- posted by sleK
- Tue, Jun 24, 2003 9:30am
0_o
zehrs 1977 offer
we get a job at rcss. ft buy-down of 75 grand max ( 3 weeks per year) pt 10, grand max . sundays are part of your week. max 5 weeks vacation. no xmas bonus etc..
0_o
Ain't it amazing!? You get to buy a job or "FO" with a pocket full of change. The full-time jobs will get split into part time, and the UFCW dues receipts will go up and up. The company makes money and the UFCW makes money.
That was the conclusion of an Alberta Vice Chair.
I'm astounded (not really) that the UFCW has again taken the stand that, "you must capitulate to the employer's demands. To do otherwise would be disaster." What the F&%# good is the UFCW if its only strategy is to give in?
What is equally as galling is the fact that the deal was done without input from the Power Source. The UFCW is comming back to ask permission to implement a deal that it has agreed to.
If you'll recall, the secret contract signed by the UFCW for Superstores in BC, I'd wonder whether the deal is actually signed.
One has to remember that the law doesn't require ratification. The only documents which do are the UFCW consitution and policies, but we know that they don't seem to apply to UFCW Canada very much.
Loblaw, for the moment needs the UFCW to control its employees while its master plan is carried out. When the plan is securely in place, there will be no need for the UFCW by Loblaw or its employees. The unionization of the retail food industry is nearing an end.
However, the end won't come before the pigs at the trough collect their multiple pensions, free cars and huge amounts of cash.
Within 10 years, Wal-Mart, Safeway, Overwaitea, Sobeys will all be the same. They'll pay dirt wages and all be non union.
Oh, and BTW cointoss, part-time will be the norm and top-rate full-timers will face lives of misery so they quit. Top rate is a liability.
When the Burnaby RCSS opened its number was 1518. That's because Loblaw wasn't sure that they would get their own local, so they named it after the union local whose contract its viability was costed against.
RCSS had a saying, "you're here for a good time, not a long time." From where I stood they got half of it right. Close to 10,000 employees churned through the Vancouver area stores in the first three or four years.
This '1977 thing' was a mandate, that was passed by votes of 85% and 90% at two locations last evening. One could say that the 'no unions future' is here and it was just avoided. The UFCW negotiated a deal that will keep thousands of workers in the retail industry unionized. That is good.
The kicker is that we need to go out and organize these Walmart dummies. Does the UFCW have a plan for this?
I hope so.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly is negotiating concessions "good" for workers?
Welcome peaches for sure. 
quote:
The UFCW negotiated a deal that will keep thousands of workers in the retail industry unionized.
Well that's a mouthful.
For sure they signed a deal that keeps retail unionized, tell us what the members/workers get out of it? What is the deal?
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you suggesting as long as a worker is in a union workplace, then it doesn't matter what the workers get?
Tell wal-workers the advantage to being union will ya'? Let me rephrase that, can you tell wal-workers the advantage to belonging to ufcw?
The UFCW negotiated a deal that will drop retail grocery workers to Wal-Mart levels. This deal is only the beginning.
How can the UFCW organize Wal-Mart when they have nothing to offer Wal-Mart employees?
The Real Canadian Superstores operate with 10% or less full-timers. Welcome to part time and welcome to no benefits.
UFCW gets double dues and sometimes near triple dues when a full-time job is split into three part-time jobs.
The company threatens and the UFCW caves immediately. The cook a deal and once it's cooked they vote the members tellin' them that they saved their lives, so they'd best vote yes.
Tell me again why having the UFCW represent you is such a good idea. Bargaining backwards isn't a good reason if you ask me.
Bargaining backwards during a collective agreement is even stupider. Giving concessions to a company that's rolling in dough with no Wal-Mart Supercenter in site is sooooooo inept and soooooo impotent.
quote:
The kicker is that we need to go out and organize these Walmart dummies.
Dummies? 
Correct me where I err again, but it isn't wal-workers paying dues to get screwed over, they get screwed over for free.
Well according to the Local 1977 FAQ's , presumably aimed at prospective new members:
quote:
How does the UFCW know what I want?
The Union does not make your Collective Agreement - you and your co-workers do. The Union will guide you through the legal process required to obtain one, and act as your spokesperson during negotiations. Your Collective Agreement is custom tailored to your needs because you determine what goes into it. Only you and your co-workers are invited to submit proposals into its content and to participate on the Negotiating Committee, which will meet face to face with your employer.
Can anything be taken away?
Your employer is prohibited by law from penalizing workers for electing union representation. For this reason, your employer cannot offer a package that is less than what you already have. The goal of negotiations is to negotiate provisions in an attempt to secure an overall improvement to workers. Any such agreement is binding only upon approval by the workers at a Ratification Vote.
... and from the Local 175 FAQ's , presumably aimed at prospective new members :
quote:
It is important to understand that nobody will pay union dues until after the union has negotiated a Collective Agreement with the employer which is acceptable to more than 50% of the employees. This means that nobody pays union dues until the union has negotiated a wage increase for the employees. This means that no one pays union dues until there has been improvements made in the wages, benefits, working conditions, hours of work and job security for the employees. The extra wages, benefits or hours of work negotiated by the Union will more than cover the cost of dues.
(bold added for emphasis)
Perhaps the existing members of these locals should no longer have to pay dues and should in fact receive a dues refund for "accepting" any concessions. 
once again we got screwed by our own union. first they see to it that 85% of the employees of zehr's remain in the partime ranks . then they brag about all the benefits they managed to get for us ( benefits that you get only after 650 hours a year, pretty hard to achieve when the average per week hours have now dropped down to 10 hours per week) i believe therefore that that means you dont have benefits if you are partime. then they compare what we have with what the wal-mart people have. The only difference being they dont have union dues taken off their pays.
Now we get this package of crap that they handed us , explaining of course that they will get us the best deal they can. Bull Pucky.!!!! Partimers will get 10,000.00 max . with 85% of the employees partime zehrs is going to save a bundle and the union will have aided the company in achieving what they wanted all along. NOBODY LEFT AT TOP RATE and with the contract we last signed there isnt a snowballs hope in hades that anyone will ever reach top rate again. I wonder if the union honcos will take a cut in pay matching what they expect us to take. not likely, they will instead belly up to the trough and slap on the feed bag again
If we had a brain in our head the employees should hold another vote to decertify the bunch of company cronies and this time not let them scare us into giving up
Sent this to my local (1000a) with the small hope that someone in this union might read it and think about it, although my feelings are that we have allready been sold out and I'll soon have my wages backed up 20 years and god knows about benifits.
Concession Bargaining - How Not To
Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, there is no acceptable reason for a union to bargain concessions. In the case of a business that is profitable, there is absolutely no reason for concession bargaining. The results of concession bargaining over the last two decades should stand as proof that concessions do not benefit workers.
While concessions are often presented to workers as "necessary", something that the company needs to remain viable, let's keep one thing in mind: The objective of a business is to maximize profit. Wages and benefits are a drain on the bottom line so it stands to reason that if these can be reduced, profits will increase. Business, therefore, needs no reason to demand concessions beyond the fact that this will improve bottom line profitability. If you don't ask, you don't get. If a union has a history of concession bargaining, the company is that much more likely to ask. Concessions are not a matter of need, but a competitive advantage to be sought out where it may be achievable.
Whether or not concessions will be pursued aggressively by a business depends largely upon the reaction, official and unofficial, of the union leadership to the company's initial pitch for concessions. If company officials perceive that the union leadership is sympathetic or can be persuaded, the assault will begin. Dire predictions and gloomy forecasts about the future of the business will become a constant theme in management communications to workers. Where union leaders have bought in to management's campaign, "message discipline" from the union office will help to persuade the membership until it eventually capitulates and accepts the employer's terms. The gloom and doom is always positioned as if it were fact although for the most part, it is highly speculative, grossly oversimplified and designed to spread fear, uncertainty and a sense that cuts are inevitable and workers should be happy to have jobs on any terms. It's important not to fall prey to the psychological manipulation of "message discipline" or get caught up in distracting talk about unprofitable operations.
The Standard Pitch & What to Pitch Back
Understanding the strategy and a little about basic business principles can help you to keep yourself from getting sold down the river. Here are the stock arguments in favor of concessions and how you can respond to them:
"We're Poor"
If management insists on crying poor, union leaders can always ask that management "open the books" and prove it .If management won't open their books, information on how your employer is doing may still be available to you. For instance, if the company you work for is publicly owned (it sells shares on the stock market), it is required to publish an annual report and other financial data. In addition, many companies post financial data on their corporate web sites for the benefit of current and prospective investors. You can assume that this information is both current and accurate, as it is a serious thing to mislead investors.
It's highly unlikely that you will get the same gloom and doom being hawked around the bargaining table. And don't worry; you do not need to be a financial wizard to understand the picture. It is a simple equation you need to know for bargaining purposes: either the company is profitable or it isn't. If it's profitable, there is no need for concessions. If it isn't, there is probably still no good reason for you to accept them.
We'll Move/We'll Close
Employers looking for concessions often rely two age-old scare tactics to soften up union members prior to entering into negotiations. The threat of closure and lurking competition. In order to maximize profit, a business needs to be in the game. Leaving a market where it is a major player runs contrary to this objective. Few businesses ever pull out of a market where they are a major player so threats to this effect are more likely to be a bluff to leverage management's position at negotiations than statements of the business's true intentions.
