have gone a lot further with the true and undying support of a good union.
_______________________
And TS, you're right about the law. Interpretations of the law are rewritten on a daily basis. Foresight, ferociousness and fortitude drive the new interpretations.
Laws change, or their interpretations change because the law/rules themselves are not clear but grey ???? 
????? I'm not getting drawn any further into a debate on semantics.
I realize this is a "chiken or the egg debate" but the lomans fiasco was the result of union incompetence brought on by member appathy and neglect. As long as the paychecks kept rollin in nobody bothered to get involved with the union, and the union couldn't be bothered to do it's job and protect both the long and short term interests of it's members.
That's why OFG got away with it, not because the legal system let you down. If you want to solve a problem, go to the root for the solution and stop focusing on symptoms. Now back to the subject of this thread.....
On behalf of my friend "the ghost from Christmas past" I've agreed to pass along the following....
1518 should be negotiating the IGA collective agreement 1st and have the major foods follow. IGA is the only employer of the big 4 to recognize early on that 2 tier CBA's was not the way to run a business. Unlike their competitors they lean more towards the notion that their employees are an assest as opposed to a liability. (and a whole bunch of other points I don't remember )
Even if IGA members accepted a roll over CBA it would be a better agreement than OFG, Superstore and Safeway currently have. IF improvements were reached the larger employers could hardly cry poor. They hold a larger market share and maintain higher profits so if IGA can afford it, so can they.
My take on what ghost's point is that IGA recognizes, more so than the other three, the benefit of having a stable and experienced workforce and the valuable contributions these employees make to the overall success of the business. "human capital" can not be directly factored into the bottom line but more and more employers are coming to recognize it as an important asset.
Unlike their competitors, IGA has shown itself to be one of these employers and given 1518's inability to negotiate anything more than a roll over agreement with OFG and Safeway a change in strategy may be in order. Anyhow, just a thought from the ghost of christmas past.
Right on Scott. Ain't it odd that the UFCW always falls to the lowest common denominator?
One would think that if Tober Enterprises can survive with their CA, then the big boys sure as hell could not only survive but prosper. Tober has no where near the operating efficiencies and cost advantage that Westfair, Safeway and OWFG have.
Laws change, or their interpretations change because the law/rules themselves are not clear but grey ???? ????? I'm not getting drawn any further into a debate on semantics.
Scott thats exactly what you did ,when you said the law was clear "Like god standing on his soapbox preaching to the ignorant". You rail at people for believing UFCW stories Of being able to change stores without employees (EXACTLY what happened with warehouseing) and preach the impossibility because the impartial LRB would stop that or as You put it a competent union , wich you have Neither . If you truly believe laws are black and white, I have to take back a lot of the respect I had been giving your opinions. And Your slag on the lomans guys Not standing up or being there. "Like walking in when the music stopped and not finding a chair" I hope you realized they were the spine of the union in OFG. Now that they are gone???? woe unto retail
hey scott...i don't think we waited around to fight ofg, but want we did get was a whole lotta obstruction from the union. In hindsight it was kinda like they were running interference for OFG. i've worked at the retail end of the union...the fact that there was a union there was a bit of a mystery. i mean i knew i was a union member, but how many junior clerks do you know that feel well served by the union or their older brothers and sisters. you talk about iga not wanting 2-tier contracts...well 2-tiered contracts like the ufcw has exist only due to the short-sightedness of the union leadership and the greed of the membership. i mean realistically the younger members are a massive subsidy for the older members. the existing membership keeps everything and the new hires take about a 70% pay-cut. the lomans contract was bad for new hires, but it only took about 3-4 years to reach the top rate and almost parity with the old hires. i understand that this was the result of some unnamed individuals refusing to cave-in to the company and the union negotiating commitee. this union needs a total overhaul...it's morally bankrupt. Or as my younger brother (a safeway clerkII) says, its the Union for Cutting Wages.
Look you guys, I'm just too busy to get into all this right now. Christ I wish I'd never said anything. This takes too much of my time just reading what everyone has to say let alone engaging in the conversation.
Loman people....I'm not trying to kick you when your down but lets start pointing the finger inward as well boys. In '99 I knew pretty much every activist in this local province wide, both supporters of Sundin and people who wanted him out. Yet I don't Know any of the principles involved with the lomans "save our jobs campaign" because I was long since fired before that ever got off the ground.
With the exception of Gord Carter, I don't recall ever seeing a loman worker at a GMM, on a picket line or anywhere else. Only after OFG told you they were cutting you loose did any of you get involved. That's what I think you can teach people.
You can not take your union for granted. You can not show blind faith in your unions leaders because there is no guarantee they'll act in your best interest. The law didn't let you down, the rules were not stacked against you, your union leaders failed to do their job effectively and in your long term best interests. Why were they in that position in the first place? because you were not holding them accountable from day one.
Unfortunately your not alone, you had 20 thousand other brothers and sisters guilty of the very same neglect. 10 people at a GMM is a disgrace. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Get involved, get informed, decide what direction you believe this union should go and start moving. Otherwise stop bitching and complaining and take whatever table scraps the UFCW and their employer "partners" throw you.
"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" Think about it. You are the union, if the union is weak, if the union is corrupt, if it's leadership is out of touch, if they lie, if they cheat, if they betray you etc etc etc who's fault is it? Theirs? or yours because you let them get away with it?
anyway I've got some "me" time tonight at GM place and I'm burried up to my eyeballs for the rest of the week. I'm not ignoring you, I'm just not responding.
Hindsight is 20/20
quote:
You can not take your union for granted. You can not show blind faith in your unions leaders because there is no guarantee they'll act in your best interest.
And yet that is exactly what they're paid for and is exactly the spiel they used to get you to hire them. So, I have to disagree with the blind faith argument as a whole although I do agree that blind faith is no longer an option in this local (and hasn't been since 96, at least).
quote:
It is now questionable whether the statements made by these Safeway Executives were serious or just a stalling tactic.