We Can't Compete
Competition is a given in a free market economy. Businesses should expect the arrival of new competitors and new business concepts and be prepared to respond to them in ways that allow them to retain a competitive position. Responding to changes in the marketplace is management's responsibility and not the workers'. A business that can't handle competition will not be in business for long - no matter what you give up.
An employer's inability to compete or to meet the challenges presented by the arrival of new competitors is a failing of management. Some businesses are hampered by unhealthy management cultures that tolerate incompetent managers and generate poor management decisions. All things considered, management ineptitude is more likely to sink the business than the arrival of new competition. Rank and file workers should not be responsible for years of bad management. Concessions on the part of rank and filers will not save a business that is its own worst enemy. At the end of the day, it is management's job to deal with the challenges of being in business.
In short, a business that is failing because of inability to compete or because of a management decision to leave a particular market, will do so no matter what the workers give up. Concessions will only serve to reduce workers' severance and pension entitlements when the inevitable comes to pass.
What to do if you're hearing noises about concessions:
Find out what's going on: Be sure to attend any meetings management is holding with workers to talk about the business, and any meetings that your union is having, to discuss negotiations.
Ask your union leaders if management is going to be seeking concessions and what the union's position on this will be.
Make it clear that you are opposed to concessions. Get that message across every time the subject comes up.
Educate your fellow members about what's really up when it comes to concessions. By presenting a united front to management (and union leaders who may have bought-in) you can minimize the possibility that your hard-won gains will be bartered away because management isn't doing its job.
Remind anyone trying to persuade you to accept rollbacks of the following three simple points:
The real financial position of the business as presented in their own documents.
That it is management's job to make the business profitable.
That wage concessions have never helped workers and you have no reason to believe that they will benefit you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ top | « back
© Members for Democracy
Unless otherwise specified, you may redistribute this article freely if you include the following notice;
Originally published at http://www.ufcw.net
I have an idea!!!!! If this package is going to be what the union wants us to accept , how be, when the figures for each employees allotment for service has been calculated either the company - or - heaven forbid the union pays the income tax,CPP and EI benefits deductions out of their own pockets. At least this will leave the employees with a few more dollars to put in their pockets. I do believe that before the final deal is agreed upon we , the members of the union , get one more vote on the matter. WE HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE THIS A PART OF THE CONCESSION WE ARE EXPECTED TO ACCEPT.
I would like some input from anyone else reading this forum and also some info on the next step that will occur before the deal is done.
quote:
WE HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE THIS A PART OF THE CONCESSION WE ARE EXPECTED TO ACCEPT.
You have the power to reject the entire concession pkg.
Here We Go Again: I doubt that the members will get another vote on these concessions. It sure doesn't look to me like that's what the ufcw has in mind here at all.
The way I read what's going on is this: They are putting this "deal" to the members at these membership meetings that are taking place now and over the next couple of weeks. I'm not sure if the meetings are well-publicized at all (How are members being told about the meetings? Are they getting letters mailed to their homes? Have notices been put up in the workplaces? What details are being provided to members in advance of the meetings?)
If the meetings are not well-publicized it would suggest to me that the union is hoping that the turnout for the meetings will be low. This makes it easier to convince the workers who do attend, that the concessions are necessary.
Once these meetings are concluded, the yes/no votes will be counted up and if more than 50% of those who voted voted "yes", then the deal is be approved. The union will say, "hey, we put it to a vote of the membership and they voted in favour".
If you want to stop this deal, the best advice I can give you is to do what you can to make sure that as many members as possible turn up at the meetings and vote "no". You may also want to turn up some political heat on the union: Call the local media, fax or email labour organizations like the CLC, the OFL, the UFCW national and international offices, your MPP, the Minister of Labour, anyone else you can think of - and register your disgust and disapproval with what's going on.
Don't hold out hope that you'll get another opportunity to vote on this. I don't think your union has the slightest inclination to do this.
If the vote is rammed through and you're unhappy, consider changing unions. It's perfectly legal and it may be the only hope you have of getting the kind of representation you want.
as far as receiving any advance notice of what was in the concession agreement we received absolutely nothing. Of course this is the norm for this particular union , silence is golden is their motto.
at the outset of the meeting the comments being made by our president set the tone . I am so weary of the confrontational attitude put forward to the members by the union . It is almost a we against them forum and considering that we pay their wages not the other way around you would think that they would walk on eggshells around us when handing this type of paper dog doo out.
this never should have been brought forward to the members for consideration let alone voted on. But the usual scare tactics presented by them to the membership ( visa vie : Zehr's plans to close all stores if this is not accepted . a direct quote from Brian Williamson) worked again. Ah the power of the word works wonders eh. Sold down the river again.
You mean to say that your union's leaders didn't tell the members anything in advance about the fact that a vote on concessions to their contract was going to take place at this meeting? Did members go to the meeting expecting that it would be just a "regular" membership meeting? I'm no expert on these things but it would seem to me that in a case as extreme as this (where a proposal to amend an existing collective agreement is going to be put to a vote), there's an obligation on the union to inform the members of what's happening.
If the only information put out to the members is the brief reference on the Local 1977 web site to a "mandate" for Loblaws, Zehr's and Fortino's, I'm not sure that's sufficient or that the union can reasonably expect that the average member would take this to mean "we're going to vote on concessions to your contract".
For what it's worth: If this is what happened, you may want to consider filing a Duty to Fair Representation complaint if these concessions get pushed through. There's no guarantee of success with DFR's, but damn it, it may be worth a shot in this case.
Gawd for whatever reason this is ringin' too familiar.
Back in '96 when the ofg/safeway/1518 concessions got jammed up our ... down our throats ... there were a few things that seem'd rather manipulated (ok alot).
The 'buy-out' was an important issue for members. I think the machine and company liked it too. Let's call it the carrot for now. Anyway it was talked about alot.
The 'buy-out' was a tempting tempting carrot for many. It was ideal for students who were just passin' through and it definitely was a carrot for the long term employees who over the previous years seen the whole sell-out charade going down.
I don't doubt many ufcw members just wanted out at whatever cost.
Well guess what? With the 1518 concessions came a nice (not lucrative) buy-out for those who qualified. I think in Manitoba 832 retail there was a buy-out for those who qualified.
The key word here is *qualify*. In B.C. at the meetings the info didn't specify that X amount of dollars were in the buy-out. In Manitoba it was the same thing, some who believed they had voted a ticket out, ended up getting shafted.
The end result for some of those members who thought they were voting to get out, was, it didn't happen. Some ended up having to live with the concessions they thought they had left for other workers to live with.
So the moral of the story is don't vote for anything you can't live with, or the very least you can't see.
During the 1977 meeting it was mentioned that 1000A (local that represents Loblaws workers) took the mandate to their directors to vote, not the membership!!! They decided for the members, and afterward the workers were told.
Is this not the MOST backward decision making you have ever heard off?
It is to me.
I think that's bloody outrageous! If Local 1000a agreed to major concessions without even making a pretense at putting those to a vote of the members, I seriously question whether that could withstand a legal challenge. It does not seem to me to be consistent with the intent of the Labour Relations Act which requires that collective bargaining settlements be ratified by a secret ballot vote of the members.
I'd like to know how they swung this - if indeed they just had a vote of the directors or the officers or something other than the members. Was there some kind of innocuous resolution passed at some poorly attended GMM that gives the directors "the right to enter into agreements about....stuff"? I wonder.
Local President Corporon ought to be ashamed of himself for recommending these concessions regardless of who got to vote on them. What happened to you Kevin? You were such a man of the people at one time. Would your co-workers back at the meat packing plant be proud of you making deals with management behind their backs? I recall you saying at one time that you flatly refused to sell them out even though the boss promised to take care of you. Why do Local 1000a members deserve any less?
Local 1000a hasnt notified the membership of any deal yet.there is stewards meeting on thursday july 3rd to get the details out.apparently the deal is only 115,000 sqaure ft stores will be converted and if you dont go you can take 4 weeks for every year ft.our contract is up in 2006 and the union has been promised no concessions at that negotiation.
Sounds exactly like the 1977 deal. Except you were not told about it before it was agreed to. Nuts eh?
It is not such a great deal. We workers (Zehrs and Loblaws) have been promised what we already had (till 2006 ). But we have these new "Zehrs Real Canadian Superstore's" and "Loblaws Real Canadian Superstores" going to pop up around new communities with what they call franchise type contracts. Then down the road we will get the 'industry standard' talk, telling us we must give up more. Sure our next contract after 2006 we will not lose pay or benefits for the life of that contract (probably 6 months to a year) but what about Sundays, dept heads out of union, etc.? Then 2007 all hell will break out as we become part of Wally's World when it comes to wages, benefits and working conditions.
No real future at Real Canadian or any other retail bottom feeding work enviroment.
no concessions after this contract runs out is probably a good sign that they will stick us with a one year deal. they will pay for 100% uniform costs, more like wear your own clothes and throw on this blue vest with lots of shiny buttons. the last time I saw so much disrespect for a contract was by the boy wonder Bob Rae.
good morning all well we at zehrs have had a night to sleep on and mull over the info we received at our wonderful meeting. i went to the store that i work at yesterday just to see if anyone else was as upset as I am
the general attitude was " I dont give a @!@! " pretty well everyone has decided to just give up , go to work, do your job and go home. Zehrs is going to loose alot more than they gain by this move. Most customers by now are aware of what is going on and believe me they side with the employees and not the management. Loss of customer support may be greater than what the company expected and I personally think the employees should put an info letter to all their respective local papers explaining exactly what this wonderful company thinks of its employees. AND THEY CALL WAL-MART A LOW CLASS EMPLOYEER someone please explain to me the difference between what is happening to us and what wal-mart pays its people ???
quote:
we at zehrs have had a night to sleep on and mull over the info we received at our wonderful meeting.
It sounds like you didn't have any choices here.
Doesn't/didn't the membership get to vote on whether the contract can be open'd and if not how can that happen?
I don't want to sound stupid, but what the hell have you agreed to? I can't believe you voted on a change without knowing what the changes are to be. Somebody turn on the light and let me see better, please.
you are as confused and uninformed as the voting membership. the meeting we attended consisted of the union leaders informing us that zehrs/loblaws wants to amend our existing agreement by lowering our wages and / or benefits to make them able to compete with wal-mart. the paper we received plus the info from the leaders informed us that the union was meeting with the company since december about this matter. however , we , the union members did not know anything about this until we were at the meeting. SURPRISE SURPRISE
I guess in reality they are not asking us to open the existing contract they are just telling us they want us to accept concessions to it. I am befuddled as you are about this , as are most of my fellow workers. How can and did this happen without our knowledge and approval. I thought the union had to come to us first and get permission to even meet with the company on this matter. Someone explain to me the protocol for this.
Still have not heard a peep from anyone at UFCW 1000a I wonder what their stratagy was? because as I talk to people from various stores the anger at virtually being left out in the cold is building to a fever pitch, and the longer they hold off the harder I think (hope) these a-holes are going to have at taminig the membership when they do.
Spoke to two Loblaws managers today who just attended a three day conferance in Kingston, what seemed to be pumped into them was to come back and assure everyone that no stores were going to "close" and we were all going to have jobs.
HAHAHAHA But at what price ! ! !
Have you considered asking your local president what's going on? Why not go straight to the horse's mouth with a list of questions and demand some answers? In case you're having trouble deciding what to ask, here are a few questions that might help you along:
1. What concessions have been agreed to (tentatively or otherwise) with the company?
2. When were they agreed to, who was present at those discussions and who agreed to what?
3. Why were members not consulted in advance of these discussions?
4. Why were the members not asked to approve their representatives decision to enter into these discussions?
5. Why were members not kept appraised as the discussions progressed?
6. Does the union intend to ask the members to ratify the concessions? If so, when and how will ratification take place? If not, why not?
7. Why has no information been provided to members about these concessions to date?
8. What kind of information will be provided to members in advance of any vote?
Those are just a few that I'd sure want to ask if I were a member of this local right now.
I might also ask the pres if he's willing to take similar concessions to his pay and benefits.
Asking questions in writing and requesting a written reply is preferable to verbal exchanges, since there is always sooooo much room for "misunderstanding". Sometimes though, it's good to do both. See if the verbal reply matches the written reply.
Anyway, you're members. You pay dues. You're entitled to ask questions and expect answers - good ones! Think about it.
I wonder how long it will be before our union leaders ( and i definately use that term as loosely as possible ) call another meeting. They best have protective equipment on at the time , because this time the meeting will be a lot more aggressive on our part. The members are sick and tired of being sold down the proverbial river by this bunch of dolts.
I am quoting from the paper that they handed to us on June 23 " after prolonged negotiations , a balanced agreement is crafted "
WHEN THE HECK DID THESE PROLONGED NEGOTIATIONS TAKE PLACE??????????/
I never heard of any taking place, you would think that something of this importance would have been sent to the members letting them know what was going on.
these questions were asked after the slide show was over at the meeting. But the head honchos did the usual texas two - step around every one that was asked . And when the questions got too loud and angry sounding they were ignored completely . The poor folk at the head table felt like we were verbally attacking them I guess. GEEEEEE WHIZZZ DO YOU THINK?????
How do you ask questions when your union web site has completely shut down, phone lines are apparently clogged (or off the hook) messages are not returned,your store stewards know nothing, and by the the time you get a reply via snail mail you've already been raped ? ? ?
Sorry but I could'nt think of a better term. (raped)
here we go again: Could you provide us with the full text of the paper that you're quoting from? If it's too long to retype, send an email to mfd@ufcw.net and tell us how you'd prefer to share it (fax, email, snail mail, etc.)
Nights 046: I'm not surprised that communication is difficult with these guys. You might want to consider writing a letter with your questions to the UFCW National office and the International Office. Send it by snail mail or fax. If they don't respond, tell us. It's harder to ignore members when the union leaders' igornance is on display for the world to see.
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
Have you considered asking your local president what's going on? Why not go straight to the horse's mouth with a list of questions and demand some answers? In case you're having trouble deciding what to ask, here are a few questions that might help you along:
1. What concessions have been agreed to (tentatively or otherwise) with the company?
2. When were they agreed to, who was present at those discussions and who agreed to what?
3. Why were members not consulted in advance of these discussions?
4. Why were the members not asked to approve their representatives decision to enter into these discussions?
5. Why were members not kept appraised as the discussions progressed?
6. Does the union intend to ask the members to ratify the concessions? If so, when and how will ratification take place? If not, why not?
7. Why has no information been provided to members about these concessions to date?
8. What kind of information will be provided to members in advance of any vote?
Those are just a few that I'd sure want to ask if I were a member of this local right now.
I might also ask the pres if he's willing to take similar concessions to his pay and benefits.
Asking questions in writing and requesting a written reply is preferable to verbal exchanges, since there is always sooooo much room for "misunderstanding". Sometimes though, it's good to do both. See if the verbal reply matches the written reply.
Anyway, you're members. You pay dues. You're entitled to ask questions and expect answers - good ones! Think about it.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz---WAKE UP LOCAL 1000A--zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz---WAKE UP LOCAL 175--
Does anyone even know what is going on in these locals?
Are you folks being told anything?
Why is members of LOCAL 1977 finding out about changes that are affecting all of us and know one else knows anything yet?
I smell a strategy. The deal will get pushed through at Zehr's first. With the Zehr's workers already committed to the concessions, the thinking on the part of the union leaders might be that it will be easier to sell to the members at the other 2 locals. They may feel a sense of solidarity with their brothers and sisters at Local 1977 or might feel like they're just being greedy if they don't take a hit for the ufcw team as well. I know it sounds ridiculous but so do a lot of things this union has done.
The 1000A local had already accepted the 'mandate' by getting it approved by their directors we were told. Then it is time to tell the members. So I guess I disagree. But I must tell you when you hear that another local has already given in, then you feel like you are beaten already.
Interesting note:
It was mentioned during 1977's meeting how LCL (Loblaw Companies Limited) fat cats were going to implode Loblaws and Zehrs banners if we turned down the restructuring. What the big guy was going to do is put up 'Real Canadian Superstores' with super low prices and raise the prices of the surrounding established company banners.
Class act eh?
good morning once again. I was wondering if anyone has heard what happened with the other votes being taken on the zehrs/loblaws concessions.
I'm not sure how many locals are voting on this matter and I only know that with my local (1977) it was passed by 85%. Considering the emotions at the meeting I was astounded to see it passed at all let alone by that much. I guess the scare tactic of the threat that they would close all the stores down worked once again on the voting members. Maybe they thought it would be better to still have a job ( even it didnt pay you to get up and go to work) than to be in most of the people involved age group looking for a job.
If anyone has more info I would really appreciate a reply to this query. I am already looking for another job. I cannot in good faith work for a company or a union that has so little regard for the people that are actually keeping them on the employeed lists. Up and onward to better things .
In todays 'Report On Business' (The Globe And Mail magazine) listed the top 1000 companies rankings by profits for 2002.
Loblaws moved up to position #18 from #27 in 2001.
George Weston Ltd. moved up to position #19 from #24 in 2001.
Westfair Foods (Loblaws western operation) moved to #48 from #58 in 2001.
Oh well.
What goes up, must come down.
What comes around, goes around.
Just some notes from my head as I contemplate this Loblaws-UFCW thing.
1: Recall reading an article from Galen Weston where he stated that he would not hire anyone to run one of his companys who had not travelled the world extensively! Made me ponder at the time, what has that got to do with running a business and should I take a year off, travel the world and put in for that six figure salary when I get back.
2: Also recall an article about Provigo and how when they were at the brink of going under decided they needed to hire someone who had worked in the bussiness all their life from the bottem up, as I recall the first thing he did was ask the guy in charge of produce how to tell if a banana was good? his response was something like I would'nt have the foggiest idea! Guess what? he was the first one fired! and as I read on this is more or less how the whole company was being run (To it's own demise)
If anyone has a clue as to where to find these articles I would love to know I've been searching but with no luck as of yet, I'm sure they were from Toronto papers or magazines.
3: I find it facinating how many times I have come accross the statement on this site that it's up to management to come up with ideas to improve profit other than cutting wages when I have said to friends and co workers countless times over the past few months that there has not been an original idea out of Loblaws since Dave Nickles left. all these dolts seem to do is run from one place to another looking for ideas to implement in Loblaws as their own! thus the situation we are in now, not withstanding a union without guts, or do they just not realize that the membership would stand behind them? or do they care? or is this all about more dues? I could go on and probably will as speaking your mind does help release the tension please keep the posts coming and let your fellow members know about the site.
Thanks MfD.
From Friday's The Cambridge Reporter:
Zehrs workers back request for wage cuts
quote:
The Record
Workers at local Zehrs Markets reacted with a sense of resignation Monday night and voted to approve a request from their union to accept lower wages at the company's new superstores in order to compete in a looming retail battle with Wal-Mart.