Brooke says we shouldn't trust 'em , they might be fooling us.
While all this Safeway/OWFG chatter is going on, Whitlock and the Local 247 boys are doin' a dirty dance with Westfair Foods.
Think about it. Westfair gets a 10-year deal with Whitlock. They then buy OWFG or Safeway. They then start closing the bought stores or opening them under the Extra-Foods banner and cheapo Local 247 rag. VOILA! Local 247 gets 10,000 new dues payers, Local 1518 loses 10,000 and 10,000 UFCW members either lose their jobs or get their paycheques and working conditions withered withered to cheaper than Wal-Marts'.
Remember, what the analyst said: Only Superstore outwalmarts Wal-Mart. It may also outufcw Brooke.
It's just like farmers at a cattle auction only the lowest bidder wins!!
As for Scott's comments that warehouse members "...were not holding them accountable from day one." I would like to remind everyone that when Brookie entered the scene it was because the Warehouse members were holding the union accountable. They threatened to decertify over the Denton/Allard affair. They protested as loudly as possible over voting irregularities when Allard was re-elected. As a MFD member, maybe you can relate to how easy that it is???
Scott speaks as though members are included in negotiations and knowingly crafted "sell-out" CA's. The fact is that the UFCW constitution and the process do not,and need not, involve the membership in any real or effective way. In fact it is structured to prevent this.
You talk about member apathy and neglect and then go on to say that response to your comments "...takes too much of my time just reading what everyone has to say..."
You should know as well as anyone how hard it is to fight the machine. They get paid to push out the flatulence and feed at the trough. Warehouse members have been active in trying to change this and, until the internet and sites like this came along, this task was next to impossible. Again, you should know this. Yet you make a juvenile statement like "serves people right". This only perpetuates member divisions and animosities. What is needed are some positive and creative suggestions for dealing with the dynamics this thread recognizes, not derisive and hindsight finger pointing.
I know you have taken some courses but I wonder if the throne from which you pontificate is not in fact just the shitter - there is a smell that wreaks of arrogance and, as far as warehouse participation in holding the union accountable, ignorance.
quote:
The law didn't let you down, the rules were not stacked against you, your union leaders failed to do their job effectively and in your long term best interests. Why were they in that position in the first place? because you were not holding them accountable from day one.
If I understand correctly, Brooke Sundin and cronies were "installed" back in the late 1980's when Cliff Evans was consolidating power across Canada. If you're implying Scott, that the warehouse members (or any members for that matter) could have done something to hold Brooke and his cronies accountable for anything, I'd be curious to hear what that is.
As far as the law is concerned: It most certainly is stacked against working people and lets them down persistently. When have you seen it do otherwise?
I cannot comment specifically on what is going on up in Canada but generally you face the same problems we have.
The members become very interested come contract time and attend meetings in droves. After settlement they disappear until the next contract. In the old days union meetings were well-attended social events. Today, we have many other avenues for social outlets and union meetings are on the bottom of the list.
The members have their hand out just like everybody else. I am an unpaid union volunteer and I, more often than not, hear the member complain how much the BA's make, its their job, what is in it for me ect, ect.
When I ask for help with a volunteer project I am looked at as If I am some nut that just came of the mountain with a sign saying the world will end tomorrow. Our world is ending, but in bits and pieces, here and there, not in one grand crash that the companies would love to see.
The law is stacked against us. The UFCW International constitution is a document written to protect the elite. It can be challenged in court in part due the violation of labor laws that it represents. How do you get the courtiers to represent the members in court instead of their beloved International and the grand vacations that they give those that get along?
The answers can be found here, in this site. We must band together to give direction to our fight. The tools we need are available to us, the hard part is agreeing on a course of action that will bring the most benefit to the members and the most destruction to the machine.
I suppose I'm expected to responed to words like "pontificate" {a word until now used only by one man on this web site}. I'll assume for the moment he's not using an alias I'm not familiar with and that this is indeed a legitimate member. I'm here, despite the fact my employer is stauchly non union using my own name, taking ownership for what ever I have to say and using what precious little spare time I have to do it.
Perhaps you'd feel better if I felt sorry for you and bemoaned the deeds of the corrupt right along with the rest of the chorus? Well I'm not going to do that. Members have to start sharing some responcibility for the current crisis in labour, and if nobody else has the guts to say it because your all afraid the heard will reject you then I will. I'm not a pack animal, I do not run with heards. I'm a straight shooter and I call a spade a spade.
You think you've made a point suggesting I'm just as guilty of appathy? perhaps in addition to school, a full time job and family life I should sacrafice sleep to dedicate my life to this web site even though I am no longer an active UFCW member? Maybe on Sundays I could systematically drop by everyones house and cook you all dinner, do your laundry and clean your house's too?
I'm motivated to build, not bitch. And to that end I've always been very consistant in everything I do. I could have sat around feeling sorry for myself and balmed the UFCW for everything but I didn't. I've pulled myself out of the shitter (with absolutely no help from any of you) and willed myself back into the saddle. I will build something out of nothing, I always do. I will succeed where it's thought to be impossible to succeed and I'll do it because of, and not inspite of who I am.
I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone else. I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone else because my comments are not designed to win your support or your respect. Political support is not my motivation, long term success is and the best way to heal the sick is to treat the source, not the symptoms. What is the source of unionism?
quote:
I'm here, despite the fact my employer is stauchly non union using my own name, taking ownership for what ever I have to say and using what precious little spare time I have to do it.
quote:
perhaps in addition to school, a full time job and family life I should sacrafice sleep to dedicate my life to this web site even though I am no longer an active UFCW member?
quote:
I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone else.
This is a discussion forum Scott. If you're not going to respond in kind, go play someplace else.
quote:
Political support is not my motivation, long term success is and the best way to heal the sick is to treat the source, not the symptoms.
So what do you have in mind?
quote:
posted by weiser:
While all this Safeway/OWFG chatter is going on, Whitlock and the Local 247 boys are doin' a dirty dance with Westfair Foods.