About 550 Zehrs workers from Cambridge and Kitchener-Waterloo crowded into the Waterloo Inn to hear details of the deal, which union leaders believe will make the best of a trying situation.
With just over 500 votes cast, 84 per cent were in favour of the union's proposal.
The situation is that Wal-Mart is poised to move into the Ontario grocery market with huge new stores selling a wide range of food and non-food goods.
Zehrs' parent company, Loblaw Cos. Ltd., is responding by expanding some stores and building large new ones so they can offer a wider range of items.
Since Wal-Mart is known for low wages and anti-union policies, Zehrs is looking to lower its labour costs at the new stores in order to compete.
In the first of a series of meetings across southern Ontario, workers were asked Monday night to give union leaders permission to add language to their contract that would allow the company to pay less to workers at its new super-stores.
Workers at existing stores would continue to earn their current pay.
As workers inside the meeting continued voting on the plan Monday night, others left, saying that they have little choice but to accept it.
"I think it sucks for anybody new coming in, and it isn't fair," said Tracy Todd, a pharmacy technician at the Cambridge Centre Zehrs.
"But I need my benefits and the money I'm making now."
Zaneta Pahlad, an office clerk at the new Valu-Mart at Forest Glen Plaza in Kitchener, said "it's not right" that new workers will face lower wages. But she said employees had few options.
"They (the company) are going to do whatever they want to do anyway," she said.
The United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents 8,000 workers at the nearly 60 Zehrs stores in southern Ontario, wants the blessing of its membership before it agrees to the lower wages.
quote:
"think it sucks for anybody new coming in, and it isn't fair, [...] But I need my benefits and the money I'm making now."
Me me me me me.
Thanks for doing your part in perpetuating the unfairness.
quote:
"it's not right [...] They (the company) are going to do whatever they want to do anyway,".
And thank you for demonstrating the strength of your personal convictions.
Most of all I'd like to thank the UFCW for creating an environment where such selfish and un-union-like behaviour can flourish.
Go team go!
/sarcasm
This joint corporate-ufcw push for concessions is a pathetic example of how working people are manipulated into sacrificing their interests for the interests of the powerful others (their company and their union).
Of course the workers are going to feel that they had no choice. Their damned union - the very organization that is supposed to be fighting for them - is telling them there's no choice!
The mainstream media reporting on this is also pretty pathetic. Since when do 500 votes out a unit of 8,000 make up an overwhelming majority. Yes, 85% of the 500 voted to accept and that's highly predictable given the union's spin about the inevitability of the concessions, but notice how the newspaper article makes it appear that the vast majority of the workers at Zehr's are in favour of the concessions?
The UFCW has swallowed a bunch of management BS and regurgitated it for consumption by the members.
Someone please tell me what the hell is "imploding a banner"? Since when did "implosion" become a business concept? That's the biggest crock I've heard to date in terms of union leaders' understanding of business concepts.
We absolutely must take what we can from this sad example of unionism and hang it out for the whole world to see and to understand. BTW, where is the rest of the labour movement on this sell-out? Oh, the workers voted in favour or the sell-out, right? That makes it OK? Let's get back to the golf game....
The end of the mainstream labour movement in Canada is clearly in view now.
I have been trying to log onto our local's web site for more info on this mandate matter ever since the vote this past Tuesday all without success. Phone calls to the local end in a busy signal. How the heck are we , the dues paying members , supposed to keep ourselves abreast of what is going on? You would think that a matter as importannt and volitile as this one has become would be met with some kind of responsibility by those who perpetuated it.
Each area within the local has representatives in the union hall, each store has stewards and I would assume they all have a phone. One should be phoning the other , getting the newest info and passing it on to the rest of us . A simple bulletin placed near the punch clock or on the bulletin board would exact some kind of gratefullness I am sure.
I have passed on the info I have ( via snail mail ) to the holder of this web site . Maybe someone with more union process knowledge than I have can give a different outlook to this matter. I am also glad to see that I am not the only one from this area on the web site that is voicing my concerns on this matter, hopefully , giving some prewarning assistance to the next group that may be put in this situation. My word of advice is to keep aware of what your local union is doing, ask questions before troubles arise and make EVERY member in your local as aware. DON'T LET WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS VOTE TAKE PLACE IN ANOTHER UNION AGAIN. Take your union to task and make them accountable for everything that is said and done by them. Make sure there are no secret meetings taking place that you cannot change the outcome of.
I sure hope that members of all 3 locals who have not yet voted, get involved and let their union leaders know what they think.
I personally would like to see us post as much information as we can about this tentative concessionary deal and how it was hatched and how the members' "approval" was obtained.
Whatever happens at the UFCW locals, I think you're right: In the very least, this information may prevent this kind crap from taking place in other unions.
HWGA - Would you know how many membership meetings were there on the "mandate" at Local 1977. From the meeting schedule on their web site it looks as though meetings were going to continue up to at least July 9th. From the newspaper article, however, it looks like they might have had a couple of meetings and that was the end of it. Did all 8,000 members get notified of the meetings where the voting was to take place? (These may sound like dumb questions but I'd like people to have as much information as possible about how this whole thing is going down.)
someone tell me how mandatory sundays are going to work? Do you not still have a right not to work and does this mean you forfeit eight hours? what about the employment standards act? anyone with experience please fill me in. Thanks.
The manditory Sundays will happen 'cause your union agreed to make them happen.
at the 1977 meeting we were told that 1000A (loblaws) gave their local a mandate to negotiate the new department store appendix as well as the rcss contract for any new loblaws stores. can anyone cofirm this to be true??
This would sure be interesting to know. It would also be good to know - if some kind of approval or authorization was given to the Local's leaders - whether this was given by the members or by some select group of insiders (stewards, executive board members or whoever).
Listen, I worked for the UFCW when the Real Canadian Superstore came to BC. It was a crappy deal cut at the highest levels of the UFCW and Loblaw Companies.
I stood in public and gave the party bullshit to anyone who would listen. It was bullshit! The deal was cut-rate and designed to give Loblaw an advantage over unionized competitors, not the non-union competitors.
Not once did the "house of labour" attack the UFCW. They were happy to believe that a simple business agent could torpedo the retail grocery industry all on his own.
Hey and look at Leif Hansen today. He's 2nd in command at the newly named Local 777 (now 247)
quote:
Pact flak called 'hysteria': Superstoresunion officialdefends deal
The Vancouver Sun; Vancouver, B.C.; Mar 29, 1989;
By: VALERIE CASSELTON
An official of the union that negotiated a cut-rate contract at the Real Canadian Superstores lashed out Tuesday at what he called 'hysteria' and misunderstanding about a deal that has shocked B.C. employers and unions.
Hugh Finnamore, representative of Local 777 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, denied that his union's contract unfairly undercuts the existing industry standard and upsets the competitive balance of wages and pricing of major grocery retailers.
'It's obvious people don't understand what's in our collective agreement,' said Finnamore. 'A lot of the stuff is just hysteria now.'
Real Canadian Superstore spokesman Dave Ryzebol said any contract must recognize that about half the stock in the new stores is non-food items and the store must compete with the minimum wages of non-union retailers.
'In the bigger picture, unions should say 'look, we've got a foothold in a part of the market we've never had,'' said Ryzebol.
Local 777 is a new creation within the UFCW, whose other locals are now negotiating contracts that expire March 31 with major food chains, including Overwaitea, Safeway and Save-On Foods.
Those locals have charged that Local 777 undercut their contracts.
Local 2000 president Leif Hansen said there has been a temporary setback in negotiations as a result.
'Locals 2000 and 1518 requested the international president (Bill Wynn) to conduct a review of the collective agreement (of Local 777) as soon as possible,' said Hansen.
B.C. Federation of Labor president Ken Georgetti, Confederation of Canadian Unions president Jess Succamore and other labor leaders such as IWA-Canada president Jack Munro have condemned the deal as a sellout to employers.
'Georgetti and Munro don't understand this,' said Finnamore. 'It's a great deal, you've got 3,000 jobs for B.C., darn good rates of pay for someone coming off the street and in a short order they're up to top rates.'
But Georgetti said Tuesday the Local 777 contract 'is one of the worst contracts that I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
'I have a typed copy of the contract and suffice to say that I would not have Hugh Finnamore negotiate any contract for any union that I know of, at any time.'
Employers, too, criticized the deal, especially clauses they say encourage workers to quit before reaching senior levels, to receive buy-out payments in the form of Registered Retirement Savings plans worth up to $2,500.
'I've never heard of anything like this in all the training and experience I've had,' said Bryan Wall, vice-president of industrial relations for Overwaitea and Save On Foods.
But Wall said Overwaitea is not jealous of the Local 777 contract.
'I don't think we want the 777 contract,' he said. 'We think it's a bad collective agreement for the employees and employer as well.
'What advantage is there, to an employer that believes in its people, to have an operation like that, to encourage people to quit?' he said, referring to the 777 buy-out plan.
But Ryzebol said 'some people interpret that as a way to keep them there for at least two years.'
The provision was designed as a kind of scholarship fund for its student workers, he said.
'We may have a lower start rate, but it's fair, comparable and it goes up, above the industry rate,' said Ryzebol.
Meatcutters at Real Canadian Superstore, for example, can earn a top wage of $18.76 per hour, compared to other major stores at $17.26, he said.
And he questioned retailers' arguments that Real Canadian Superstore has upset the balance and industry standards.
'Is it they're concerned about a level playing field, or they're concerned about competition?' said Ryzebol, charging that much of the rhetoric is 'posturing' related to the food industry negotiations now underway.
Finnamore said cashiers in his union local start at $7.50 per hour compared to $11.02 per hour at other major stores. He admitted Local 777 will not have many of the benefits enjoyed by other locals.
Also unlike the rest of the industry, Local 777 has no extended health coverage or long-term disability pay, but Finnamore said sick pay does exist, at reduced rates, for six months.
Real Canadian Superstore pays more for statutory holidays than other stores, he said.
Wages will be renegotiated every year and senior Real Canadian Superstore workers may be paid more than those at other major stores, although he admitted it will take longer to reach that level, especially with a high staff turnover.
It looks to me like a repeat of this is happening now in Ontario. But they don't need to set up a separate local to do it. The existing locals are more than willing to bargain discount collective agreements.
I believe that back in the late 1980's when Local 777 was set up, the existing BC UFCW local presidents protested loudly when they found out what kind of contract 777 was going to agree to. I wonder why the current crop of comfortable Presidents are happy to go along? Is it just the culture of business-friendliness that has evolved over the course of 10 years? That would be my guess.
If the UFCW is just going to close ranks and support this garbage, I'd recommend that in addition to the suggestions above, you also contact the CAW pronto and demand that they say something about this. The autoworkers are now in the retail grocery sector, too, and their contracts are going to get dragged down just like everyone else's are if this isn't stopped.
Email Buzz Hargrove: cawpres@caw.ca
Write/Phone/Email CAW National Office:
205 Placer Court, Toronto, ON M2H 3H9
Phone: (416) 497-4110
1-800-268-5763
Fax: (416) 495-6559
E-mail: caw@caw.ca
Write/Phone CAW- Retail Wholesale Union
6800 Campbello Road, Mississauga, ON L5N 2L8
Phone: 905-819-9000
1-800-961-1001
Fax: 905-819-1262
Look just how friendly they can be:
quote:
A Westfair executive says in an affidavit filed in court that the leaked information could convince Superstores employees they don't make enough money compared to Safeway employees, increasing the risk of an illegal strike and the risk of violence in a legal strike.
Westfair claims the leaked information came from its payroll computers and was routinely given to a company that administers the United Food and Commercial Workers' pension plan.
The union's Local 1518 represents Safeway employees; Local 777 represents Superstores workers.
Westfair says either Safeway or Local 1518 could have got the leaked information from the pension plan administrator, and that it couldn't have come from anywhere else.
Westfair vice-president Bruce Kent says in the affidavit that Safeway executive Don Balletto and Local 1518 official Brooke Sundin met March 1 with Local 777 business agent Jim Smith to give him the confidential pension fund information, which included an analysis of wages and hours worked by Superstores workers.
Kent says Balletto and Sundin tried to convince Local 777 leaders to get tough in contract talks, and to threaten that "Real Canadian Superstores would be closed by strike action."
Kent says there was a conspiracy by Safeway and Local 1518 to push Local 777 into eliminating Superstores' "competitive cost advantage" on labor costs, and "to cause damage" to Westfair.
The UFCW is just too much! The above was from The Vancouver Sun; Vancouver, B.C.; Apr 23, 1993. Here you have Safeway and Local 1518 working together to try to actually get Whitlock to talk tough. Then it seems like Whitlock runs to Westfair and tell them what Safeway and Local 1518 is trying to get him to do.
It's a real insight into just how cosy the employer/union relationships are.
Do you believe it!?
Hi there,
A few of you have asked what 1000a thinks of all of this and what is going on with us so I will tell you. We don't know anything. We are not being told anything. There will be a stewards meeting on Friday July 4 and I am trying to get my steward to get as much info for me as they can. Most people at my store are willing to rollover and take what is givin to them. I am sure it will pass and it will be a bad deal. I am trying to talk sense into people, but no one cares anymore. I have no problems with working at a RCSS, but I wish to take the current contract(good luck)
Those of you who are interested in writing to UFCW honchos might want to write to:
Michael Fraser, Director, UFCW Canada
300-61 International Blvd., Rexdale, ON, M9W 6K4
-and -
Douglas Dority
International President, United Food and Commerical Workers International Union
1775 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC USA 20006
If you are at a loss for words, here's something that might help you along:
Dear Mr. Dority and Mr. Fraser;
I am an employee of _____________ and a member of UFCW Local _______, located in _____________, Ontario. I am covered by a collective agreement between Local ______ and my employer which went into effect on _____________ and will expire on ______________.
I wish to raise with you an important matter that requires your urgent attention.
It has recently come to my attention that the President of my Local, Mr. _______________, entered into negotiations several weeks or maybe even months ago for concessions to my collective agreement. Mr. _______________ did this without advising the members that he was doing so. Only after agreeing to the concessions, did Mr. ________________ advise the members of the "tentative settlement" which we were then asked, at hastily-called and not well-publicized meeting, to approve.
Neither I nor other members of the local had any idea that negotiations for concessions were in progress. We were provided with no information at all about the nature of the concessions that our employer was seeking and only after the deal was done, was our approval sought.
At the hastily-called meetings, Mr. ______________ said that he needed a "mandate" to sign off on the concessionary deal. Concessions were necessary, he said, to allow our employer to compete with Wal-Mart.
Members who attended at these meetings were shocked and disappointed. With Mr. _____________ telling them that failure to accept the concessions would almost certainly mean the loss of their jobs, the majority voted in favour.
Mr. _______________'s actions have taken away certain contractual entitlements that were ratified in __________ by thousands of members of my local. For many other members, not yet hired, the secret deal means wages and working conditions that will put them on a par with the non-union retail industry.
As a dues-paying member of this union, I object to this deal and the manner in which it was presented to my Sisters and Brothers. I urge you to intervene and take whatever steps are required to stop this concessionary agreement. I request also, that you respond to the following questions and state for me, in clear and unambiguous terms, the position of the United Food and Commerical Workers Union on the following issues:
1. Do Mr. __________________'s actions comply with the UFCW International Constitution and any applicable labour legislation?
2. Are Local union officials required to notify members prior to engaging in negotiations with our employers that may affect our collective agreements?
3. What are the notification requirements for members in situations where they will be asked to vote on significant alterations to their collective agreements? Why were members of my local not advised of the employer's demands or the discussions that took place until after the deal was done?
4. Why is my union asking me and thousands of other members to sacrifice our hard-won wages, benefits and working conditions so our employer can compete with Wal-Mart? I thought the UFCW has a concerted campaign to organize Wal-mart workers? Why not organize Wal-mart workers and get them better pay and benefits rather than asking existing UFCW members to take pay cuts? Has the UFCW conceded the "war on Wal-Mart"?
5. Why should a union, under any circumstances, agree to concessions, particularly with an employer that is as profitably as mine?
6. Were Mr. ________________'s actions approved by either the National or International offices? If so, why?
7. What is the process that I or other members of my Local should follow in the event that we wish to challenge Mr. _____________'s acceptance of these concessions?
Please contact me as soon as possible and let me know when I can expect to receive answers to my questions.
Considering the seriousness of this issue and the potential to impact thousands of workers in the unionized retail industry, I would ask that you instruct Mr. ________________ to defer from going ahead with any agreement on these concessions, until these issues are resolved.
Fraternally,
Your Name
Member in Good Standing, UFCW Local _______
You don't need to copy this word for word or at all.I'm offereing it up as something that might get you started on your own letter. Feel free to copy in as many people as you want.
Let us know what you write - so we can post it!
If you are interested in filing a DFR complaint:
I'm not a lawyer but I know a few things about complaints under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Here are a few pointers.
If you're going to file a DFR, file soon. You can get a copy of the complaint form at this link.
You are the "applicant". Your union is the "responding party". Your employer will most likely file an "intervention". This means they want standing in the proceedings as an interested party (a party that stands to be affected by the outcome).
Filling out the form:
In the section that asks you how your union violated Section 74, be as detailed as you can. You may want to include the following:
- You are covered by a collective agreement that is currently in effect (specify the effective and expiry dates).
- Your collective agreement was ratified as required under the Labour Relations Act in [year].
- Subsequent to ratification, your union entered into negotiations with your employer to alter the collective agreement without advising the members of its intentions or seeking a mandate from the members for these negotiations or providing any information at all about the nature of the alterations that were being contemplated.
- Your local union president reached a tentative agreement to alterations to your collective agreement without the consent of the membership, in fact, without even advising the membership that he was engaged in this activity.
- Your union did not ask the members to "ratify" the alterations to the collective agreement (as is required under Section 44) but instead sought a "mandate" from the members that would enable the Local President to agree to the alterations to the collective agreement as presented at a general membership meeting(s) held on [dates]. (If the meetings were not GMM's, indicate what the union called these meetings.)
- Members were not given sufficient notice of meetings at which this "mandate" was being sought.
- Members were not provided with sufficient information in a timely and reasonable manner about the nature of the alterations to their collective agreement to enable them to make informed decisions.
- The nature of the alterations to the collective agreement are significant and will result in substantive changes to members' wages, benefits and working conditions [specify].
- Union officers presented the changes as a "fait accompli", something to which members must agree or risk losing their jobs. (Say this only if it's true. If possible, quote the exact words that union officers used when presenting the deal.) For this reason, certain members who voted in favour of the mandate, did so under duress. The votes, even if they constitute ratification votes (which you claim they do not) cannot be representative of the true wishes of the members.