Think about it. Westfair gets a 10-year deal with Whitlock. They then buy OWFG or Safeway. They then start closing the bought stores or opening them under the Extra-Foods banner and cheapo Local 247 rag. VOILA! Local 247 gets 10,000 new dues payers, Local 1518 loses 10,000 and 10,000 UFCW members either lose their jobs or get their paycheques and working conditions withered withered to cheaper than Wal-Marts'.
Remember, what the analyst said: Only Superstore outwalmarts Wal-Mart. It may also outufcw Brooke.
As usual, I'm left to quote myself. I can't help it, I'm just so quotatble....
Considering the Canada Safeway sale rumours, Gib Whitlock's track record, Westfair/Loblaw's track record, and Westfair's demand for a 10-year contract, I'm surprised that not one of the 30 thousand potential victims has anything to say about the aforementioned possible scenario.
That being said, and in response to Scott's comments, I'm sure Scott has seen a deer caught in a car's headlights. It stands frozen and confused until either the car swerves, stops or smacks the deer into oblivion. Deers run on instinct and learned reactions. Staying perfectly still in the face of danger works well for the deer 9.8 times out of 10. However, it's the .2 times that's the killer.
Union members have been indctrinated to think that union leaders all know what they are doing and that what they do is always in the best interest of the members. Even when they see that they are being ripped off, to lose their belief is to lose everything.
In the Loman and so many other cases, the Power Source has been put in a pen and left to be hunted at the most opportune time. They believed what the union told them. The union told them that they were in a sanctuary. In reality they were in a private game farm waiting to be dispatched for sport.
Don't blame union members for believing the courts, employers, schools, unions and news media. When you have that many individuals and groups telling you that your union is good and looking out for your best interests, why would you believe a relatively lone voice out in "right" field?
What is worse is that the Lame Duck Local was making the defense, in effect for all unionized workers, that the Loman style "change the name/buy/sell the company/award contract to subcontractor/change the name on the paycheck" bullshit was in fact an employer using third party rhetoric to effect a labour relations purpose.For those that took in the hearing, it came as no surprise that UFCW 1518 lost that arguement and its reconsideration application.
If you look at the BCLRB No B392/2002 decision, the long list of what OFG actually controlled in respect to Loman is extensive. Loman could not even sell shares in the company that might effect a change in ownership without OFG's approval. Seems they were worried that a new owner might actually try to improve efficiency rather than go along with killing it!!!
The LRB deemed that the list of what OFG controlled was not fundamental control. The LRB chose to see fundamental control as who gave "day to day" direction to the employees.This decision is the green light for the very kind of crap that Weiser is talking about. Who is or is not a "third party" just got a huge bump in favour of such corporate manipulations. Meanwhile, down the road at EV, OFG is the only party allowed to cancel the agreement at any time. Even the union has to wait until 2009 to talk about it. Third party my ass.
Meanwhile Ivan and Brooke and people like them continue to pump out the flatulence like that is their primary purpose. And paid handsomely to do it, safe in the knowledge that the constitution will keep it that way.
A letter from Ivan addressed to "Dear Member", dated March 14,2003, adds to the confusion Loman members have over if the issue will be taken to the Supreme Court. Ivan states that, "We are disappointed with the decision of the LRB and we have now requested our legal counsel to review all of the decisions with a view to apply to the courts to have the original decisions overturned." What's confusing is that on the back side of the letter is a letter from their legal counsel, dated March 4,2003, ie 10 days earlier,that states, "Enclosed please find the Board's decision in respect of the Union's application for reconsideration. You will note that the Board has dismissed the Union's application for reconsideration. Upon review of the Reasons for Decision, it is our opinion that there are no grounds for judicial review from this decision." What a circus!!!
quote:
argumentum ad misercordiam
What are you talking about? that sounded like an appeal for pitty? I think that's precisely the problem with the lack of tone on the computer, you can't get a feel for a persons mood and disposition. And yet your all so convinced organizing a new movement is going to be driven by the internet 
We don't need a new movement, the movement is here run by a bunch of corrupt basturds.
Make the movement to throw the basturds out of office. Take a page from the script of Ken Paff of the TDU movement (Teamsters for a Democratic Union). He made an impressive showing in his day.
And in his day the machine would dynamite your house, car and family. I speak from experience because I have had bottle bombs bounced off my house.
Discourse is great, action is better. Put both in play and you will have a bunch of machine heads ducking for cover.
quote:
What are you talking about? that sounded like an appeal for pitty?
No it didn't "sound" like one. It is one.
Instead of explaining your position or justifying your points when someone disagrees with you or takes issue with something you state, you play the pity card and back it up with immature defiance.
quote:
I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone else. I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone else [...]
On the plus side, you didn't disappear for a couple of months this time.
quote:
Attack the problem not the person
Now I think from time to time every one of us has been guilty of this offence. It happens to the best of us because of the nature of this forum. It's highly personal emotions via an impersonal format and kind of like road rage people feel invincible sitting behind a computer moniter and say things they would never say face to face.
Things can get distorted in the transfer of thought when a person cannot rely on emotional intelligence to pick up on body language ques and hear important things like tone of voice. That's why employers have not widely adopted the inter or intra net for work groups to do projects on. The personal dynamic is essential to effective communication and teamwork and studies show the adverse effects from personal animosities that often develope simply because of misunderstandings on the internet or in e-mails have a devistating negative impact on the employer long term.
Misinterpreted meaning causes irreputable harm to the working relationship of team members and employers are left with low moral, higher turnover and increased training costs wich drastically reduce competative effectiveness. So despite the monetary cost savings in travel, office space etc employers ( as cheap as they are) know better than to go down this road.
I've heard you all talk about the internet as being the champion of the new worker movement. My original idea in using the internet was simply to lay out in writen form my ideas to improve the union so workers could read them at their own leisure. To let people ask questions etc. Ray Drew thought up the "gripe vine" which Slek turned into this forum.