- The covert nature of the union's activities suggests that it was engaged in a course of action that was intended to benefit the employer and not the members.
- For all of the foregoing reasons, the union's actions are arbitrary, discriminatory and in bad faith and so, are in violation of Section 74.
- The union has breached the substance, spirit and intent of the Labour Relations Act.
Elaborate as much as you want. The OLRB can - and often does - pitch these complaints out without a hearing on the basis that the applicant has not made out a "prima facie" case. This means that "on the surface" (based on what the applicant has put on the form) there is no real indication that the Act has been violated. Don't leave stuff out assuming that you can raise it later.
Do not say things that aren't true and don't editorialize (it pisses the OLRB people off) but do include any facts, information and arguments that you think might be relevant.
Where the form asks you what you're looking for as a remedy, you may want to ask that the OLRB issue an order suspending the implementation of the concessionary agreement until such time as a determination has been made as to the its legality.Other things you may want to ask for are:
- a declaration that the union has violated the Labour Relations Act.
- a declaration nullifying the "mandate" votes.
- an order instructing the employer and the union to refrain from implementation of the deal.
- an order prohibiting the union from entering into further discussions about altering the collective agreement until the open period for collective bargaining.
- If the union was entitled to enter into bargaining with the employer while the collective agreement is in effect, that the OLRB hold a supervised ratification vote on the proposed alterations to the agreement.
Be sure to follow, to the letter, the instructions for delivering the complaint to the OLRB, the Union and the Employer.
Anyone else have anything to add?
(This link will take you to the Labour Relations Act.)
That must have been some affidavit.
quote:
Kent says there was a conspiracy by Safeway and Local 1518 to push Local 777 into eliminating Superstores' "competitive cost advantage" on labor costs, and "to cause damage" to Westfair.
These guys keep telling the union to tell us that all as they want is a "level playing field" but the truth is they want a better deal than anyone else. They want a competitive advantage. And the UFCW keeps telling us that unless we fork it over, we will lose our jobs.
I think the duty of fair representation angle might be a good way to go.
Here we go again. Why don't these people spend this extra money they'll be saving explaining to Canadians the importance of not shopping at Wal-mart, and have a little more faith in the employees that helped make them one of the most successfull grocery chains in Canada?
I'm thinking they've underestimated the importance of customer service. The extra dollars they've spent on us for wages have created an atmosphere of loyalty, pride and knowledge that could never be matched by the typical non-union Wal-Mart employee.
Since Loblaws is the dominant player in Canada, and Wal-Mart has walked all over every country they've hit, they've waited awfully long to come here in tidal waves. Maybe they knew that eventually Loblaws would make foolish mistakes and mimic their strategy, forgetting that over 60% of Canadians expect the customer service they've been getting over the years.
Here's an idea. If we're in such a predicament, then why not have our head office staff match any wage percentage decrease we suffer for the betterment of the company? At least wait until we're on a serious decline in profit before you ask for more.
I agree with the assumption that the union is out for themselves to earn a fat paycheque. We have improved profitability for this company consistently through all kinds of initiatives. I've seen the numbers in many categories. I'm sure these numbers will suffer when top-rated employees leave because they know their worth. Should we allow the so-called mathematician who advises Glen Gonder/whoever to offer a take it or leave it offering to us without hiring our own experts?
I cannot remember the last time I thought our union helped me. Sure, you can say they helped us earn what we earn today, but how many of us would have stuck around wasting our best years knowing it was a temporary job/wage?
------------------------------------------------Here's an idea. If we're in such a predicament, then why not have our head office staff match any wage percentage decrease we suffer for the betterment of the company? At least wait until we're on a serious decline in profit before you ask for more.
--------------------------------------------------
What I'm hearing is once the new head office opens 401-427 and all banners are put into the same building, 800 "non union" staff from the former head offices are going to be laid off outright!
So lets add this up salaries from 800 employees saved plus concessions from three banners,
Whoooeee these guys have hit the jackpot I'll bet the bonus checks are allready in the mail.
What's important to understand is that the people making the key business decisions in companies like Loblaws are motivated by one thing and one thing only: To make the biggest, heapingest pile of money possible. That's the only objective of a business in a free market economy: Maximizing profit. That's all that matters and whatever has the potential to increase the bottom line is worth trying. So if chopping 800 non-union bodies out of the corporate administration will help increase the bottom line, let's do it. If we've got some cooperative union presidents who might be persuaded to give us concessions if we scare them with the right boogie man, what the hell are we waiting for?!
To ensure that the workers help the company to maximize profit it's necessary to obscure this one-and-only objective from them. I mean, if workers started thinking about it a lot or, worse still, started talking about it a lot, they'd start putting two and two together and see through the bullshit pretty quick. They might start asking questions like: "If maximizing profit is the company's only objective, then we can never give up enough. We'll always be squeezed for more because the more that we give, the more profitable the company will be. Why the hell should we give up anything?"
From there they might get it in their heads to make use of their power and that would not be good for the bottom line. So to keep you distracted and "focused" on what really matters most to the company, there is a whole mythology that has been spun for your benefit. The mythology is all about the threat of the lurking competition and the horrible things that will happen if you're not doing your part to help keep the company maximizing profit. "Doing your part" means a whole lot of things, from being productive and doing your job well, to sacrificing your wages and benefits when called upon to do so.
All of this is bullshit of course. Much of the crap that workers are fed runs contrary to the fundamental principles of business and free market economics. The guys sitting in the corporate office are laughing themselves silly at union reps who swallow their shit and then regurgitate it for the members. If any of the corporate boys had offered up this kind of swill in a term paper in their buisness program, they'd have gotten an F for F**ked Up.
We explored some of this mythology in this article
I think it's really important that working people understand the mythology so that they don't get manipulated by it. That seems to me to be an important first step towards workers' empowerment.
Hey windsor, you have to understand that Wal-Mart is nothing more than a red herring. Costco is digging a bigger hole in Loblaw's pocket than Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart is going to get into the grocery business in any way that will challenge Loblaw, it will have to buy an existing chain.
Food prices and profit margins, when you take the exchange rate into consideration, are much lower in Canada. Likewise the market is near saturated. Loblaw, is prevented by law by expanding its market share in Ontario. If it wants to expand it has to look at the West.
Face it, Wal-Mart is biteing at Zellers ass and Zellers is fending it off. The general merchandise markets aren't saturated, so that's where the threat lies.
Loblaw wants to make money in general merchandise. The Real Canadian Superstores have lower rates in general merchandise. (It's funny that the Manitoba organizers didn't tell the Wal-Mart employees that they will never see grocery cashier rates or hours.)
The UFCW calls Wal-Mart bastards but hasn't made on disparaging remark about the Loblaw crew that is slashing your wages on the way to non-union Wal-Mart levels.
Remote viewer linked to a great article above:
quote:
Union representatives, particularly those in the biz-unions, have been swallowing the BS hook, line and sinker for well over two decades now. They've even rationalized their gullibility with some farfetched theories: The concessions we bargained were necessary to give the business a chance to get established. The concessions we bargained were necessary because the business threatened to leave town. The concessions we bargained were necessary because the company promised us thousands of new members in exchange and that will, one day in the distant future, make us a great union. The concessions we bargained were necessary because of the competition. When things get better, the company will give back - we just know it. If you're a committed biz-unionist, any one of these will do.
It's time we learned the truth about the competition so that when the song and dance is performed next time at bargaining we can tell the management negotiators where to take their act.
The big difference this time is Loblaw couldn't even wait until bargaining. Is that because they knew their friends couldn't sell it when the contract was open? windsor help to get the truth out about the swindle that's being dumped on the Loblaw employees.
I am glad to see that someone other than myself is looking into what exactly it is that we can do to stop this mandate. It may be too late for the people in this local , mainly, because we have been told that the union is scheduled to meet with the company on July 9th with the outcome of the votes. Apparantly , we are supposed to be having our next meeting with the union on July 10th with the rest of the info on this mandate. Kind of like waiting for the other shoe to drop.
No other info is forth coming from the union until then. Attempts to reach them via the web or phone has been unsuccessful. There has been a lot of good information put forward by other people on this web site and for that I am grateful, I intend to contact these organizations and at least inform them as to what is going on. It wont help us but it might change the tactics used by the union in obtaining the votes they need to get something like this ever passed again.
Because of my age this mandate is changing my whole life. I am being forced into early retirement which means my pension benefits are going to be drastically affected. I cannot and will not stay employed by a company that thinks so little of the people who got them this far that they would even entertain a motion such as was put to us. Now I am looking forward to the next phase of my life , which hopefully means employment with a much better class of management than my present employer. You know that old adage DO ONTO OTHERS welllllll what goes around comes around and I only hope that I am there when the upper management get bit on the butt and are put in the same spot they have put the rest of us into.
A word to the wise: Quit letting employers divide us into groups of this or that. Ever notice how it becomes the union/non-union; the part-timers/full-timers; the cashiers/stockers; the men/women; the young/old.
Here's the ticket, we are all workers, all susceptible to getting screwed by the folks rv described. The profit mongers and corporate whores could give a shit less about us. Divide and conquer has been a strategy sinse time immemorial, and we ought to be smart enough to recognise it, and say hell no, you ain't doing it to US.
Get it in your heads, just cause they chop a bunch of workers at corporate, doesn't make it okay for them to demand rollbacks. Is Loblaws profitable? If the answer is yes, then we best be demanding our share. For some strange reason, we lost that simple premise; workers are entitled to get their share, without US , they have squat.
In reply to bill pearson. I hope you don't think I am in one of the categories you listed as we against them. I voted NO in our last contract because of what it was doing to anyone who was to be a new hire. Mainly because of the fact that it made it impossible for anyone to ever reach top rate let alone the hope of getting a full time position. And I certainly voted NO for this mandate again because of what it will do to anyone ever to be hired by either zehr's or loblaw's in the future.
Every one of us involved has the opportunity and right to complain about what is happening but those of us who voted no have to continue to shout it from the roof tops so that maybe we can get through to the ones involved who have voted yes ( for reasons of their own ) in the hopes that we can change their minds.
Wasn't pointing any fingers hwga. The sad fact is, many of us in leadership positions turned our backs on new hires for years. We dug our own hole, knowing those yet to be hired wouldn't vote on the contract in question. Years of taking care of the folks at the top has killed us. If we are looking to assess blame, there is no shortage to go around.
What is really scary is, those newbies are all grown up, and often don't have the same allegiance to the Union we did back from the 60's and 70's. It's even worse than that as oldtimers retire or are bought out. You can see it coming, and you have to wonder, will the Union leadership be smart enough to do something/anything to stop the erosion.
BTW, good on you for doing the right thing. When we start caring about each other, and not just our own little world, we'll all be better off.
(bump)
I have some further thoughts that I wanted to share with the people who are considering a DFR complaint:
Remember, to successfully argue that your union has breached Section 74 (the DFR provision) of the Labour Relations Act, you must persuade the OLRB that your union acted in a way that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.
The argument for "arbitrary" might be: The union entered into negotiations to change your collective agreement without consulting with the members. Union officials entered into a tentative agreement without ever even telling the members they were engaged in discussions with the employer about concessions.
The argument for "bad faith" might be: The union acted in a covert (secretive) manner, presenting the finished product as a "done deal". This suggests that the union was acting in concert with the employer for the purposes of helping the employer achieve its objectives, rather than acting in the interests of the members.
I've been trying to think of an argument that could be made about discrimination and here's something that has occurred to me:
A disproportionate number of members affected by the concessions are women (if this is true). The deal is therefore - arguably - a violation of the Human Rights Code and the union has engaged in a discriminatory practice by (a) agreeing to it and (b) seeking to have it approved by the members.
This is an argument that you may want to consider. It will be an argument that the union will scoff at but this doesn't mean it shouldn't be made. The union will likely say, "hey, the deal affects everybody, women and men, so how can it be discriminatory". Well, that in itself isn't always enough to get you out of the woods. If the concessions affect more women workers than men, they may still be discriminatory. "We didn't intend to discriminate" doesn't get anyone off the hook either.
The fact is that women workers have been especially hard hit by concessions in the unionized retail food industry. There is some literature out there that talks about the negative impact of concessions on women workers in the supermarket industry that you may want to have a look at. This book in particular may be of interest to you as it goes into a lot of detail about how women workers have been screwed in the collective bargaining process within Ontario supermarkets. The author is a Professor at York University who has written a lot on this subject. (If you make this argument and get all the way to a hearing you may want to contact her to see if she might be willing to appear as an expert witness for you on this subject. I have no idea whether she would or wouldn't but it might be worth exploring.)
Again, just some thoughts on this. DFR's are an uphill battle but if you're going there, might as well go armed with as many arguments as you can.
Has anyone ever heard of an *enabling clause*?
Can't remember but it is either Lucerne Dairy or Dairyland workers who were blessed with an enabling clause in the last agreement between them (teamsters?) and the employer.
The enabling clause gave the two parties (company and machine) the right to open the contract without the members mandate and without them knowing it was open too. Sound familiar?
Seems the information that the clause was in the contract slipped past the members when they ratified the last agreement.
Anyway ... what is an *enabling clause* Is it a regular, common kinda' undemocratic practice?
Our friends at the GATT say:
quote:
Enabling Clause
Formally, the "Decision on Differential and More Favorable Treatment, Reciprocity, and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries" that was negotiated during the Tokyo Round as Part I of a new "Framework Agreement" on International Trade. The "Enabling Clause" legalized the extension by developed Contracting Parties of GATT of preferences to developing countries, notwithstanding the most-favored-nation treatment required under GATT Article 1.
I think "more favourable treatment" says it all.
I think it's more like an "extention" of the agreement without opening it.
Oh my gosh!!!! 
Isn't that what was done with the UFCW and Loblaw???
Hold on a minute here. I'm beginning to get a very queasy feeling about this. I myself have never heard of a "enabling clause" in a collective agreement, particularly one that allows for changes to be made in the agreement without the knowledge or consent of the members.
I think that the day is fast approaching when the practice of doing deals in secret must be challenged, in some formal way, as something that contravenes the spirit and intent of labour relations legislation.
I can hear you all laughing at that statement because, as I'm all too aware, the legislation is structured to give employers and unions the power to do whatever the hell they want. However, one of the principles that the architects of the legislative scheme used to justify giving the "parties" this kind of power over the lives of millions of working people is that the union would act in the interests of the members. Requirements around the ratification of collective agreements and the requirement to re-open bargaining only at the expiry of a collective agreement exist (at least in part) for this purpose.
If the members are completely cut out of the process and employers and unions can do whatever the hell the want, when they want, without regard to the wishes of the members, that's inconsistent with the intent of the legislation.
Enabling clauses of the kind that siggy is raising may just formalize a practice that employers and unions have been engaging in for years, but that doesn't make it right.
Sooner or later, workers who feel that they are nothing more than the doormat for a bunch of well-heeled bosses from their workplace and their union office, are going to rebel. When they do, the legislative scheme is going to collapse. Maybe it's time that happened.
Is it not human nature that when you get a great deal on something you gloat about it? ( a new car, furniture,house...) How about a real sweet deal on a work contract? If this was such a "victory" (to use a term I've read on this site regarding the UFCW's stand on it) then why all the secrecy? Why can't you contact the union, why has there web site been down since the very first leak of this?(ufcw1000a) Why Why Why? ? ? Oh I think maybe the answer is in my first line, You only gloat if you got a good deal other wise you try to avoid talking about the "price" at all.
I read through the contract book that all employees of zehr's received when our new contract was signed and nowhere did I find a mention of the clause you are refering to. So if it is in there it is well hidden.
I also got some info from a few other employees about the outcome of the other votes on this mandate and apparantly it was passed by a majority of those who showed up for the meetings. I guess that means that we have collectively sold each other down the road to ruin. Regardless of the fact that the company is not going to ask for anymore or anyless until the next contract negotiations we might as well all start to look for new jobs now and avoid the rush that will occur in 3 years. At least that will enable you to get a few years seniority with a new employer because planning a future with the loblaw's group is definately wishful thinking.
My condolenscenses to all the people that this is going to affect but just remember everything happens for a reason and this may be the beginning of a much brighter and happier future for everyone. I personally cannot take another day looking into the eyes of my fellow employees who are so sad and lost as to what to do next. Keep your chin up and think positive all will work out in the end.
Most people don't fully understand the power they hand to the machine heads when they join a union.
Labour boards insist on votes under certain circumstances like strikes and certifications, but the "Bargaining Agent" has the power and authority to simply sign agreements on behalf of bargaining unit members without their consent.
All bargaining agents sign binding agreements, but they usually add a "subject to," which requires their members to "ratify" the agreement. They do this, hopefully, because it is the right thing to do. However, some begrudgingly do it because their By-Laws or Constitution requires them to.
If you look at this baby, you'll see that some unions totally ignore those types of things.
Someone in this or another thread said that their UFCW local had somewhere near 75 Letters of Understanding tucked away out of sight in the union office filing system. A letter of understanding is a binding contract with a life span that can have a huge effect on a bargained collective agreement.
In short, some unions agree to gut their own agreements with letters or agreement, but the general membership might have little if any inkling that they exist or that what their collective agreement says and what it means are totally different.
someone once again please explain to me the benfits of belonging to a union when they can for a mere pittance from your weekly pay cheques arbitarily give away any or all of the benefits they so boastfully declare they themselves had achieved through tough negoitiations with the company .
If I am going to get shafted I would prefer it was because of something I myself had done or said , rather than the actions of a completely unrelated individual or group of individuals. You are right WE GIVE ALL THE AUTHORITY TO THE WRONG GROUP OF PEOPLE. It makes as much sense as running around with a sieve and trying to catch a bucket of water. Good exersice but nothing good is accomplished.
Do you want an argument for belonging to a union or do you want one for belonging to the UFCW Canada?
If it's the latter, there ain't no rational or sane argument. Give UFCW Canada a few more years and UFCW Canada members will flock to non-union Wal-Marts for a pay raise and better working conditions.
I knew that we were screwed when it was announced that Local 1000A representing Loblaws stores, accepted the deal because a vote from their 'directors'!!! What the hell kind of crap is this?
The only way to have challenged the company was for the three union presidents and their boss,the Canadian director, to all stand up together and walk out themselves. But what did they do? They gave in at the top. They let John Lederer (from the company) walk out of the meetings. Who has balls here? Not the union. Then Local 1000A caves in with their directors voting instead of the members. They didn't even give the Loblaws membership the ability to even pretend that they had a say. And for that matter, what the hell is going on at Local 175? Do they even know???
The CAW is looking a lot better right now than ever before.
Poor Mr. Weston . 