The group that accomplished the impossible in '99 only to see it slip away because of corruption was once a fairly effective team. Now, Siggy and I are the only two that remain. Why? well because of this site and that's why, by itself, the web won't work? because in this format instead of "advice" from slek I hear and interpret "insult and attack" and feel like my pride is at stake. In person I'd assert myself physically and either the fight would be on or slek would correct my interpretation. On the web I'm left to either ignor the comment and move on or escalate things further to which slek may feel attacked and escalate things even further than that.
This forum is, whether you like it or not, a double edged sword. It's great when everyone agrees but deadly when we don't. Reap members do not post here. why? ill advised emails from us to them and visa versa. In person I have little doubt it would have worked. T.S. has not posted here is some time. why? perhaps my posting came across far too harsh. I hope not. Or maybe he's on holidays, or busy at work. See, all I have is speculation. An attribution error where I over estimate the internal reasons for behaviour and underestimate the external. And therin lies the problem.
In the people business nothing will ever replace or displace human interaction. No organizing effort will ever succeed without human interaction just like no on-line book store or retail store has ever been a success. People need interaction and I find along with it, mutual respect. Without them everything goes to hell.
That's such bullshit Scott.
This whole "tone" tripe is just you trying to save face for being called onto the floor for your statements - again - and your continuing refusal to take opposing opinions head on.
You seem to be the only participant here that has trouble "interpreting" anything so, before you continue attacking the medium why don't you take a closer look at how you're utilizing it.
And check your "pride" at the door cowboy. I've got no patience for your fragile ego anymore.
quote:
no on-line book store or retail store has ever been a success.
Amazon.com
Can we get this back on topic now?
Your the web master, I can't fight you with my hands tied and in this forum that's precisely what I'd be trying to do. Your not worth it.
But it's a great big small world out there with lots to do. That's my forum, that's where I'll stay. I can't wait to welcome you too it just as soon as you move out of your parents basement and finally parly this webmaster gig into a full time job you can support yourself on. 
Scott, do you see any value in working collaboratively with others towards a goal? If a person who is very committed to a certain goal has to choose between his/her sense of being slighted or the value that comes from collaboration, which should s/he choose?
Maybe we should move this discussion (if we want to pursue it further) to another thread. I think this thread was about ufcw1518-safeway-overwaitea negotiation updates?
Hey, maybe it's time to get back on track.
I read the following on the Local 1518 site:
quote:
...REAL CANADIAN SUPERSTORE/WAREHOUSE CLUBS
This is Safeway's favourite competition ‘boogey-man'.
Every set of negotiations since 1987 has seen Safeway paint RCSS as the ‘death knell' of the company, yet year after year Safeway successfully competes with RCSS.
Safeway has presented a contract comparison between the RCSS and Local 1518 collective agreements that is truly amazing in its creativity, but disappointing in its accuracy.
Comparing the two collective agreements is like comparing apples and oranges. The two companies operate from a completely different perspective on doing business. The Local 1518 collective agreement is in line with the way in which Safeway does business and the RCSS collective agreement reflects the way it does business.
The average RCSS store is twice the size of the standard Safeway. RCSS sells a mix of grocery product and general merchandise; most stores are close to a 50/50 split between the two. Safeway is essentially a grocery store with a few general merchandise sale items in the stores from time to time.
RCSS does not place an emphasis on customer service; in fact the opposite is true. Customers in an RCSS are pretty much on their own including bagging their own purchases.
The goal of RCSS is to sell product as cheaply as possible and to attract customers that don't care about service or appearance of the store. This is the complete opposite of Safeway's approach to retailing.
RCSS hires with a goal of keeping its turnover of employees high in order to insure employees do not progress up the wage scale into the higher wage and benefit brackets, therefore keeping its labour costs lower than Safeway.
At the end of the day it is debatable whether or not Safeway and Real Canadian Superstore have much in common at all except they are both retailers. RCSS is looking for customers that care little about service or product quality and Safeway is looking for customers that care all about service and product quality. Neither one is competing for the same customer....
What a load of bullshit!
Westfair has taken a huge chunck of change from Safeway and Overwaitea. The UFCW gave a favoured deal to Westfair.
Brooke is probably right that Safeway's contract comparison is off. Safeway really doesn't have a clue exactly how good a deal Westfair has. One has to remember that what you see is not neccessarily what you get with the Westfair agreements. How vigerously a union administers the contract can mean a bundle to the employer.
I remember when Bernie Christophe was naïve enough to actually agree to how the Alberta Superstores were serviced. He took the Alberta contract at face value. A few years later when he grieved a couple of things, he found out that what the Alberta contract said and what the practice was were two very different things. Bernie got stuck with a Superstore agreement that said one thing but meant something else.
As for Brooke's take that the Superstore deal is okay with him, read his words from yesteryear:
quote:
Food union leaders fight Superstore local's deal
The Vancouver Sun; Vancouver, B.C.; Apr 21, 1989
Valerie Casselton;
Two B.C. food-union local leaders ents challenge the creation of a local for about 3,000 Real Canadian Superstore workers, even though their international headquarters approved it and its contract.
"We'll continue to pursue our complaints with the national and international offices," Leif Hansen, president of Local 2000 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, said Thursday.
Both the contract and the creation of Local 777 has been criticized by Locals 1518 and 2000, which charged that about 500 Superstore workers fell into their jurisdiction.
A joint statement Hansen issued Thursday with Brooke Sundin of Local 1518 said the decision to approve 777 and its contract "surprises and disappoints us."
"We believed when we filed our complaint with the international union that the Local 777 agreement severely damaged our union as a whole . . . and we remain unalterable in that position."
Hansen said he has appealed the issuing of the 777 charter to the international president.
The existing locals also fear the lower wage rates of the new local will compromise their own contract talks now under way with Safeway and Overwaitea. The new local's contract provides starting pay rates about 30-per-cent less than other UFCW contracts, which begin around $10 an hour.
The locals complained to the union's head office in Washington, D.C., and forced an investigation.
They criticized the decision of the international union and national director Clifford Evans to defend the contract and the new local.
They said they don't know why Local 777 was created when the UFCW already had locals in B.C. who could represent the workers.
Evans said this week that even though 1518 and 2000 have negotiated one of the best agreements in North America, with Safeway, he nonetheless believed the existing locals would be unsuccessful in organizing Superstore workers.
The local presidents met Thursday with B.C. Federation of Labor president Ken Georgetti and said they have a commitment from the Fed to continue to challenge the Local 777 agreement.
Hey Bro-Ken even took a shot at me-as if I was the mastermind behind the despicable deal. You should have seen the bastards hugging in the UFCW caucus room at the CLC convention in Montreal.
Read this, and pay close attention to Bro-Ken's remarks at the bottom:
quote:
Superstore contract approved; Panned Superstore contract approved by top union officers
The Vancouver Sun; Vancouver, B.C.; Apr 20, 1989;
Valerie Casselton
Top officers of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in Toronto and Washington, D.C., have approved a contract for B.C. workers that has been widely criticized by the B.C. labor movement.
The contract between the Real Canadian Superstore and a new UFCW local, 777, which was created especially for the megastore, conforms to B.C. law and the union's constitution, said Clifford Evans, UFCW national director and international vice-president.
"With respect to its current provisions and form, I find, and president (Bill) Wynn concurs with that recommendation, that the collective agreement is acceptable," Evans said at a Richmond press conference Wednesday.
The contract has been criticized by the existing UFCW locals, 1518 and 2000, which said it contained substandard wage rates, prevented future improvements, and compromised their contract talks under way now with Safeway and Overwaitea.
Those locals complained to the international president about the new local, then announced March 30 that Wynn had instructed Local 777 to bring the contract "into line with the law and union's constitution."
Evans said his investigation showed the contract "has problems," but that "it is a good collective agreement and it was arrived at properly" and is acceptable as a first contract.
The "collective agreement is not perfect and I don't think any agreement is," he said, adding that its starting rates, premiums and some language are not as good as the "best agreement" negotiated by the other locals with Safeway.
But the Local 777 contract provides better wages and benefits than non-union workers would receive, recognizes that Superstores must compete with non-union retailers as well as unionized grocery chains, and ensures no other union gets a foothold in the Superstores, he said.
Evans, who said he would present his report to the officers of locals 1518 and 2000 after the press conference, objected to suggestions that he was not consulting the B.C. unions.
"Not 100 per cent, but in most instances, in our organization consultation is either number one or close to it," he said.
Asked why the international union did not trust the existing locals 1518 and 2000 to organize the workers without creating a new local, he said: "We understood they would not be successful. I know that is not a good answer to your question, but I don't want to get sued for libel."
He said the UFCW was "forced . . . to choose between chartering a new local to organize the employees or losing a major retail employer because of personality conflicts." He would not detail the personality conflicts.
The officers of locals 1518 and 2000 were in meetings and could not be reached Wednesdy night.
Evans said the B.C. locals were told when the new union's charter was issued, around Jan. 17. He said a document dated Jan. 15 was a draft of the current agreement and the contract ratified Feb. 12 on behalf of 120 members in Kelowna - and then applied to the Metrotown Superstore workers - was not substantially different from the earlier draft.
Evans said it was the international union that made the decision to create the new local for the Superstore workers and then found a president for the local - Gilbert Whitlock - and a representative, Hugh Finnamore.
Evans praised the two as "innovators, organizers and trade unionists" and said Finnamore's credibility with his members is unquestionable.
"Anyone who questions their trade union credentials simply does not have the complete information," he said, referring to the uproar the Local 777 contract created in the labor movement.
B.C. union leaders, including B.C. Federation of Labor president Ken Georgetti, have criticized Finnamore and the Local 777 contract.
Georgetti has said he "would not have Hugh Finnamore negotiate any contract for any union . . . at any time" and that Finnamore's negotiating and representation is "business trade unionism at its worst."
Let me set the record straight:
The Superstore deal is an abomination. It was cut to give Westfair a huge advantage over the competition. That's even though they had a huge advantage because their enitre workforce was at the bottom scale because they were brand new.
The first Superstore is numbered Store #1518 because Westfair thought that the 777 deal may fall through, so they numbered it the same as the local that they thought they might wind up with. It was their little joke in later years.
Did I cut the deal? Read this and tell me how high up the ladder the deal was cut.
I'm posting this because no one should believe any bullshit that the Westfair deal is a good deal or that it doesn't affect any other UFCW members.
Hell, non union stores pay more than Superstore. And by saying "pay" I don't mean phoney top rates printed in an abomination of a contract.
Dammit HJF, I had no idea Cliff Evans was such a big fan of yours! Hell, that's a keeper for sure. I'll bet that even Bro_Ken would take back his criticism When you consider the garbage contracts that sooooooo many of the CLC-affiliated unions, including his much beloved ufcw have been bringing home throughout the 90's and now into the 21st century, I hardly think that he would be taking shots at anyone's bargaining ability. I'm not aware that you've bargained concessions ever, so you're probably way up in Bro_Ken's estimation by now.
Anyway, UFCW members: Why don't you ask the great Michael Fraser if any backroom discussions are taking place with OFG, Safeway or any other businesses that may be contemplating a takeover of those companies. If there's a talk of a takeover and rumours about a 10 year deal are in the air, would I be surprised? Hell no.
HJF: One of these days you're going to have to tell us more about the days when Cliff Evans thought you were a great guy. I think it may be time for the second season of the Backroom Chronicles.
Todays mailing from 1518 left me absolutely offended. It includes a glossy 4 page personal planning guide, for a strike or lockout.
The pamphlet discusses ways to cover your ass when the collecters call, some lame ideas about child care, your medical needs and generally cutting costs leading up to and including a dispute so you don't starve to death while they are playing kissy ass with your employer.