Way cleared for Weston's Selfridges bid
quote:
A possible suitor for Selfridges PLC has declined to bid on the upscale London department store, paving the way for Canadian billionaire Galen Weston to acquire the retailer.
Aletheia Partners, backed by property investor Robert Tchenguiz, confirmed yesterday that it will not make an offer for Selfridges after rumours circulated that he was prepared to trump Mr. Weston's all-cash offer of £628-million ($1.4-billion) with an offer of £650-million ($1.46-billion).
A cynic could say that the UFCW helped make this happen.
Maybe they will offer discounts to Loblaws/Zehrs employees.
quote:
Industry watchers say Mr. Weston will take the helm at a very opportune time, as fresh capital from a veteran retailer is needed to expand Selfridges and sustain its buzz.
The chain is known best for its flagship store on London's tony Oxford Street but has two stores in Manchester and sites under development in Birmingham and Glasgow. Sites are also planned in Bristol and Leeds.
Loblaws had an article in the London Free Press today about their new 140 thousand sq. foot store going in London. They made no mention of rcss and repeated many times that it would be a Loblaws. I can't believe that the press hasn't jumped on this story. I have called four major papers but I guess it's not much of a story for them.
The mainstream media doesn't understand workers' issues so it doesn't cover them. This is understandable when you consider who owns the mainstream media and who works for them. Newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations are just for-profit companies, staffed by a lot of upwardly mobile, status conscious, self-serving people who call themselves journalists because it sounds better than "news manager" or "information programmer".
This is why we need our own media and some of us are working real hard to make it happen.
quote:
I knew that we were screwed when it was announced that Local 1000A representing Loblaws stores, accepted the deal because a vote from their 'directors'!!! What the hell kind of crap is this?
I would it's not the kind of crap that anyone should have to pay dues for. I think somewhere in this thread someone asked "what's the benefit of belonging to a union?" There is no benefit unless the union is entirely committed to advancing the interests of the members.
Maybe those who are dissatisfied with the way that you are being represented should go looking for another union or form one of your own or something. Why the hell not? Just pick up the phone and call a bunch of different union and say, "We're not happy with the way our union is representing us. We're exploring some alternatives. Would your union be interested in talking to us and telling us what you have to offer?"
You'll get some nervous people on the phone because the ufcw is a big player in the CLC and the provincial labour federations and well, you know, this would be raiding which is bad - it's really bad to take another union leader's property, don't you know? Don' let this crap hold you back. You may find a good organization that's willing to help you or you may determine that your only good option is to start a union of your own. The exploration process helps you to get a better sense of which options are viable.
I have to say again, I am completely amazed that a bunch of supposedly smart, savvy union leaders would swallow a pretty standard management song-and-dance about concessions and that their national and international leaders would stand on the sidelines with their thumbs up their bums and their minds in neutral and let it happen.
Something is about this makes me wonder what's really driving UFCW Canada in all this. This is a completely unnecessary bending-over for the mother-of-all-management-partners. Why did Kevin, Brian and Wayne roll over so quickly and so quietly? Suspicious minds want to know...
Re: Zehrs Loblaws Fortinos
For those of you wondering why Fortinos membership has not been made aware of whats going on it's because they are not involved, the deal is that Loblaws and Zehrs will change their banners to (RCSS) and work under Fortinos (which are franchise stores for anyone who does not know) currant UFCW contract.
Y'know, a guy was telling me a story the other day about a union with a real sick pension plan: 
To keep it afloat, the union had to go hat in hand to some of its closests of company friends to ask if there was any way they could see their way clear to helping out with a mid-contract pension contribution bump.
The friendly employers gave the dough and then one day they showed up on the union's door step and said, "Hey Muchachos! It's pay-back time!"
The Union quickly agreed to whatever the companies asked for. It was the only way the union could show how greatful it was.
I said to the guy, "Bullshit! No union would stoop to anything like that."
He just opened his eyes wide, raised his eybrows, chuckled and walked away.
Does anyone know if 1000A has had any meetings and if so what are they offered?
cointoss
newbie
Member # 372
posted 07-06-2003 08:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone know if 1000A has had any meetings and if so what are they offered?
The 1000a steward's had a meeting last week with one scheduled for the membership on July 17, but you seem confused there is no offer, the meetings are just to let you know how far the Union has agreed to let you bend over for the company !
I know the situation and I know there is no "offer". What I want to see if it is the same as Zehr's in regard to buy-down, xmas bonus, vacation pay etc.. I can't see 1000A taking it as bad as 1977 since they represent so many workers in Toronto where the cost of living is so high.
Dont fool yourself into beleiving that your union is about to represent this package to you any differently than our union did for us. You will be given the same old same old story of closeures if you dont accept it that we got. The only hope you have to turn this down is to pass this website on to as many of your fellow workers as I did and let them get informed from the workers involved so far with this fiasco. Make them fully aware of what is happening in our local (1977) and maybe they will have the fortitude it will take to turn it down. Then at least one local will not be dragged into this mess, GET THEM INFORMED BEFORE THEY VOTE . I wish we had the forwarning of what truely is involved with this mandate instead of the song and dance we were handed at the meeting by the people that are supposed to be looking out for our best interests.
You may want to look at the Loblaw Companies Annual Report for 2002. Tell me if you can find any mention of their intention to open Real Canadian Superstores in Ontario. I've looked high and low and can't seem to find any mention of this at all. While there is mention of anticipated competition from non-union warehouse style competitors, it would seem that as of but a few months ago, the plan was to compete with these from the existing chains (rather than new ones). You'll also find a mention of the vast number of collective agreements that are expiring in 2003 and a statement that the company does not expect any particular problems settling these contracts. There is no mention of mid-term concessions or early re-openers. You'll also notice the glowing forecast for the future and the very impressive results for 2002.
All of this suggests to me that the secret discussions with UFCW leaders were just a lot of smog and mirrors.
I get the feeling that Lederer wants to make his mark. The mentality that the only peolple that count are the share holders sucks. Why doesn't the CLC make loblaws and westons a not-buy stock. Not a boycott which will hurt many employees but something that will hurt shareholders. I believe if you can get their attention you can turn this change down. All they want to do is make their money now. These investers are more drawn to our stock because of it's stability so I say we should rock the boat. Everyone should contact the press in their trading area and get some ink on this crap.
I love when they talk about the shareholders. Well, guess who owns 61% of the company? I think his initials are GW. And the other guy who wants us to take a pay cut has had a base wage of One Million Two Hundred Thousand not including bonus and stock options. Are we returning to the 1900's???
I got a phonecall from the labour writer at the Star today and sent her the collective agreement and all the paper work available so far in 1000a.her name is anne perry.She is new but knows about UFCW's reputation for selling out workers.I amgoing to file a DFR complaint at the OLB.Please give me some feedback on these arguments.#1 all managers out of the union in RCSS appendix.... contrary to Labour Board decisions and ruled on many times.#2 Sunday work voluntary but no wording in RCSS appendix stating same.#3 Loblaw Co. Ltd + UFCW conspired together to deprive workers in a mutually beneficial relationship to deprive workers of a ratification vote.
Good Luck. Everything you state sounds like the 'offer' for 1977 too.
once again I have been trying to get ahold of someone , anyone actually , in the union office to give me some info on exactly how this buy out/earlly retirement clause is going to work and have come up empty handed. Either no one knows or no one is willing to step out on the limb and give a heads up to the members about it.
Where can we go for the info we need. The web site is empty on any mention of further meetings for us . To say that this is becoming increasingly frustrating would be more than a mild statement. How high up the food chain do we go for the info and even if we get to where we have to go will they in fact give the info to us. I bet no one involved is willing to do that. I would assume that someone knows the answer , how do we , as members , find out who to go to for those answers???
Am I the only one in local 1977 that is wondering how badly I am going to be shafted?? 
I still think that if we stood our ground, or rather if our union stood our ground then Loblaws would back down. I hate the lack of press on this. It is like we are going "silently into the night". I am sure that anything we do to have a negative impact on stock prices will help us and that is why I want this out in the open. Meanwhile our local is still focusing on petty grievences and putting up a strong show. Give me a break!! What you are accepting is giving up what our predecessors fought long and hard for these last fifty years. I think it has a lot to do with the Zehrs and Fortinos strikes in the last three years. These guys can't accept the fact that we have balls.
quote:
Where can we go for the info we need.
You should consider writing to the UFCW National and International Offices and demanding some answers.
Watch this site for more information and opinion on this situation over the next few days.
I just sent an email to the canadian national site for the ufcw asking the questions I would greatly appreciate answers to. Hopefully someone there will respond. At this point I have a very low opinion of our leadership and I sure wont be changing it until I hear something positive from someone up the food chain.
I find it hard to believe that everyone involved can be as deceptive as our local leaders have been. Surely there is a person involved who still has some sort of moral fiber left in them to do something about this. Maybe I am just naive but I have lived all my life believing that you do right by everyone. Right is right and wrong is definately wrong. AND THIS IS WRONG.
I sure hope good news or at the very least proper information is forthcoming from the national membership leaders.I dont believe that their heads are fully buried in the sand, maybe they just arent aware of how bad this situation has become.
Here we go again.
I believe during our meeting, it was stated that all three Local Union Presidents were present with John Lederer and his assistant. Also present at some of the meetings was Michael J. Fraser, the Canadian Director of the UFCW. It would suggest that Mr. Fraser had at least the knowledge of these meetings, and possibly more than that. After all the 175, 1000A and 1977 Presidents would be under his direction.