There is a section with tips and a para in it that exemplifies the callous nature in which the members are treated. It reads as follows:
quote:
Here are some tips on 'stocking up' ....... do not get carried away and end up buying a year's supply of anything! Remember, you can overdo a good idea! Eating your way through ten cases of beans would be worse than a month on strike! .....
If this is a lame attempt at humour it isn't funny, the members are living on beans now.
quote:
What a load of bullshit!
Unfortuantely it is because of the backroom 777 agreement (and all like it) that there isn't anyone left to call bullshit. The member turn-over has given ample room to spin all they want.
The sad fact is; No matter what the outcome of the current round of BS negotiations turns out to be, it has to be one step up from where 75% of the members are right now.
Remember there isn't anything lower then minimum wage, no beneifits and no respect.
You may have noticed, as long as i'm still being paid by a UFCW local, i make a concerted effort to stay out of other local unions stuff. Call it chicken shit or professional courtesy, in either case, its a personal choice...least for now.
I couldn't help but reflect on two quotes from the article, that are very interesting when you put them together. See if its just me:
quote:
Georgetti has said he "would not have Hugh Finnamore negotiate any contract for any union . . . at any time" and that Finnamore's negotiating and representation is "business trade unionism at its worst."
quote:
Asked why the international union did not trust the existing locals 1518 and 2000 to organize the workers without creating a new local, he said: "We understood they would not be successful. I know that is not a good answer to your question, but I don't want to get sued for libel."
I do realize these quotes are not by the same person, but isn't it just a little ironic. We've got one guy running at the mouth who wouldn't know a sweetheart deal if it ran him over, and another who is concerned about being sued for being honest. Maybe i'm way too practical, but getting a firm grasp of facts has always been an important part of what and how i do my job.
Could this be one of those ever so important TEACHABLE MOMENTS? . Smile Hugh, only in America, oops, only in North America.
In related news, the UFCW Local 247 site is up now.
Yeah ... the 247 is up; They're calling it (locals; 2000, 777, 1518) an alliance now.
roll over? I didn't say roll over, did you say roll over?
Too much, I can't take it no mo, I can't aaaaaaahhhhhh!.
Roll over has not been any part of the negotiation discussions and now it's all the rage.
Is this a pep talk or a prep talk?
quote:
ALL OF A SUDDEN A ROLL OVER DOESN'T SOUND
SO GOOD DOES IT?
ALL WE WANT IS OUR FAIR SHARE!
Both Leif and Brooke prove, once again, how to pump out the bullshit. Leif forgets to mention how 777 destroyed the entire industry for UFCW workers. Brooke loves to talk about how inflation might work in the near future, but not a word about his pathetic record on the very same issue in years past.
Here's another "version" of the devastating effects of the 777 deal, this time from the "Employment Paper", March 29 - April 4 edition:
"In western Canada, retail grocery was once considered a truly great place to work - as an entry level job, while going to school, or as a part or full time career. The wages were comparatively high, the benefits were good, the major chains were an enjoyable place to work. But, beginning in the early 1990's, economic pressures and new competition combined to squeeze the employment picture, and led to labour contracts that featured buyouts of many experienced, long term employees and the introduction of a new entry level of employment, one that included low initial pay, a much longer term of advancement and restricted available work hours. This not only made the industry less attractive for job seekers, in the minds of many it created an atmosphere of animosity and a reduced level of service in the stores. There's not much doubt it has had an impact on customer service at store level. One chain store manager sees it this way:
'The people we hire today work about 12 hours a week. They get paid just over $8.00 an hour, it'll take almost five years for them to get up to $10.00. So they're looking for another job, to either supplement or replace the one they have here', he says. 'And the long term employees we've kept are sick of trying to do the work that wasn't completed while they're off shift, and don't have the time or even desire to help train new staff."
The article goes on to point out, "What was once viewed as an attractive long term career is now seen by many as another interchangeable low paying job. The chains used to hire people from McDonalds, now the fast food chain is hiring from them."
All the above reflects one single watershed moment in the history of biz-union sellouts: the chartering of the 777 local and the collective agreement that came from that local. Brooke told the guys at the warehouse that he was in Hawaii and didn't know about it. Witnesses to the events tell a much different story; Brooke was willing to go along with it as long as 1518 got the pension money from the deal.
So the lame duck local want to start quacking about inflation in the near future. Brooke, why don't you ever quack about your past record on inflation vs. real wages? That water too dirty for you to swim in?
So April 1st has come and gone. Why havent you guys walked?
I worked at the Lomans Warehouse and we salivated for the chance to do that.
You got no contract...walk out.
If you don't, Brooke and Ivan will screw you right along with your employer. You WILL get a shitty deal.
Tell Brookester to F*ck himself and hit the bricks.Your emplyer doesent expect you to do that. You have to do the unexpected. It's the only chance you have.
quote:
You got no contract...walk out.
Will you bring do_nuts? I'll be the one standing on the curb. 
You were there for Lomans fight, the answer to your question is pretty simple.
It is quite hillarious because if there is one message the members do hear from the machine is; The existing contract is still in good force until a new one is negotiated. The part about forcing a new one never comes up (of course not )
What are the power source options when an agreement expires?
So April 1st has come and gone. Why havent you guys walked?
I worked at the Lomans Warehouse and we salivated for the chance to do that.
come on Tony You cant be that stupid. First of all why will OFG employees walk? Ivan an brooke have told OFG there will be no strike at their stores. they have sold out the safeway members and Promised OFG a me too contract on whatever safeway signs. so win or lose OFG get their "level playing field" with safeway and Brooke and Ivan hand back the Business that was lost to OFG during the" FAR too successful for them" leaflett campaign .
Firstly brooke and Ivan keep the masses Ignorant of how the process of being able to strike actually works. Mis Interpret or invent road blocks to slow the process when it starts to gain momentum. throws legal Mumbo Jumbo with Short Moore And Neverwonacase letterhead on them telling the hows and whys it cant be done without explaining anything and sowing More confusion.
PS
scott the word Pontificate perfectly describes your condescending ,soap box preacher style of getting your point of veiw across. Many of Us here have as much or more Post sec schooling as you. we just dont rub it in everyones face with every second post we make.
and yes i have been on holidays for a bit .and lots of my spare time is spent trying to figure out the inner working of the new gong show Union I am part of RWU loc 580.... Jst listening to and watching the finger pointing over the hows and whys 's of the EV deal is comical. NO one there is willing to take ANY responsbility for that one. Or maybe its My I am gonna kick the idiot who come up with this "EV" deals ass . that makes them all do the three monkeys routine. they are still trying to pawn the we told themn not to accept it story on me
I'm fascinated by watching the manipulation of the Power Source. At the same time, I'm appalled.
As usual, the Power Source is softened up prior to bargaining. They are told that annihilation awaits those who take on the mighty employers. The best one can expect is escaping with their lives and maybe the ragged shirts on their backs.
Then comes the bargaining bluster. The machine heads scream, 'Dignity! Justice! No rollbacks! Job security! WE WILL STRIKE IF WE HAVE TO!!!!'
Then comes the trial balloon hidden in the next salvo of bravado-laced cheap threats:
['Rollover!? Never! Hey people, these guys want a rollover for five years, and they'll let you keep your skins. Well, we said, ‘No way Jose!' and we told ‘em you'd give up your jobs before you accept what you have instead of a rollback.'
What happens next?
Now the MRs will be sent to the field to ascertain what the proletariat thinks. Do they want a strike that will annihilate them, or would they prefer to live another day.
If the Power Source seems friendly to the offer of a rollover, the deal will be inked and presented to the Power Source as the only alternative.
If the machine heads misread the Power Source, and they reject the stupid rollover, then the employer will be given the green light to do something distasteful to soften the Power Source up.
Hey, who here remembers this routine when Overwaitea threatened to close six stores on Vancouver Island? Who remembers, Tom Fawkes' words?
quote:
Tom Fawkes, communications director for Local 1518 of the union, said Thursday the stores were saved as part of a larger agreement reached between the company and the union governing Overwaitea's plans to expand into the low-cost food business….
…Darrell Jones, general manager of operations, provided no details, saying negotiations "are between us and our employees.''
"We worked with the union to come up with something that gave us a competitive playing field in those markets.''
An Overwaitea news release touched on the issue of future growth, however, saying the company is "continuing to build new stores and aggressively grow the company.''
Fawkes said he believes Overwaitea wants to enter the big-box grocery sector.
"The company came to us several months ago and said, `We want to open a whole new low-cost banner store and we want you to give us a lesser collective agreement for those stores.' ''
Does this mean that the Superstore contract has now been accepted as "cool" by Local 1518? Is that why all of a sudden Brooke is so vigerously defending the Superstore deal?
You see, sometimes what you think you see is not really what you are getting.
Five years is enough time to get new banners up and running at cheaper rates and to start the closure plan for the old banners--unless of course the old banner employees want to accept the cheapo deal cut for the new banners.
You may think you are accepting a rollover, but in reality you are accepting whatever is given (notice I didn't say bargained) to the employer for the new banners.
quote:
PS
scott the word Pontificate perfectly describes your condescending ,soap box preacher style of getting your point of veiw across. Many of Us here have as much or more Post sec schooling as you. we just dont rub it in everyones face with every second post we make.
...... Or maybe its My I am gonna kick the idiot who come up with this "EV" deals ass . that makes them all do the three monkeys routine. they are still trying to pawn the we told themn not to accept it story on me
You'll have to forgive me but I don't know what you look like or who you are so seaking you out isn't realistic. I love to go for coffee at the Jave Hut in Langley on hwy 10 between 7-9ish depending on how my workouts at the gym go. Perhaps you'd like to continue this conversation there, schedual permitting? I expect I'll be there this week, perhaps thursday or even Friday. I look forward to finnally meeting you in person T.S. and trust we'll both come away from it enlightened.
That is garbage Scott. Wholly unwelcome and, quite frankly, pathetic behavior. Your posting privileges are suspended indefinitely.
I am sure we both would scott. But I dont get out Langley way much these days. its a 45 min drive.I Just was hopeing you would take the critisim constructively, You have a style of well Pontificating . when you type you are right the sarcasm and tone maybe do not come across. You seem to have some bright ideas but also you have to admit when you are well being ..... Pontifical...Lol If thats even a word
1518 needs to vote tonight to strike !Being a person who works for Safeway I know one thing this company is a lieing shack of crap!!Brooke you better call a strike right after the meeting dont make the misake we did ,even though we could be getting sold soon .
When I asked the check-out person at Safeway about the strike vote this afternoon, she had no idea there was one. Maybe it doesn't matter how the membership votes. The ballots can be carted off to legal limbo back east at the first hint of trouble.
slek, your treatment of scott is what's pathetic. in case you forgot, he and dave started this thing called the mfd, and you came aboard and leached your way in. you set up this website for the members, but seems to have lost your way in the true meaning that it was started for. you sit at home in your mommies house in the basement leaching a living from this overly cluttered web site.
you sit there acting like god and telling who can post what. the last time i checked we have freedom of speech. i suggest you get away from your mothers breast and start helping the members instead of pontificating to the poor souls who thought you had an idea of what you were doing.
i hope you have the guts to post this and not censor me.
Childish indeed.
Sorry bub, but free speech does not extend to threats of violence.
The rules here are stated quite plainly when you register.
quote:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
Break the rules, suffer the consequences.
It's a pretty simple concept.
where is the threat of violence?
i read it and don't see it.
please enlighten me
This thread has gone off-topic enough already.
If you want to discuss it, take it to email. I can be reached via the "email" button to the right. -->
"the thread has gone of topic"
you started this by censoring one of the founding members. and by the way, if you think this is scott, it isn't. i'm a good friend of his who thinks it's a shame what has happened to the dream of he and the ones who started the mfd.
i will end this now since you will not show me the violence.
too bad the dream has died
members of ufcw 1518 showed there support for a strike by 98% ....i say we give it now and forget the perishable notice,the company is harassing the members and we can't work under there barberic conditions.we are constantly being watched and harassed by management to do more with the little staff we have.... 
flash burd the bird,,,98% strike vote in b.c....
Welcome to the forum Gavinder
Strike vote is in (and already posted? 
)
quote:
98%?Safeway, Are You Listening?
Safeway members voting in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley over the past two days have voted 98% in favour of authorizing their Negotiating Committee to call a strike if Safeway refuses to negotiate a fair collective agreement
It doesn't get much clearer then 98%.
Keep your eyes on Safeway, but keep the pressure on the union.
Local 247 is only now getting around to opening bargaining with the Real Canadian Superstore. You'll notice that Gib Whitlock is the yapper for that round of bargaining and Leif Hansen is talking for the OFG/Safeway sessions. Why is that? Why won't they give the whole shootin' match to Leif to handle? Why does Whitlock have such a tight grip on the Superstore deal?
Anyway, You've got the cheapo Superstore deal and you have Whitlocks hand-picked group sittin' at the table with Loblaw/Westfair Foods.
Then when you read newspaper headlines that say, "Safeway likely Loblaw target," you start to wonder what would happen if Loblaw bought Safeway.
Then you take into account Tom Fawkes fine words:
quote:
Tom Fawkes, communications director for Local 1518 of the union, said Thursday the stores were saved as part of a larger agreement reached between the company and the union governing Overwaitea's plans to expand into the low-cost food business….
…Darrell Jones, general manager of operations, provided no details, saying negotiations "are between us and our employees.''
"We worked with the union to come up with something that gave us a competitive playing field in those markets.''
An Overwaitea news release touched on the issue of future growth, however, saying the company is "continuing to build new stores and aggressively grow the company.''
Fawkes said he believes Overwaitea wants to enter the big-box grocery sector.
"The company came to us several months ago and said, `We want to open a whole new low-cost banner store and we want you to give us a lesser collective agreement for those stores.' ''
You start to wonder what sort of "new banners" OFG is about to open under cheapo contracts. Hey, what would happen if OFG bought Safeway?
You start to get a bit uneasy when both Local 1518 and Local 247 have given two of the three big players cheapo contracts. That leaves Safeway, which is reportedly up for sale, with no cheapo contract.
And what about IGA? In this morning's paper another union IGA is about to close to make way for a Home Depot. IGA has given up opening union stores and simply opens non-union stores. Is that because they have been left out of the line up for cheapo contracts?
It's too late to put new proposals on the table, so the big question to ask Brooke is, "what the hell have you proposed to save us from the cheapo contracts?"
A solid contract ain't no good if Safeway can close and reopen as "Cheapo Foods" under a cheapo contract.
Keep the pressure on the union.
quote:
Safeway members voting in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley over the past two days have voted
Is it safe to assume that Safeway in the entire rest of B.C. didn't get to participate in the vote?
Are the safeway workers broken down into zones too, is the strike power cut in half as it is in the OFG/ufcw1518 agreement?
quote:
The strike vote is valid for three months from the date it was taken. Simply having the members take any form of job action that does not necessarily involve a full-scale strike can extend this three-month period. This preserves the strike vote indefinitely.
What is the advantage in "preserving the strike vote indefinitely?
It's so you don't ever have to go on strike, and Brooky and Ivan can keep rapin ya for dues and paying lip service. At Lomans we got to have 3 strike votes. A pretend one, a practice one and one that didn't matter anyway. Unless you guys ignore what those 2 clowns tell you, and walk out before they expect it, your HOOPED. It's that simple. If you let them call the shots, You WILL LOOSE. If you don't take matters into your own hands they might as well stick a fork in you and call you dinner, cuz your done.
It will never happen though. They will lead you down the garden path on the pretence of looking for their lost puppy, and we all no what happens when old men ask kids to do that with them.
You will be buggered.
I was just reading Thursday's paper, and tough-talkin' Tommy Fawkes was rappin' 'bout how the Safeway strike vote was not something that was to be used per se. He said it was like to let Safeway know that Brooke meant business.
I guess that's sort of like opening your jacket to let the victim see you're packin' heat. Hell, why not fire a few shots in the air. Give the damned 72 hours strike notice. If you don't go after 72 hours give another 72 hours notice.
Another thing that was interesting was that Toby Oswald, the ever-chatty Safeway VP of Muchspeak wasn't the mouth that was moving for Safeway.
The words were coming from big Dave Ryzebol who was identified as Safeway's VP Public Affairs.
That surprised me because we usually read things like this:
quote:
But according to the Real Canadian Superstore Public Affairs Director David Ryzebol in Calgary
I just thought it was interesting that first we read that Loblaws might be a contender to buy Canada Safeway and then we see the former Loblaw mouthpiece yappin' fer Safeway.
has anyone else hears that the bulk of the contract was written 6 or so months ago? 
and that this is all smoke and mirrors.
i've been hearing this alot lately.
The smoke and mirrors happens in the "off-side" and back-room meetings without the bargaining committee present.
This document is priceless in explaining how some UFCW deals are done.
This deal was signed without any member knowing about it. It was an "insurance" policy just in case Brookie got hold of Local 777. He would have been stuck with the secret contract for another four years.
This deal set out the terms that could be bargained. It's these sorts of deals that one has to be aware of. The bargaining committee may never know that the deal exists, but all the same it is the deal that will prevent certain things from ever being negotiated. If one knew of a secret deal, then one might better understand why an important proposal drops off the table.
Sometimes, the "show" may happen in the bargaining room with the bargaining committee as props, but the script is written in another room between the company and union big shots.
thanks dude. i have been hearing about the 'deal' from drivers and other people who i work with.